Moderation of inappropriate sexual commentary

About This Message Board
501

As a big Monty Python fan, I have to say that when I first saw the picture of the half naked pope woman, one of the first associations I made was to Zoot and the Sisters of Castle Anthrax. I can’t say that the people making the jokes made the same connection I did, but of course Zoot (or Dingo, I can’t remember) insists that they all deserve a good spanking. And after the spankings, the oral sex.

There’s a t-shirt that a woman on a morning radio show around here saw one night that she said was her favorite. It said, “I’m not a gynecologist, but I’ll take a look.”

If you read that t-shirt and inferred “against your will” then you would see it as joking about sexual assault. But you have to take that step first. Otherwise it’s just a joke that some men and women will find amusing.

Of course it’s not fair to suggest that the t-shirt was a joke about sexual assault.

502

“If you see someone hungry… give 'em a sammich.”

Obviously a statement about force-feeding unwilling people until their stomach’s explode. Well, to be honest I’m not sure if it is, but it’s worth looking at.

503

Okay. Which part of that makes you declare it “sexual”? Is it the dispensation of free birth control or is it the public nudity? Because where I come from, neither of those things constitute de facto sexual acts.

504

If you really think so, then sure, let’s look at it.

Giving someone a sandwich implies sticking it in their mouth, not simply offering it to them. We live in a society plagued by force-feeding unwilling people. 1 out of every 4 people has been seriously force-fed by the age of 20. There’s pretty good research showing that our culture, which trivializes force-feeding through jokes about it, makes force-feeders think that it’s socially acceptable and that everyone is doing it.

Truly excellent analogy there, Finn.

505

I would have absolutely no problem with a rule against dropping Monty Python references in unrelated threads. In fact, can we make that Phase II?

506

Is that more likely to happen than a post like this, I wonder?

507

I’ve reported folks for doing exactly this, and I’ve seen action on it. I find the posts that accuse men of just being upset because they can’t get laid to be every bit as pernicious to conversation as posts that accuse women of being too emotional.

508

“Don’t be a jerk” still applies. We’re talking about situations here where the rules violation might not seem so obvious.

HOW DARE Y- oh. Thank you.

Like I was saying, I think it’s better if the MPSIMS/IMHO mods handle it. But I think the issue is this: several posters have tried to make the point that a naked woman isn’t necessarily sexual, meaning a story about a naked woman isn’t necessarily open season for sexy time comments. I understand that given the specifics of the protest and the humor element this is a very fine-line instance.

509

Okay, cool–thanks!

510

Which would’ve been nice, if you proceeded to do that, rather than comparing comments like joking about how a woman had been ‘naughty’ and deserved a spanking with rape and sexual assault. Then again, you originally expressed some sort of doubt as to whether or not the jokes were made were, maybe, just maaaaaaaaybe, semantically identical to the same jokes just with “…and I’d still totally do it even against her wishes!”

No, Lefty, of course the unspoken phrase is “…if she’d let me” and not “…and her consent would be irrelevant, that damned cum dumpster!” It takes a serious, serious disconnect between someone and humor if they think that the jokes in the Pantless Pope thread had anything in common, at all, with sexual assault.

Truly excellent analytic workthrough there, Lefty.

511

Sure. Makes about as much sense as Rule 2.

512

He is not comparing it to the commission of a sexual assault. He is comparing it to joking about sexual assault. Which, you know. It was. Unless you believe that there’s a reason to think that any given politically-active college student would particularly enjoy being erotically spanked by an unpleasant internet stranger? (Hint: there isn’t)

513

Be forewarned that one of the phases will involve Dopers of my choosing being restricted to The Barn House, where they may post only a daily report of their stool consistency.

You know who you are. Better start fibering up.

514

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=408631&highlight=Antifreeze

For years I showed this thread to people to explain why I loved the dope. I don’t want Monty python, Douglas Adams or shit like post 5 to go away.

515

So where do we stand on posters tossing around accusations of sexual assault-- or “joking about sexual assault”-- against other posters? That goes beyond accusations of misogyny and inappropriate comments. And if there are actual posters joking about actual sexual assault, wouldn’t that have been mod fodder even before the new guidelines?

Again, “sexual assault” goes waaaaay beyond “misogyny,” “sexist,” “inappropriate,” “gross,” “juvenile,” et al, IMO. Condescending Robot got a warning for doing something along these lines recently. So where *is *the line on this?

Accusing another poster about “joking about sexual assaulting someone” is really no different than accusing them of approving of sexual assault. And that’s a pretty heinous accusation. Especially if said accuser is unable or unwilling to actually provide cites to said sexual assault jokes.

516

To reiterate; as someone who is still new, it seems that there’s a rule here in a stickie and rule over there in another thread. Is it possible to get all the rules in one convenient place so that we all know what’s going on and don’t have to subscribe, and re-reference a bunch of threads?

517

How do you figure? They seem pretty distinct to me.

