It’s already been answered. And I don’t really expect a real answer from Mandy Jo, I hold a negative opinion about that poster. I think now that the OP isn’t resulting in the desired sanctions to nate, that she will not continue the conversation further.
Back when I used to read Penthouse, they were meant to be erotic stories. The OP wasn’t telling an erotic story. He was just trying to get all the men to agree that none of us is able to get our heads around objectifying any attractive woman who appears in front of us.
Yes, that’s clear, but some people in this thread don’t seem to be getting it.
What wasn’t clear to me is whether that offensive, objectifying language used by the other thread’s OP was the OP reporting the specific words that were going through his head in his own interior monologue, or whether they were his attempt to translate his mental attitudes and reactions into words for our benefit. Although I don’t know whether it ultimately makes any difference.
Some posters in that thread have said that they think “wow” when they see an attractive, shapely woman—but that they don’t think really explicit, crude sexual thoughts. But many of us do. There is a difference, and I think there has to be some way to express that if we are going to really dig into the topic.
I’m going with this and adding a little something for myself. If a Mod had stepped in and closed it within the first couple posts I would have not argued the point. But this was one of those rare cases where an OP I didn’t care for at all developed into a fairly interesting thread. As others have said in various ways, ignorance was fought on several different levels. At least for my reading/education and participation here it may be a far better thread than the majority of what I come across in general.
Hm. “When I see a woman I find attractive my mind immediately starts generating explicit sexual thoughts and images that I can’t control and which distract me from whatever else is going on around me, even business I’m conducting or the annoyance of my spouse who is sitting right next to me.”
No “I gotta hit that” and “98 percent of men do it even if they don’t admit it” and no “women can’t understand what it’s like to be a man.”
There’s a lot of repetition here, so I tried to reply to a representative sample. Again and again and again–I don’t think the post should have been noted for its topic. I thought it should have been noted because the specific terms (hit that) and gratuitous details (ass cheeks) were in no way needed to make the point and served only to make women participating feel like they had to be on the defensive right from the beginning.
Well, can’t we teach them to be? Saying “Hey, dude, we don’t use phrases like that” * from the moderation staff* would go a long way toward helping people find the social norms for this community. I mean, he doesn’t talk that way at work, I imagine.
It’s not the issue being discussed. The issue is FINE. The problem is the unnecessary, gratuitous details that objectify women. Can we, as a matter of board culture, move away from that being okay? A lot of us would really like to. What I don’t understand is why some of you are holding SO TIGHTLY to the right to say “hit that ass” and “take this in” when talking about actual people.
thorny locust addressed this very well:
I would like to hear from the moderation staff on this one at some point.
I’m not saying the OP couldn’t have been worded better. That’s probably true of most posts including my own. But there is a certain slavering horndog mentality that many of us don’t speak about most of the time (just like we don’t talk to many people about the way we wipe — but we have discussed that on this board multiple times) that is interesting and would not be conveyed by the way Acsenray did it. One approach would be to quote hip-hop lyrics and say that “this is the kind of thing that runs through my mind”. Would that be preferable?
She is explicitly NOT saying this.
That’s not misogyny .
I defined misogynist earlier:
mi·sog·y·nist
…
*noun
1.
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
synonyms: woman-hater, anti-feminist, male chauvinist, male supremacist, chauvinist, sexist; *…
Being a horndog means you *like *women, just that you dont express that in a mature way.
That Op was immature, sure, but not a misogynist. You’re not Humpty Dumpty.
I find myself making a similar response to one I made in private before. However, since this was brought up in public, I’ll make it in public.
Why does it matter what the other people in the thread are doing? The OP isn’t questioning the entire thread, just the behavior of a single individual. What is being debated is whether that behavior should be moderated.
Likewise, shutting the thread down is not your only option. Moderators have other tools at their disposal, and I’d argue that the other tools are better for individual-level infractions. The OP of this thread appears to be asking, not for closure, but for a Mod Note.
