#201 Posted by Teerack (6357 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambler: I did read your post. You've actually been nothing but a waste of time to this whole thread focusing on petty irrelevances to try and take away from the point of someone else because you disagree with them, and the really sad thing is you probably don't even realize it.

#202 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@sc:as far as your concerned,how does catcalling rate on the bad-things-to-do scale?Could it be considered rape if a partner was entirlely capable of saying they didn't want it, and were under minimal duress, but still didn't say anything?I'm kot trying to say that the people violated are guilty, and I'm certainly nto saying tha the people violating are innocent, I'm trying to say that on some, accidental level, their gaoding the other people. some people look at an exposedd lady and thjink "she's expressing herself" others look at an exposed lady and think "she must want attention" still others look and think "I could touch her without being caught" while I'll say that the third is certainly a terrible thing to beleive, either of the first two make some kind of logical sense as an analysis of the situation.

now, I'm certainly not saying that its their fault that the scantily-clad ones get molested (if this actually happenned, I haven't heard much as to anecdotes or statistics) , but they are taking a risk. they are going out in public and exposing themself, its like walking into a wildlife reserve wuthout any protection, the -predators are still responsible ofr their actions, but the victim could have taken more precautions, and complaining abiout sexual harassment opens a whole new door of people shouting "your only dressing like that to show us what we can never have", which I doubt is true for very many cosplayers, but a lot of people are going to think this. I mean, as far as this kind of movement goes it's doing pretty well on trying to educate on damage to the victims rather than castigating the imagined common predator. This is diffucult to give to the public without seeming to mean to people who didn't realize they were hurting anyone, seeming like a bunch of apologists, or looking like whiners.

Depends on the context, like most things. Catcalling a shy quiet 10 year old girl who is receiving an aware at school assembly isn't really appropriate. One person catcalling another in a context where they know they are going to lift a persons self esteem? Hey why not right?

Well you use the magic word in could? You know what happens when you use the magic could right? There isn't really a yes or no answer. Could Michael Jackson destroy America tomorrow after time traveling from the future with an army of robot monkeys? Well he probably will not, in fact you could say its almost definitely sure he won't and be pretty accurate, but its almost impossible to rule out absolutely completely because thats sort of what the word could does.

Can I reword your question and see if you are okay with my rephrasing? Are you asking if its implied consent (a person didn't object to sex therefore they consented to sex) is okay to dismiss rape? That depends, yes or no. A person is putting themselves at risk (legally for one) by not getting direct consent as far as sex. Implied consent is trickier, even for couples who are married, since its reported at various sites that 1 in 7 married woman have raped by their husbands. That being said some people are simply better at reading other people than other people. Some men and woman can be more empathic and so can identify actual consent even if its not expressly given verbally and if the other person advances and isn't oblivious to signs that consent is not given. Then again some people, woman and men may feel entitled if a person is asleep or so drunk they can't stand or talk that consent is implied, again, you open yourself up to risk. Its even a risk as far as a potential partner lying as well, so probably not a bad idea to restrict sexual advances towards people one knows won't lie.

Goading means traditionally to provoke, urge or annoy, so its a bit hard to accidentally goad, unless my dictionary resources are all wrong, but I think I get what your saying. Your saying that some people may accidentally lead on others right? Thats true, but the thing is that is applicable to everything and isn't a mutually exclusive line of reasoning. Which basically makes it an excuse, since the perception of a person can be in as much error as a person and their dress sense. If a person is raised in an environment where they are taught that everyone who wears red is diseased and in severe pain and needs to be shot as mercy, the idea that people who wear red are accidentally goading the person who goes around shooting people who are diseased is fallacious. Its the person shooting or performing the shooting who understanding is at fault. I know your examples are extreme, but to put another way, a person is given the freedom and right to think, and so judging whether other people are "goading" "attention seeking" "attractive" "sexy" "chubby" "pretty" "cute" "not in canon with the character they are portraying" "skinny" slutty" may be varying levels of accurate or inaccurate, they may be shallow, they may be judgmental, they may be rude or harsh, but they are relatively non invasive thoughts, opinions, musings are usually pretty subjective. They therefore also do not violate a persons rights and liberties, as well as being an expression of ones rights and liberties to be able to think and in many ways express those beliefs and opinions. Actions however, especially inappropriate actions, invasive inappropriate actions whether well intentioned or not, whether as a joke or not, if not invited by consent do run the risk of violating a persons rights and liberties, and the annoying thing about some of the potential actions here is that many victims will sort of be stuck, because its probably not worth the effort as far as bringing the law into the situation, even if its a breach that could be punished by the law. Which in many ways can empower a guy or girl into slapping the ass of another person because they can be empowered by the idea that no one will actually be bothered enough or offended enough to make a "huge" deal about it. That or they may be empowered by ignorance and not realize that certain actions of that nature are against the law.