518

Are you honestly unaware that people make jokes about sexual assault here? Did you miss the endless “Rape Month” references in the Pit a couple years back? What about this and this?

It happens, dude.

519

Yes he’s talking about jokes, you’ll note I said exactly that. (Word #16 was a clue, being that it’s “joking”. Easy to miss, I’ll grant you.)
He was also comparing jokes to rape and sexual assault. And bullshit he didn’t, that’s why he went straight for the Rape Culture!!! card when the discussion was over anonymous jokes on a message board.

And no, not one single comment in that thread was joking about sexual assault, some people have evidently dreamed that up in some sort of group-fantasy session. Yet again, we expect people to comprehend the basics, that the unspoken phrase is “…if she’d let me” and not “…if I had to hold a knife to that dumb bitch’s throat to stop her from screaming!”

That you honestly cannot tell the difference is, frankly, more than a little disturbing. What’s worse, if your rhetoric is to be believed, you honestly think that any time an older man says of a younger (or just more attractive?) woman, “Man, I’d love to fuck her”, he doesn’t mean “…if she’s consent to that.” but “…and if I’d have to rape her, ah well.”

It’s really very clear. Jokes about sexuality are jokes about sexuality.
Jokes about sexual assault are jokes about sexual assault.
One hopes that this would be obvious…

As for the fact that, lo and behold, women are actually individuals and they can make up their minds? Perhaps, wonder of wonders, they may even be turned on by things you don’t think they should be, and turned off by things you think they shouldn’t be. Naturally, you simply know that an older man propositioning a young, politically active woman must be unwanted (and, why, then he must be willing to rape her!). Except, of course, as women are equals and individuals (ya know, the whole point of Feminism?), I’ll just have to point out that you can’t speak for all women. I knew a young girl in college, years ago, who was in a sub/dom relationship with a 45 year old guy. But, naturally, I’m sure he had to risk raping her in order to make his initial advance…

520

Way too much to parse and itemize. Lots of distractions from all corners on lots of stupid personal conflicts over misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and refusal to attempt understanding the other person’s actual point.

As I said before, I am in agreement for the rules clarifications as stated in the OP.

I am not pleased by Ellen’s description that the moderation in the Pantsless Popelady would be the same under the new rules. To me, that situation does not fit clearly in the new rules. In particular, there is extreme disgreement over the applicability of items 2 and 3.

2. Is it a sexual comment in a thread with a non-sexual topic?

The topic was a woman with her nether regions exposed, her pubic hair shaved into a fancy design for the purposes of drawing attention and stirring controversy, handing out birth control as protest over birth control policy that is founded at least in part on an attitude about sex. Sex is inherent to that topic in several ways - the birth control, the Catholic Church’s attitude toward sex, the nakedness of the lady’s nether bits and and the specific use of them to get attention.

3. Is it a sexual joke in a thread on a serious sexual topic?

The original post was NOT a serious sexual topic. It was a “Hey look at this crazy thing” post in MPSIMS. The jokes started in post 2. There was no ongoing serious sexual topic discussion about the reasonableness of the Catholic Church’s policy on birth control or the best methods for sculpting pubic hair. There was a “Funny Shit Is Happening Here” post followed by jokes. Yes, some serious discussion did break out in that thread, but the thread did not start as a serious post.

So criteria 2 and 3 do not fit. Criteria 1 does not fit, as the lady in question is not a member of the board. Ergo, under the new policy as written, those moderations should not have happened.

Yet Ellen Cherry says that both rules do apply. That is what is confusing.

I’m willing to go forward and see how this carries out in application. I just express concern that the rules as written to not match the rules as it appears they are being interpreted by some mods.

As far as joking about sexual assault goes, I think the vast majority of the board is in agreement that the jokes like “I can examine those for you” etc are unwanted and should be moderated more heavily. Same thing for Astroboy14’s comments “Pay no attentio to the creepy guy in the corner” (paraphrased). That should be shut down in no uncertain terms. So if that is what you mean by “sexual assault” then we are in agreement.

But comments like “I know Lindsay Lohan is a mess, but I’d still hit it”* is not a joke about sexual assault. It is not an assertion to have sex with her against her will. It is a statement that sex would be disireable from one of the parties. It makes no claims that any sexual acts are likely to happen.

Similarly, expressing some witty (or not) comment about being being interested in the pantless protestor’s nether bits is not a joke about assault. It makes no claims about being allowed by the protestor to do so, nor doing so against the protestor’s will. It simply is a statement of desire.

Just like if I said “I like your car”, that does not mean I intend to steal your car. It just means that if you handed me the keys and said “take it for a spin” I would be inclined to accept.

There may be separate issues under the related title of “misogyny” about expressing attitudes of inferiority of women or even debates over “slut shaming”. This new policy does not seem to address those topics at all. So if there is concern about those topics, I would suggest starting a new thread and trying to limit the scope away from the “boobies = pics” topic that this new clarification addresses and focus on the specific issues that are different.

  • My own example I just made up, not related to any actual comments or threads.