Moderation of inappropriate sexual commentary

About This Message Board
181

I think a decision for stricter enforcement without a guideline of interpretation leaves too much room for ambiguity - both in the enforcement side and the poster clarity of what is allowed. So I applaud the staff for attempting to structure a guideline on interpretation to allow some consistency in expectation.

Obviously there is still a lot of room for interpretation. I think criteria number 2, in particular, is a bit vague. For example, how is showing off genitalia and prophylactics as part of a protest over a policy on sex not a sexual topic?

And frankly, that thread was not a post in GD to argue the merits of her protest or whether mocking the Catholic Church that way was acceptable or whatever. It was an observation that an incident occurred made in MPSIMS, which is one of the forums most open to joking. The OP made no claim to wanting a serious discussion of the merits. And the jokes started in post 2. Now, there did happen to evolve a more serious discussion, but that was hardly the direction the conversation was going before the jokes were made. So criteria 3 does not appear to have been met.

Now I can understand there is some desire for a tone shift on the boards from some parties. In particular, there appears to be a call for fewer gratuitous references to desire for sexual acts. If I might phrase it colorfully, we want less Beavis and Butthead. [CRAP - beaten by magellan01]

I certainly see a clear zone for policing. If someone starts a discussion about their anatomy regarding a health topic, or a fashion question, or really just about any topic where they don’t fish for compliments, then inserting an “I’d hit that” or whatever is a rude intrusion.

Whatabout a thread where the OP asks about the swaying motion that women make when walking and observes how attractive it is, and one of the female posters comments upon her own derriere and how attractive it is? Is that an invitation to remark?

What if someone decided to start a new thread in MPSIMS about the pantsless protestor, except state that that thread is for jokes? Would that get shut down? Would the same remarks be allowed or not?

I know, I’m throwing out hypotheticals and the mods really don’t want to get into those. But we have seen specific modding on specific incidents that has left posters confused, and those incidents have been back-justified against this new policy, but the justification does not seem to fit. Unless the new policy is going to be “Don’t inject comments about wanting to have sex,” then these situations will arise. So I think it important that the staff consider the responses to these situations.

I’m certainly willing to consider the argument that these interjected comments create a atmosphere of hostility toward women, whether they are directed at board posters or directed at people in the media, groups of women as a whole, etc. But claims that posting comments on a message board equivalent to “I find that sexy” but in more graphic terms is equal to sexual assault or a call for sexual assault is not convincing, and only makes the claimant less credible and less persuasive. Extremist langauge does not get people to listen, it makes them shut you out unless they already share your extremist position.

182

Thanks MODs. An excellent job for an impossible situation. Obviously, there is still some grey areas but I think we’ll be fine.
Regarding the Pope Pube lady: I did not read that thread so I don’t know how lewd the jokes were. Personally, I think mild jokes would be fine. I know some people are saying “It’s not sexual” That may be true if you’re a straight woman or a gay man. But to straight men, it does have obvious sexual overtones.

I know the wounds are still fresh right now, but I hope we can all agree to NOT put every joke or comment under the microscope just to see if we can find even the slightest smattering of sexism going on just so we can cry: “FOUL!” And then force the MODs into an already impossible situation.

If we really want compromise that means BOTH sides need to lean a little towards the other direction.

Also, Skald, seriously dude, you could write for Penthouse. (Why you so coy? :slight_smile: )

183

“And let’s steer this thread away from comments about who and what is disgusting (because it’s sexist or because it’s no fun) - there has been way too much of that kind of stuff in the last half-dozen threads about sexism/misogyny. We’re trying to have a useful discussion about the issue and how we can handle it.” If that’s not clear enough: “let’s steer this thread away from comments about what is disgusting because it’s no fun - there have been way too much of that kind of stuff in the last half-dozen threads about sexism/misogyny.” I was being a little bit glib by saying the objection was that the guidelines are no fun, but that encompassed the criticism of disgusting censorship.

I said nothing about barring discussion of the effects of anything. It was a reminder for posters to stay civil in their descriptions of the concepts, ideas, and each other.

184

So saying somebody wants bad censorship would be preferable? How about “bad” synonyms such as atrocious, crappy, or even “gross,” which is a word that’s been thrown around a lot recently.

Yes, that censorship is gross. How is that so different from disgusting, pray tell?

