I took it to mean a male homosexual. Oops! Sorry,** Lamia**. No offense meant. But the latter part of my statement still stands: other women have read TL’s remark as sexual (however trivially). Even if they haven’t, the misconstruction is still valid.
I wish people would just accept it as a misconstruction then, and not keep trying to paint Tracy as some conniving, villainous person whose motives differ vastly from what she says they are. If it was just a misunderstanding, why did it have to get so ugly?
I think you’re right: this is about much more than Tracy Lord’s brouhaha. Clearly there are women here who feel like these rude comments in general are not OK, but who have been afraid to say anything for fear of their thread turning out like this one has. Perhaps this thread wasn’t the best place for this to come out, given the ambiguous nature of Tracy’s comment that started all this. But come out it has, and the question is, can a rapprochement be reached, or are we too far apart on this to ever agree? Like you, I have no idea. I do know that name calling, accusations of trolling and lying aren’t conducive to the discussion.
Maybe someone could start a thread in GD about this? That might raise the tone of the discussion so that it would be productive. Or, since it’s a discussion of how this message board works, would it go in ATMB? Or will it wind up back in the Pit anyway because it’s a complaint about posters? I have no idea…
Probably because all involved felt attacked. My take is that the men felt harshly judged for what was a bit of lighthearted fun with no malice or harm intended and the women had been simmering about this “lighthearted fun” for some time and like most fights about important stuff, a trivial trigger set it off.
I agree.
Which is one reason I haven’t started a thread. Where to put it? But more importantly, how to frame it and what, exactly ARE we talking about?
Since it’s clear now that only man-hating dykes and shrill shrews side with Tracy, can’t we all just shake hands amicably and close the thread?
Since only cavemen and troglodytes side with the men, can’t we just shake hands amicably and close the thread?
See how fun this can be!
**Turnip **like gal with spirit! <grunt>
But the real question is, how does your cock look in those pants, baby? 
But because she’s not male – biologically or socially – she’s not “uniquely qualified.” Whether it’s nature or nurture, (many) men tend to respond differently to innuendo (let alone more specific sexual references) than (many) women do.
I’ve been thinking of starting an ATMB thread on this to serve as a kind of petition/referendum on the matter, because despite my calling Tracy’s behavior into question, I agree that “show us your boobs” comments are infantile and annoying, if nothing worse. Here’s what I’ve come up with so far:
Eggggggggzactly. Yes, some men when they hit on women are going to be rude/obscene/assholes about it. But to say that there’s something wrong with men for having a sexual reaction to sexual signals which have evolved over millions of years, is absurd. A non-zero percentage of men will generally be attracted to any woman you choose for example, and a non-zero percentage of them will do what’s perfectly natural, healthy and biologically necessary and try to initiate sexual contact with her.
Some can do it inappropriately, and sure, that sucks.
But to change that into some admission on the part of men that they’re sex crazed perverts who simply can’t control themselves? It really does betray a deep seated phobia of basic human biology and sexuality. Humanity itself would have gone extinct if both halves didn’t fulfill their biological roles. Women, in general, have a biological drive to find a mate and get pregnant. men, in general, have a biological drive to find at least one mate and engage in the activity that will get her pregnant. Looking at one half of the equation on going “Ewwwwww! Icky!” is simply biophobic and carnalphobic.
And it, indeed, does betray sexism. Women experience “the miracle of childbirth”, and have “ticking biological clocks”. They aren’t “cavewomen ruled by their primal urges, crazed with lust and abandoning all self control so they can breed.” Virtually nobody in the western world would ever allege that motherhood and the drive towards motherhood was anything less than a noble thing. But the complementary male drive, the drive without which wishes for motherhood would literally be impotent? Well, that just shows that men are beasts, unable to control themselves and ruled by evolution. Unlike ya know, enlightened women.
What with their Swiss made biological clocks and all.
Who could get angry at the Swiss?
You are certainly right that, say, pre-1980’s the phrase “she was asking for it” had numerous other uses and connotations. But in modern America? I’d contend that “she was asking for it” invariably conveys overtones of a rapist justifying his rape on the ground that the woman was in the wrong place at the wrong hour of the night/was wearing sexually suggestive clothing/was acting flirtatiously/etc… The phrase has been used in song lyrics/titles, as punchlines to jokes about rape (see Elaine Boozler), and of course to justly vilify the thought processes rapists.
