No, you’re missing something else.
With regards to spanking, that is a somewhat gray area, because spanking as a form of punishment is typically administered against the receiver’s will. Just ask any child who is spanked if they desire getting their butt whopped. Whereas spanking as a form of sex play falls into the realm of BDSM, which involves complex rules of consent and yielding of control. The specific comment made was in an ambiguous zone of mixing the fantasy of sex play spanking with the use of spanking as punishment. It was a seque, possibly ham-fisted. I would be hard pressed to take that as an expression of an actual desire to force oneself on the lady.
I have not participated in “Rape Week” threads. I did see the specific examples from MeanOldLady’s clusterfuck of a thread. I read Shodan’s and Rune’s posts as mocking the attitude being displayed by other posters. So while they were jokes about sexual assault, they were from the standpoint of decrying that attitude.
The Drunky Smurf type use of “raped” does not appear to be related to the topics under discussion or evaluated by the new policy. While people do use “raped” in comments as an exaggerated description of non-sexual events that are unpleasant occurring, that seems to me a different topic. That usage does not condone sexual assault by any means. Rather, it is using the unpleasantness of sexual assault as a metaphor. That certainly isn’t limited to the internet.
And I’d like a response to my link. It’s a sexual joke in a non-sexual thread, it involves sexual assault, and I think it’s fucking funny. (As did my friend who is an assault survivor)
Or maybe buttplugs and aliens are not inherently sexual.
Feel free to explain! 
Yes - I asked it above, but I’ll ask it again here:
That bottomless pope woman thread started with jokes. The first purely serious reply was probably the one by Slypork, at reply #8. Does this mean from that point forward, any jokes in that thread would be in violation of Regulation 2, and therefore moddable? Even the OP of that thread has said in this thread that she didn’t mean for that thread to be a serious discussion.
In the future, if we start a new thread about some news story for the purpose of telling jokes about it /ridiculing it, should we put in a disclaimer like the following: “This is intended to be a non-serious thread. If you have serious comments to make about this story, please start a new thread.” Would serious comments then become off-topic, and therefore moddable?
I should have linked to Shodan’s post instead of the reply to it, but “Anything other than siccing attack dogs on me means I have a chance”, (posted in a thread about a man getting sexually aggressive with a woman after being repeatedly told no) absolutely is a joke about sexual assault. Of a human.
While I am touched by your concern for my linguistic education, I need to point out that this post was also made in the same thread, after pages and pages of discussion of unwanted sexual contact. Hint: he’s not really concerned about his Miscrosoft shares. It was a joke about sexual assault.
I only posted the two examples that immediately came to mind because I cannot believe that anyone is arguing that people don’t make rape jokes here. I have seen them for years. It stretches credulity that you are so unaware that it happens, especially after having been here over a decade. ETA: Oops, confused Finn Again with Happy Lendervedder. In any case, rape jokes are such a common part of internet culture that I no idea why anyone would assume the Dope is immune.
I had a decent sized post all made up about this, but I see other people have made my points and it still doesn’t faze you guys. It’s so annoying watching this ignorance proliferate. It’s like you don’t think about the implications of what you say before you say it. It’s a joke, so you don’t care about the literal message.
The jokes in that thread only make sense if you think the lady was ASKING for people to have sex with her. That is a completely unwarranted assumption. Her partial nudity was clearly designed to shock, and her handing out condoms was making a political comment as well as encouraging safe sex. Her protest was stupid, but not because she was being sexy. There is a difference between having sexual content matter and being “sexual.”
Since the jokes only make sense if you assume her previous actions amount to consent, there is obviously the assumption that no further consent be given. Since what she did was not consent, that means that the default assumption is rape. This isn’t offensive because we think you are rapists. It’s because this type of thinking is what allows actual rapists to rationalize what they do. The second you think, as you guys have repeatedly stated, that she was “asking for it,” you have been drawn into the rape culture, even if you personally would not cross the line and actually act on said joke.
And my problem is not that you like these types of jokes. I don’t get bent out of shape when I hear rape jokes either. But that doesn’t mean I act like I don’t realize the implications of what was said. Yeah, you might be able to get with a bunch of guys and that girl that is one of the guys and make these jokes. But it’s not something you would do in public. This messageboard is not your little group of guys, but a bunch of largely strangers in a relatively public place. You aren’t talking in your own little group.
I understand you not minding a little misogyny in your jokes. It’s no different than not minding a little racism in your jokes, like when someone says that “white people act this way, but black people act this way.” You know the people making the jokes, and that they are not seriously thinking the way they are. And before this little brouhaha, I assumed the same about these types jokes. But the fact that you don’t even realize the inherent misogyny does make me wonder.