185

Here’s an idea: if there are a sizable number of women who are offended by the sexual/sexist joking when it comes to serious discussions about breastfeeding, pregnancy, a glass ceiling, etc., why not just create a forum specifically for that. I mean, these are discussions that women have amongst themselves every day, not in mixed company so why not give them a place where they can discuss these things (more) openly without having to think about who else might be reading the thread. A Red Tent forum, if you will. (There’s probably a better name, but it was a good book.)

186

Okay, then I’m curious about the application of the rule to another common situation.

In Cafe Society threads about movies, TV shows, celebrities, or whatever, or in political threads in Elections, or, heck, any kind of thread in any forum in which a real person is mentioned, it might be very common for a comment like this to appear:

“Well, that (person, character) might be nuts, but I’d do her!!!”

Okay, well, let’s dial it back a little, in stages —

“Well, that (person, character) might be nuts, but she’s got a great rack/ass!!!”

“Well, that (person, character) might be nuts, but she’s hot!!!”

Now let’s flip the gender on each of these examples—make it a man instead of a woman.

Now, I’ve stipulated that all these threads are generally non-sexual. They’re about movies or television shows or news events or whatever. And I’m also stipulating that these remarks above are all sexual.

Are these going to now be subject to moderator intervention?

187

Would it come with a separate forum for the men called The Pig Pen?

188

By this point I’ve long since lost any desire to explain this to you. I told you not to call other posters or their suggestions disgusting or no fun and I’m sure you can figure out how to continue on in this discussion (if you must do that) while keeping that instruction in mind.

Someone else suggested this last week. It doesn’t address the problem at all (the idea is sort of insulting, at least to my way of thinking), and I’m sure it would cause more problems - either we’d get lots of requests for new forums for some other “protected class” or we’d get lots of complaints about why this one forum has special rules.

189

So, you expect posters to divine that, counter to their experience in the real world, having a problem with something because “it’s no fun” is the same as having a problem with something because it might create too restrictive a level of censorship? Come on. The topic of the thread warrants such a discussion, and if a poster feels that the degree is so imposing as to be “disgusting”, that is 100% valid. Remember, it was not referring to a poster and anything a poster even said, but to a theoretical/perceived level of censorship. The posters use of “disgusting” was completely civil. Again, it was directed toward a perceived level of censorship.

190

Uh… I’ve been asked to participate in this thread.

Well, hell, I’ll just be honest, though it might not be the response some were hoping for. This whole thing is fucking ridiculous. I am periodically bothered by the misogyny on this board to the extent that I take breaks. It’s a real thing. I don’t think it’s the kind of thing you can mod… it’s a fundamental part of the culture. I don’t know what to do about it, other than go back in time and parent these sleazebags properly, but it’s definitely a topic worthy of discussion.

But this problem, for me, has fuck-all to do with stupid sex jokes. I’m pretty righteously pissed that this is what it has turned into. AFAIC you are all diminishing the board experience by derailing every thread about this - both people who want to take every little comment as a sign of rape culture and people goading and poking and pretending this isn’t an issue. You are just shitting all over every thread, and in doing so you weaken both sides of the argument. And I feel like both sides are being willfully obtuse. I respect the other women raising this issue and agree with them in spirit, but I don’t think we want to deal with it in the same way.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Here’s an idea: if there are a sizable number of women who are offended by the sexual/sexist joking when it comes to serious discussions about breastfeeding, pregnancy, a glass ceiling, etc., why not just create a forum specifically for that. I mean, these are discussions that women have amongst themselves every day, not in mixed company so why not give them a place where they can discuss these things (more) openly without having to think about who else might be reading the thread. A Red Tent forum, if you will. (There’s probably a better name, but it was a good book.)
[/QUOTE]

I actually think this is a really good idea. Like, really good. Because you’re absolutely right. Women talk about these issues all the time, but we don’t usually talk about these things in mixed company.

191

I view these boards like a group of mixed company smart friends hanging out casually, having conversations, joking, whatever. In such a group, if one of the women inserted bras, or breasts, or douching, or sex, or bowel movements, or menses into the conversation, then it would be unsurprising for someone to come back with a lewd or sexually charged comment, because that’s what friends do.

If a woman wanted to have a serious, absolutely-no-lewd-ripostes conversation about topics like these, she wouldn’t just drop it in to this context—let’s call it the gang-at-the-pizzeria context. She would seek the refuge of a more private, or more subdued, or more serious context, and certainly not bring it up in front of everyone who happened to be there or who might drop in.

I think that’s about the right description of what these boards are. The are not a completely “safe, private place” for people to disclose absolutely anything about themselves in expectation that everything will be treated with the utmost discretion.