I don’t think its use is accidental in this thread, and I don’t put much stock in the credibility of those who’ve been throwing around that phrase. I’d also point out that it was confirmed, by those using it, that it was used specifically because, just like rapists’ excuses, it was placing the blame on the “victim” (actual victim in the case of rape, thin skinned wimp in the case of flirting). Its use was not accidental.
And, after all, there are many other phrases that haven’t become short hand for ‘rapist trying to justify his crime’. Things like “oh, so her mention of breasts was a justification for people to flirt with her?” But, of course, then it makes clear that it isn’t such an issue of dramatic, horrible offense. Then it sounds kinda rational, and the denial sounds silly “Oh, so the topic she introduced to the thread could then be disucssed? Wait, yah, that does kinda make sense. Sorry.”
So, instead, we get a phrase that alluded to rapists justifying their crimes “Oh, so she was askin’ for it, eh? Eh?”
You can’t respond to that by saying “Yeah, she was askin’ for it!” because then you’ve just fulfilled the role of guy-who-thinks-like-a-rapist that’s been set out for you, in nice well poisoning thoughtfulness.
But you can say “Yes, she brought it up so it was fair game until she indicated it was something that made her uncomfortable”. But you can’t get the Outrage Show out of that, so the discussion had to be cast in terms of rapist-thinking.
I’m sorry, I meant I’m a queer WOMAN and I certainly can appreciate a nice pair of breasts. I don’t understand being obnoxious about it though, especially when it’s just the word “boobs”. I don’t expect straight men to exercise any more self-control than I would, and it would be sexist for me to believe that they were only capable of less.
*Oh believe me, I know. The SDMB would be a better place if it did, though.
*There have certainly been ones where men have said that they were masturbating or planned to masturbate to a woman’s post. I don’t remember ever seeing “I’ll be in my bunk!” in response to a real posted photo of a female Doper if that’s what you mean, and I certainly hope such a post would be recognized as creepy by all. But there have been plenty of jokes about masturbating to posted text.
There have also been plenty of requests for photos of women’s chests. What are such jokes supposed to mean? I don’t think guys mean that they REALLY want a photo to beat off to, but I don’t see what other idea the joke could be meant to evoke. If the guy seriously wanted the photo, as he is jokingly claiming that he does, then what else would he do with it?
Now, I can believe that many guys who post these jokes do so without really thinking about what they’re suggesting, but maybe they should think about it.
On preview:
*Don’t worry, no offense taken.
And on second preview:
Thanks for reminding me why I usually avoid mentioning my sexual orientation here. I went back and forth several times over that post, debating with myself as to whether I’d be inviting trouble. In retrospect, I can’t believe I was naive enough to think that there was any chance that I wouldn’t be called a dyke and told that my opinion didn’t matter because of it.
I’m confused because my research (and the Monster Manual) says Lamias feed on men. There’s no mention of a lesbian variant. What are your hit dice? Armor Class? Speed in web? I have so many questions!
Thanks for the chuckle, DocCathode. I needed it. I’m afraid I’m too upset right now to really joke back, but I thought that was pretty funny.
Lamia, I’m sorry your fears were realized. You didn’t deserve that.
I disagree; I think Tracy Lord became a blameless victim in the third thread, when as posted above dbaFred admits to setting up the bait and then attemps to blame her for taking it. The responses may have begun as ‘lighthearted fun with no malice intended’ but by the co-worker thread malice was very much intended by dbaFred and his disingenous use of smileys and ‘good wishes’ did not obscure that. I can grant that she was very naive by raising the matter by posting as if she were talking to good friends, but she didn’t deserve his subsequent treatment of her simply for being naive.
I get that you and many other posters don’t like her; I never noticed her before so I had no impression of her in regards to whether or not she overshared information. I’m sure that has some impact on my impression of her original comment, but I’m not sure that it totally negates my impression that she did not intend to make a flirting statement in her original post in the red wine thread.
