How is it a warnable offense to express appreciation for a public figure’s sexiness?

In a video where she is quite obviously trying to look sexy (and succeeding magnificently)? :confused:

Perhaps a discussion about a person’s attractiveness can be had. In Elections, it may take the form of discussing the matter as it relates to electability, or some other salient political aspect. That’s not what your thread was. Your comments were of the pubescent teen variety - not what that forum is for. I took into consideration your contemporaneous posting about AOC and pornhub, and concluded it crossed the line.

You asked via PM to whom your comments were being a jerk to. The answer is all of us.

So a Judd Apatow comedy, or something like “American Pie”, is being a jerk to all of America (or the world)? :dubious: I don’t think so. I love that kind of thing, even if I’m well past puberty. Some people need to seriously lighten up.

ETA: And if it was better suited for a different forum (I actually did ponder that before posting, but concluded that since it was political people talking about it on Twitter, and the Elections forum includes “about politicians”, that it was the right heading), why not just move it there? Via PM I was told by someone else that MPSIMS would be more appropriate, and I would have been fine with that.

Here’s a link to the thread.

Given the ongoing discussion about misogyny on the board, posting a thread like that specifically in Elections with those comments looked like pretty blatant trolling to me.

They didn’t post it in Elections.

If this is so, then you showed exceedingly poor judgement. But I do think you were trolling.

Your confusion is confusing.

You posted a thread about a women’s sexiness in “Elections”.

Why?

Why not post it in IMHO?

Your mention of her sexiness here in ATMB is also confusing.

Why not post of it in IMHO?

You are posting about her sexiness all across this board instead of just in IMHO.

Why?

Since you did ponder that, then can you tell us who these “political people on Twitter” are?

You guys are being way too conspiratorial in your thinking. I saw everyone buzzing about the video on Twitter, thought “wow, she looks hot”, wanted to express this among people I know on the SDMB, and did so. That’s it. I had no idea there was a whole “misogyny”* imbroglio going on until after I got the warning and someone PMed me about it.

*It’s a sad day when a young (but not underage) woman dresses and dances in an obviously sexually provocative way in a video she knew would be put online, someone notices and publicly agrees that she is indeed very appreciable in that way, and this is labeled “misogyny”. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

It was a stupid warning IMO and and an example of (as much as I dislike the term), virtue signaling. It’s also blind.

  1. It’s a public figure and they are fair game
  2. Politicians have used their attractiveness as an electoral advantage since forever. Male politicians. Like JFK. Obama. Both Trudeaus. And from what I have seen, so has this particular individual.

The mod staff have acted like organizers of the Junior Anti Sex League.

Preach!

Refer to Post #2. Bone also took into account the following post (from a Pit thread): https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21412826&postcount=269

A lot of things are fair game for public figures. Should mastabatory fantasies be fair game? I’d say no, that’s not the type of forum we foster. Given that, there must be some limit then it becomes a question of where to draw that line.

This one was too far, Miller’s assessment of the Pit posts notwithstanding.

Uhhh…yeah, that’s just the R-rated (as befits the Pit) version of the same sentiment. So? It’s an offense against humanity to allow deliberately sexy videos of public figures to stoke masturbatory fantasies? :confused:

ETA: Ninja’d—apparently it is! Junior Anti-Sex League indeed. :smack:

This is a stupid post IMO and an example (as much as I love the term) of obliviousness.

  1. The fact that she is a public figure is not really relevant. The ruling wasn’t made to protect Ocasio-Cortez from public criticism; it was made in order to convey (again, for umpteenth time) that there are times and places, on this board, when adolescent sex jokes are not appropriate and are likely to upset some people.

  2. Again irrelevant. There would be no problem at all with starting a thread talking about the impact of attractiveness on political campaigns, and the way that a politician’s appearance can affect how people perceive them. Go on, start such a thread; I’ll bet it survives with no trouble. But the post in question did nothing like that; it was made in elections, apropos of absolutely nothing, and contained nothing but a juvenile comment on her body and (literally) a wink.

Some posters on this board continue to act like the members of a teen boy porn-mag sharing club.

A very well justified warning for a totally jerkish post. If anything is should have been a suspension.

Are you really this oblivious? If you could keep your fantasies to yourself, or share them in appropriate circumstances, none of this would have happened.

I like women. I like attractive women. I’ve been known to look at attractive women in videos and pictures, including pornography. Under the right circumstances, in company with people who know what the conversation is about, I’m happy to share my opinion of what physical qualities I find attractive in women, and which women (on TV, in politics, in sports, or whatever) I find sexually attractive.

But, because I’m older than about 15, I also understand that it’s not really appropriate for me to walk up to the water cooler at work and casually drop a comment about the “slammin’ bod” on that politician from New York. I understand that behavior like this makes some people uncomfortable, and that it also demeans women by implying that they are—first and foremost—nothing but a set of physical attributes.

And all this is in addition to the fact that this very issue has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards in the very recent past. If you hadn’t been modded for being a jerk, you probably deserved a warning for complete and utter cluelessness.

I’m pretty sure it was the lecherous crap about her “slamming bod” changing everything for you, not simply the sharing of a video of a politician that caused the stir. That’s how it came off to me anyway.

I didn’t see anything “deliberately sexy” about the original video.She’s mostly just spinning around and having a good time like the other students.

Bolding mine: I find this difficult to believe.

And yet, less than a month ago, you made 7 posts in a thread titled "The ongoing problem with misogyny on the SDMB."

No.

It is your,

“Heh heh heh I am masturbating to this.”

“Heh heh heh I love masturbating to this.”

“Heh heh heh this is so good to masturbate to.”

“Heh heh heh lets all talk about how awesome it is to masturbate to this!”

attitude that is making people uncomfortable with your posts. Which you seem to enjoy btw.

No, he is not.

He has a Pit thread about how much he is not. He keeps doing it and doing it and doing it despite being told differently.

Yet. The mods still assume he is just someone who just doesn’t understand, despite being told differently for years, that he just doesn’t understand.

It’s that old, “Oh, if only we can educate one person, then we should totally tolerate millions of racists and homophobes and sexists.” Then it will be worth it. If only we can change the mind of 1 person. While driving away every rational person.

That’s just good business sense.

Drive away every customer, so you don’t offend the one racist, and go out of business, but hey, at least you didn’t offend the one racist.