In this case, I also add an additional argument: Wasn’t this was the agreed upon solution the last time the “female unfriendliness” and “overly sexual talk” was brought up? I thought we all agreed it would be Mod Noted in the future.
There even is a rule: this isn’t a Penthouse forum. If a poster is violating that rule, I think they should receive moderator action. The rest of the thread is irrelevant–as, again, you don’t have to close the thread.
Which is - muzzling. That’s what it is. “You can’t say that” or “you cant say that in that way”* is* muzzling. Asking the Mods to tell him to stop is *muzzling. *
Yes, that did objectify women. Not a very nice post.
But it’s his opinion. I mean, I hate it when someone says “I like trump and support him- MAGA!”, but I will defend his right to post that. I dont like it when someone says “Let’s send all the illegals back where they came from!” but I will defend his right to post that.
You can’t have free discussion without a right to free expression. His post was within the rules.
I dont like his opinion or the way he expressed it, but that’s his right. Of course, you have to right to not read it. Or go into that thread and explain why that post was a immature objectification of females. Or you can block him so you never see his posts again.
But I dont think you have the right to** demand** *no one *has the right to see his posts. That you get to decide what is wrong and should not be posted.
No, a “horndog” is attracted to women. That is not the same thing as liking them. They tend to objectify women, treating them as only valid for their sexual pleasure. “Pick-up artists” are often quite openly misogynistic, and redpillers always are. What you are arguing is like arguing that liking minstrel shows means that you like black people. Objectification is not appreciation.
That said, that’s beside the point. You’re engaging in a semantic argument. You are fully aware of what the OP means, and you were involved in the threads on the previous moderation of “female unfriendliness.” You know the OP is arguing that the same rules that disallow overly sexual talk and making sexual jokes should be applied to this behavior. It is irrelevant what words are used to describe this.
Semantic arguments are rarely useful, and usually a distraction from the main topic. Word choice is not as important as the underlying topics.
To be fair, we’re in a message board that is privately owned and the duly appointed representatives of that owner have the power to sanction any poster they want, for any reason or no reason.
Notably, several posters were banned and sanctioned for posts that violate no stated rule.
In fact, technically, Manda Jo is breaking the rules, as this thread is “junior modding”. It also contains clear personal insults against a specific poster, in my opinion, and it is outside the pit.
No. Sherrerd’s version was perfectly clear. I don’t think anyone needs to go into graphic detail to convey “horndog-ness”. If I can’t “get it” from a description like Sherrerd’s, I’m not going to get it through poetry.
That’s exactly what we are discussing. Was it within the rules? Should the rules be changed? We shut down all types of speech on the board. Personal attacks. Thread-shitting. Hate speech. Excessive hijacks. Illegal activities. We have community standards. I think this was right on the line of violating the community standards, and deserved a note; I think the latter post passed community standards and deserved a warning, especially if there had been a note. If it’s NOT, then I think we should adjust the rules.
You can say “Let’s send all the illegals back where they came from” but you can’t or at least shouldn’t express it like “they are a bunch of fucking animals and when I see them, all I can think is they should be rendered down into dog food”. That would get modded, because our community standard is that we don’t talk about people like they were things. This is the same.
I’m not demanding anything. I am having a civil discussion. Do you find me shrill?
Which community standard was being violated, perchance? So far you’ve arguably broken several rules today yourself. That is, if the mods were to enforce every single rule to the maximum extent with no favoritism, you’d be sanctioned as well for your posts.
No, I just disagree with you. Well, not with what you said about the post (which was a little over the top for ATMB, but I understand this is a sore point, and that OP wasnt very mature) , just your demand it be moderated.
I am not a misogynist for doing so am I? 
What demand? I’ve said I think it should have been moderated. How is that “demanding”? I’ve no authority here, no leverage. I haven’t threatened to take my ball and go home. I’m made some observations.
If you think she’s breaking the rules, report her.