And let us not forget that we’ve had a longtime rule against sexual crudeness. It’s the penthouse rule. So for those of you who acknowledge that the jokes are crude and sexual, you’ve already given them a reason to stop them. Again, the SDMB is not your little group of guys where you make crude jokes. It is a large, rather public group. Your jokes have been decided to be overly offensive due to their misogynistic nature, and now they are not allowed. Stop crying about it. It’s not like you have to stop being snarky. You just have to stop and think about the implications of what you say–something you should have been doing from day one.
You aren’t. To imply that thread was not sexual in nature is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
The second isn’t a joke about sexual assault, at all. If you were purposefully posting that, it actually shows just how thoroughly founded on ignorance your position is. The word rape originally meant theft. Saying “My gut told me to sell my Microsoft shares at $17.35 but I didn’t listen and got raped.” is, well, first, not a joke. Two, not about sexual assault. If it really upsets you, substitute “robbed” for “raped”. But knowing the definition of words we use would be a good first step, too.
[/QUOTE]
See, this is what I mean by both sides being willfully obtuse. That comment, whether against the rules or not, was way the fuck out of line in the context of that thread. The minimizing of the reality of casual misogyny on this board is pissing me off just as much as the hand-wringing about every little comment.
You guys are the ones hung up on the pantsless pope thread, not me. But sure, here:
Post 2:“joke about kissing the cross deleted” Because I’m sure if he went to perform oral sex on her, she’d want that.
Post 6: "Get some licks on that crucifix! " Again, I doubt she’d be welcoming of oral sex from random strangers off of the internet.
Post 25: "Punishment? Naked from the waist down? I’m thinking … spanking. “Oh, you’ve been a bad girl, a very bad girl!” Again, I’m sure she would not be welcoming of spanks from random internet strangers. Don’t try to say that’s not sexual either, what with the “a bad girl, a very bad girl!” nonsense.
Three examples of folks making jokes about unwanted sexual contact that were quite reasonably moderated.
Google “vagina” and then see what they’re used for.
Hint: it’s not baking. But that doesn’t mean a visible vagina is an open invitation for unwanted sexual contact. Thus, jokes about such things are at best silly and at worst making jokes about potential sexual assault.
The irony here is that the woman staging that protest probably would have welcomed sexy comments as the whole point of her protest seemed to be about the open expression of sexuality. It’s ethically okay to say you want to fuck someone. Really.
If I am not mistaken, attempts to “segue” non-erotic-spanking related threads into discussions about erotic spanking is a practice that is generally frowned upon on these boards. For example, the poster Evil Captor was officially instructed to cease and desist from a similar type of behavior after a string of increasingly noticeable offenses. This is hardly a new rule… it’s just that it has historically been enforced only when enough people complain about it. Which is what happened here. Does that sound unreasonable?
What comments have expressed the hatred of women, exactly?
The middle ground does seem to be elusive, doesn’t? I don’t get it, myself.
The joke may be in the phrasing. The joke may be in the context. “Man, I’d love to fuck her” is a pretty straightforward statement, but most of the comments being made are not that straightforward. Context is key.
Here is where we have a breakdown. That may be a laudable goal for SDMB, but if so, *that is not the policy as stated in the OP. ***The OP makes specific instances off limits (pointed at other board members, interjected in non-sexual topics or serious sexual topics), but not all cases of such.
If that is the intent of the policy, then I would sincerely suggest the policy needs to be reworded or appended to make that clear.
This bag of nonsense is shorter than the post you were going to make?
Even if you’re an old guy? Whew!
Just to touch on Pit rules again, and to clarify for myself what is appropriate regarding misogyny.
If I am insulted in a Pit thread, and I respond with an obviously misogynistic comment, would that comment now out of bounds similar to the way calling the poster a cunt would be?
The comment would be misogynistic and sexual in nature (and would be intended to be). But it is on topic and in the pit. Would it still be liable to mod action the same as “fuck you” and all that type of guff?
I think the important question is what is the misogyny that is casually expressed. Olives seems to have a reasonable perspective on the topic in this thread, so if she feels there is actual misogyny going unchecked here, it is a shame to waste all this time on the stupid shit we have been discussing.
(By the way, I realised too late that I had a typo in my Dennis quote above. I am mortified!)
I logged for the first time in almost a year simply to say this is some of the silliest shit I have ever seen. Some folks really REALLY need to get over their delicate sensibilities and roll a constitution check for “The Vapors”…
A thread about a Pope hat (Mitre? Zucchetto?) wearing, pantsless woman with her pubic hair stylized in the shape a crucifix to draw attention to her performance piece while throwing condoms in to a crowd is NOT sexual in nature. Seriously, what a fucking joke.
I think he’s implying that the SDMB staff is extremely resistant to change and dresses up that resistance in a sort of elitism that dismisses people who don’t like the SDMB exactly the way it is as riff-raff who just don’t appreciate this place’s dedication to intellectual discourse* above all else.
*and pan-fried semen recipes.