[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
There’s nothing obtuse about that, wilful or otherwise. I was provided with a cite of a post and I went off that post .I haven’t and don’t intend to read the thread it came from. But, be that as it may, it’s not a joke about sexual assault any more than “Did the see the game? Man, our team really got the shit kicked out of them!” isn’t a comment about a massive series of assaults that ended up with the victims leaking fecal matter.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine. Since you won’t bother, I’ll explain the context. It was a thread about sexual assault. Nobody is offended by jokes about being slaughtered unless they are in a thread about people’s experiences of murder. He damn well knew that when he went in there, it was obviously posted just to piss people off, and there is no excuse for it. That you continue to make excuses for it honestly boggles my mind.
Damn it, are you a Rush fan? We Rush fans need to stick together!
Factoid
McKinnon said something like “All penetrative intercourse is inherently violent”–which isn’t the same thing, but is interesting and similar nonetheless.
A woman who is exposing herself in public, and deliberately drawing attention to her genitalia - who is using sex in her protest - this is not a sexual situation?
I hope so too. Because you immediately go on to say -
It’s sex-laden but not sexual? That does not make any sense to me.
Then, to clarify, none of the comments in the pantsless Pope thread would be modded under the new rules. Because, AFAICT, none of them were directed at other posters, nor did they put down women in general.
Of course he posted it because he intended to shock. There was no relevance to his anecdote about Microsoft shares to that thread. Your analogy doesn’t work because this wasn’t an offhand comment in a post about the stock market. The entire point of mentioning it was so he could make joke about rape, in a thread where women had repeatedly shared their experiences of all levels of harassment and assault. It was basically a “lol, fuck you!” to every survivor in that thread.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of citations in this thread do not relate to this specifically. And as such, I don’t think it’s nearly as widespread as you seem to be believe.
Most of the complaints have been about stupid jokes and comments, which in and of themselves, are not inherently misogynistic. Sexist would be the more accurate term. And sexism is not inherently misogynistic either.
Hey–wanted to say I strongly disagree with you about this–I feel her “protest” is inherently sexualized because of her nudity–she’s (IMO) exactly presenting herself as a sex object.
BUT–that aside, I appreciate the clarity you’ve brought to this. IMO, this rule is a bad one, but you’re being consistent and clear and your answers have helped un-muddy the waters.
I’ve been here since 2007, and have participated in a LOT of those kinds of threads, and I would say it’s pretty common. Common enough to prompt me to discuss it here.
Thanks, and no, I don’t intend on reading a nearly 900 post thread to check up on the back-and-forths that went on to grudge status.
Come on, I judged the post based on the post, without having the 900 posts of context. That’s hardly making excuses for it, let alone continuing to do so.
Could you link to a few posts that showcase the "casual dismissal of a group of women’s experiences of sexual assault " that you mean? It’s entirely possible I missed them, but the examples I have seen in this thread do not exemplify that.
It is a supposedly “jocular” comment about erotically spanking someone. Seems to me like the only “humor” value of the comment lies in the fact that such a “spanking” is almost certainly not something that this nude protestor would enjoy.
I think that Olivesmarch4th has said exactly what you’re saying about the complaints in this thread, unless I’ve missed something.
I also agree with you about the value of making sure the words we use have meaning. The example olives gave seems far, far closer to the mark than anything brought up in this thread, and I still think that discussion would be far more valuable than this nonsense.
That’s a fact, is it?
So you have robust statistical data showing what percent of women enjoy light BDSM play? You know her personally? Or, as we’ve seen so often in this topic recently, you’re assuming that since it’s objectionable to you, that it must be objectively objectionable.