In fact, isn’t there a line in one of the FAQs that warns about disclosing too much personal information, because the SDMB is not a private place?

Given all this, I’m beginning to see the logic of creating a separate forum for “This is serious business, no gross jokes in here”-type topics.

192

What’s to keep me from clicking on those threads though?

193

Oh there’s certainly is, and I’m biting my typing fingers. But I’ve vowed to clean up my act and I mean it! :mad:

194

I don’t make tired, low-effort, sexist jokes (sandwiches kitchens ha ha), either online or in person. I don’t find them funny and nothing of value is really lost if people stopped making them or they were moderated.

However, I don’t want the group that includes posters who think that making crude comments about attractive people is equivalent to rape setting the bar for what is acceptable.

195

I promise you don’t need to remind me of something I understood the first time. And I don’t think it was unreasonable to expect people to understand what I wrote. And even if they couldn’t understand it the first time, I did plenty more explaining. No divining necessary.

196

Really? If your group of smart friends is sitting around and a woman groans that her period cramps are hell on earth this time around, you guys respond by talking about how you’d like to earn your redwings? Winkwinkwink

Of course not. Most adults can handle discussions about fundamental body functions with ease. This whole not discussing it in mixed company thing is silly. Maybe I’m a total boor of a woman, but I have no problem mentioning my period in front of men-- I’m 27, under normal circumstances, I- along with all of my friends- have periods. It’s no big secret.

My friends and I make sex jokes all the time, don’t get me wrong. But if I said to the group, “Guys, I’m really worried- my boobs are doing xyz crazy thing and I’m scared it might be something serious” and some douche had the audacity to respond, “Heeyyyyy, I’ll do a breast cancer screening for you! WITH MY MOUTH!” my other friends would punch said douche right in his douche face.

In fact, I can think of one time where a dude did make a similar comment to a male friend after he was bringing up some health issue. Douche was asked to leave. Sort of like a real life suspension, if you will.

197

This really isn’t that hard. The point here is that seemingly irreverent parts can be made into a serious discussion. The thread about the Pope half-dresser, who could be looked to as hilarious, had a serious aspect that was being discussed. If you don’t understand that after three attempts, I can honestly now see why this overall issue has taken this long, and this many threads, to clear up for some people. And I’m now even more positive that it will never be.

This really isn’t this hard. Snark aside, where exactly did I claim to be the arbiter of anything? I was attempting to explain, again, why people are put off, tired, some are leaving the board, and now the moderators have decided to institute rules to combat this. You said you’d act as you always have. I said I didn’t understand why anyone would continue to do that under the scenario we have going on here. I’ll reiterate, so it’s even clearer, for me, intentionally doing things that I know is lame, obnoxious, offensive, pathetic, whatever, is stupid.

However, that sort of never ending “humor” is what’s contributing to this mess. You want to keep it up? Be my guest. But apparently, the mods now and other members think that’s unacceptable. I’d think if I was going to waste a warning, I’d rather do it over something that was either witty, original or interesting. Again though, YMMV.

On that note, I’m done with this particular progression. If we’re not on the same page by now, it’s not happening and I don’t really care.

So, instead of expecting people to act like adults over this, we should all just give it up as lost?

198

Speaking as a plain ol person here … maybe part of the problem is that it’s not talked about in mixed company.

If your response is to simply withdraw … if women just walk away … if you don’t at least attempt to educate other people to do better, how will they ever know to do better, to be better?

This is not the Psychic Friends Network, people can’t be expected to figure stuff out if you’re not on the scene.

We’re about fighting ignorance here on lotsa levels. This is one of them.

Attempts to ghettoize topics that are uncomfortable or unhappy subjects or things that discomfort others, that’s not useful neither. Especially here, where the idea is that we can talk about damn near anything and everything in some useful context.

Not a ruling, not a moderator comment, not an administrative decision. Just my opinion.

199

You could. But if you posted something along the lines of what we’ve been discussing, then you’d clearly be violating the “Don’t be a Jerk” rule and it would be easy for the Mods to police. i’d say that any male who posted in that thread would have to view his participation as unwanted, unless he was truly adding to the discussion in a positive way. If he felt the need to piss in there, he could just open a Pit Thread and do it there. If not, “Jerk” it is.

200

But—and we’re specifically talking about the bottomless poster thread—the protest was both partially serious, and partially a sex-laden prank. So, both the serious discussion about her protest and the sex-laden jokes were appropriate.