The idea that any mention of breasts in mixed company is a sexual remark is something that I find very hard to accept. In my view, context should be the overriding guide and a mention of breasts as a detail or aside in an unrelated topic is not something that should call for sexual or flirting remarks in response. By the same token, if the word ‘breasts’ is used in a clearly flirting manner by a poster, then the remarks are fair game. Despite FinnAgain’s rants and Ascenray’s insistence that the mere mention of breasts triggers some sort of evolutional signal to men that only a humorless feminazi would deny, I think that men are perfectly capable of reading for context and responding appropriately. Whether they choose to or not is something I cannot and do not wish to control; when I feel it necessary I have means to block offensive posts and posters.
I do have one question for you, Ascenray. Do you believe that non-sexual topics such as nursing, mammograms, bra-fitting, and the like are also fair game for flirting or lascivious comments? Or do you believe that such discussions should be kept to a female-only forum so that no man is tempted to make such a comment in the first place?
Took FinnAgain off ignore to read this thread in its entirety. I’m going to try, once more, to address his points. If I get called names or insulted, fuck it, I’m not even going to bother anymore. But I feel I have to address the mischaracterizations of my positions. I would love to keep it civil. Can you, Finn?
And no one is saying that. Literally, no one. That’s a straw man. You can have whatever reaction you want. You do not have to share that reaction, and you certainly don’t have to share it in a way that makes the woman feel bad, esp. after she asks you to stop. Can we agree on that? No one is vilifying the male libido, no matter how many times you say we are. I give men enough credit to know how and when it can be expressed in a way that everyone can feel OK about. What is wrong with what I’m saying? I don’t get it.
Again, I did not say that, and it’s another straw man. It’s dba Fred who said that expecting men not to make comments was a denial of culture, nature, and reality. It was HE who implied men couldn’t control themselves, not me. Now, if you make a statement like that, that men can’t help themselves, how should a woman take that? He was the one characterizing men as cavemen, not me. I personally don’t buy it. I buy that men might have all sorts of internal responses, but they sure as hell CAN restrain their outward response. I wish you’d chastise the men making these insulting claims on behalf of your gender instead of me, who actually AGREES with you that male sexuality does not have to be out of control, or sleazy, or creepy.
I used the phrase “she deserved it” with NO INTENTION OF ALLUDING TO RAPE. I wish you would cease to flog this straw man as well. You are not in a position to tell me what my intentions were. They were exactly what I said they were, and any link between my comment and rape was fabricated by you. Please stop trying to tell me what I meant. Please stop calling me a liar when I disagree with your assessment of my intentions.
Why do you keep calling it flirting? Sometimes when it happens it’s meant to be flirting, sometimes it’s needling, and sometimes it’s insensitive and juvenile attempts at humor.
Its use was intentional but not with the intention you fallaciously insist is there. It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation if you think you know my intentions better than I do, or insist that I’m lying about my intentions when I’m not.
I certainly hope we can converse without devolving into accusations of lying or trolling, or calling each other barnyard animals. If we can’t, c’est la vie.
Just the other day I was arguing with a friend of mine— he said they’d proven that homosexuals lacked the gene for detecing irony. No way, I countered; it’s *obvious *pseudoscience…
I would support this.
Twickster, I like your first draft. I’d be interested in having such a discussion.
Twickster I’d also be interested in a discussion. But I don’t think I’d like a ban. In many MPSIMS threads there is a flirtatious atmosphere and I feel that ‘Show us yer boobies!’ comments are appropriate. OTOH, I feel such comments are inappropriate in a thread seeking a well fitting bra. I feel an outright ban would involve too much of a judgement call.
For the first time, I find myself feeling sorry about the new language restrictions in the Pit.
Vinyl Turnip, you set out to offend me and you did. I guess that means you win. Since I can’t say what I’d like to say, I’ll just say “Congratulations”.
Yeah, but no one’s going to listen to you if you’re frothing at the mouth like a rabid whatever the hell you are. I have no interest in correcting the behavioral flaws of people who are making arguments I disagree with–you’re addressing the point fine, and you’d be winning if it wasn’t for the fact that you’re a screaming asshole about it.