So you’re saying we shouldn’t treat other posters with a basic level of respect?
Personally, I think much of the purpose of allowing pittings of posters is to keep people from being tempted to say that sort of thing in any of the other forums.
Speaking as an MPSIMS mod, I think my moderation of Skald’s thread fits into the newly articulated guidelines. He went to great pains to describe her (as is his wont) — but the thread was about managing her for not following the dress code, in addition to the guy who was yelling obscenities into the phone. It was a workplace issue with inappropriately revealing clothes as a component.
Same with the naked pope woman. The topic of discussion was her protest. The fact that she was naked was part of her protest, but that doesn’t mean the door’s open to fuck-jokes.
That is the way I see it. That is the way I, Ellen, an MPISMS moderator understand we are going to do things from now on.
My take: I’m glad we have some clarification on what’s being enforced. Still not sure about how it’ll be implemented, but I guess time will tell. I hope the enforcement can focus on actual sexist and offensive (to the topic at hand-- i.e. titty jokes in bra and breast cancer threads) comments, and not target one-off comments that happen to be juvenile. I mean, not all titty jokes are sexist. Not all boner and cunnilingus jokes are implying a desire to sexually assault.
You’re continually make reference here to “asking for it” and “sexual assault.” Notably in quotes, like someone on these boards has said something along the lines of the pantsless woman “asking for it.” They haven’t. I actually find this implication here to be offensive as well. This is a phrase (she was “asking for it”) that is often used to justify sexual assault. No one is sexually assaulting anyone, or condoning it, or claiming the woman was “asking for it.” Juvenile puns and dirty jokes. They’re crude, not assault. I’m sick of people making accusations of sexual assault here.
I don’t think it’s funny either, but it is one established answer to the question. Also, you can see Marley had no trouble ‘noting’ me without any new guidelines or rules.
Actually I didn’t. I described her clothes, and hinted at her skin tone with the freckle remark. But I said nothing about her height, hair color, weight, muscle tone, eye color, or general attractiveness. There are, of course, unattractive women who choose to dress inappropriately for work, as well as attractive ones.
I’m saying that it already doesn’t exist, and it only goes to the Pit when it reaches a boiling point. And the fact that the Pit needs to exist at all says a lot about the nature of this board, but that’s really for a different topic.
Of course. And I never said I wanted to fuck her.
Let me say this: I don’t believe there was anything stupid about the pants less protest. I thought it was clever, daring, whimsical, and funny, and I believe it was meant to be all those things. Perhaps not a work of the highest intellectual rigor, but a good point well-made with humor.
I also believe that making a punning sexual joke about a woman flaunting public hair in the shape of a cross in the form of “I’d love to nail her on a cross” is not the highest form of humor, but it is funny in the way that all good puns are funny. I most emphatically do not believe that it is even remotely comparable to saying that “she’s asking to be fucked!” in the way that someone might blame a victim of sexual assault for her own misfortune.
As is “That’s not funny” 
asking for it = receptive to commentary of a sexual/prurient nature
I’m in agreement with Ellen on this. I wrote a mod note in the bottomless pope thread, and I’m okay with having written that note, which was to the effect that a woman appearing bottomless in public for whatever reason doesn’t mean that “I want to spank/fuck/lick/tickle/whatever her” is an appropriate response. At the time, while the guidelines were still under the process of formation, the mod note was not out of line – esp. since it was a mod note and not a warning.
Would I mod it the same way again? I don’t have time to go back and reread that thread again right now, but I think that our new #2, “Is it a sexual comment in a thread with a non-sexual topic?” might quite possibly lead me to write a mod note again – nakedness, with or without trimming of one’s hair or donning of a funny hat, is not inherently sexual. In a discussion of the nature of protest, “I want to spank her” could definitely be considered a sexual comment in a thread with a non-sexual topic.
I’d argue that the topic was indeed a serious one. Just like people claim you can’t have serious discussions in the BBQ pit, you can have a serious discussion from a topic that originally starts as less than serious.
You do realize how useless this advice is, right? If there’s an overall pervasive culture of this type of nonsense, it’s completely not feasible to have half the board on ignore. You can’t follow conversations and you can’t make use of that feature for all the juvenile attempts at lasciviousness, like “Tits or GTFO!” I won’t even address the “easily offended” rhetoric.
Exactly. He gets it.
This is the sort of thing that baffles me. When I’ve read accounts of true life events, like on CustomersSuck.com, about how annoying it is to hear, “Well, that must be free.” hundreds of times each day when a price can’t be found, it registers with me that that statement is obviously:
•not original
*not clever
•obnoxious
•tiresome to the wage drone having to repeatedly hear it
and I decide that I’m not so impressed with my own lame humor that I have to subject a captive audience to it. It really shouldn’t be any huge sweat off my nose to refrain.
Now, take this situation here. Can no one really misunderstand everyone is talking about a cumulative, pervasive culture here? Are you really so wedded to “Hurr, boobies!” that you just have to make that tired “joke”?
Apparently relying adults to behave as such of their own violation isn’t working either.
Versus the vocal minority of men that you side with? Gotcha.
This.
Post #8 in this thread. Sure, he doesn’t use the phrase “asking for it” but it’s heavily implied and I’m not sure there’s a single other way to read that post.
Half the board? Really? :dubious:
It seems you don’t have so much of a problem with “sexist humor” as you do with hackneyed jokes. In that case, I’ve got more sour news for you. If we cut out all the hackneyed jokes at this board, the web-traffic would be decimated.
Sorry if you’ve heard that one before.
Wait. According to a good number of posters in this thread, the vast majority of the board has no problem with these kind of jokes and thinks they are super fun. It has been argued here and elsewhere that a vocal minority of uptight feminists are trying to whine their way into changing the over-arching board structure.
Make up your mind. Either it’s most everybody or it’s not.
This. The great thing about the stated new rules is that they are (relatively) clear and specific. The problem with all the discussion on the matter is that it quickly expands such that any question is a sign of misogyny and of a desire to be hostile to other board members. Suddenly it becomes possible to harrass some person who isn’t even a board participant. Any suggestion that in real life there exist women who do not behave in the fashion ascribed by this board to all women is evidence of wanting to rape people.
Running around with no pants, in public, having shaved your pubis to attract attention to it, and handing out condoms, is “not inherently sexual”?
I honestly did not want to do this, but can you give some kind of definition by which we can decide what situations are sexual, and what are not? Public nudity, pubic hair, and condoms are apparently not it.
Regards,
Shodan
No. He was defending the comments under Guideline #2-- Shodan even said that “condoms are nearly always used for sexual purposes.” He was defending that the topic of the thread was not “non-sexual.”
Are you still going to say that Shodan claimed she was “asking for it?”
Yeah, what a stupid clusterfuck this has become.