So the person actually thinking about touching and not getting caught, yeah they are the one who is invading and violating another persons personal space and rights and implied consent by virtue of dress or lack of won't fly because you aren't allowed to put your hands or touch anyone consciously or deliberately, even naked people!

Actually everyone takes a risk inherently by living and breathing. So you don't need to parallel an example as in people going into a wildlife reserve without protection, although I again appreciate the analogy. Are you aware that people rob homes? Are you aware that there are gangs? Are you aware that there are guns? If you aren't? You are aware now, as I am. Right now there is a possibility that a gang of up to 40 people with machine guns may come to your (or mine) home or job and try to rob you (or me) of everything. Are you taking every precaution to ensure that never happens by building a fortress and hiring 100 body guards, or are you counting on the fact that it shouldn't happen and probably shouldn't happen? In this case it probably won't happen. Point is being aware of risks shouldn't dictate how a person lives their life, hence why we have laws and rights and responsibilities. Saying that the victim could take more precautions is like telling all the people who get injured in car accidents every, victims of drunk drivers that they could have taken more precautions. Yeah, honestly they probably could have, they could have stayed home and not ever used a car ever,just like people could stay home and cosplay in their bedroom, but driving a car has benefits and rewards and cosplaying is fun and their are risks but there are laws as well, sexual harassment and drink driving is wrong and the ideal is to reduce and eliminate those things and in the mean time, still live life without letting the risks rule over people.

Absence of personal experience is not really evidence of absence, we know their are sexual predators out there, even if I too have not seen any at comic cons (I don't go to comic cons) and judgmental or ignorant opinions such as thinking people are "sluts" or attention seekers aren't so much a problem as invasive actions and joint behavior. I agree the movement has at least sparked conversation which is great. It reminds me of the Slut Marches and Parades which seemed pretty successful too! The funny thing about comic fans is that I think a lot of us hope that we can and traditionally preempt the mainstream by virtue of being so clever, patient, empathetic about people. I mean we spend all our time reading about heroes traditionally, and doing the right think, and protecting and helping people. Its that sort of intelligent optimism that should give us an edge on these sort of things. Public might take things a bit slow true.

Hey it was a pleasure talking to you, I have to go now, but will reply back when I can, you have a nice weekend yeah!

pleasure talking to you to, I probably won't have many oppurtunities to reply on Sunday

the whole "not in canon" bit was pretty funny

My problem with the whole "people breaking in with machine guns" argument is that your talking about what could happen, while I'm talking about what would probably happen, when you go out carrying a bunch of expensive silverware, you should probably try to hide it if you don't want people to steal it from you.

I've been to some comic cons, and I don't remember ever directly observing any blatant sexual assault ()well, everyone at the Jason Momoa panel was trying to get him to strip {which he did} but he seemed pretty cool with it.

I'm not saying that touching would be justifiable in any way, you are violating someone else when your doing it.

what are slut marches and parades?

#203 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

Still don't know what your opinion is? Is it that these cosplayers are putting themselves in a position to be harrassed because they are dressed as characters who are themselves sexually objectified?

#204 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: my friend, you are being confrontational. Wit often provides greater insult that fake swearing, you should try to be more "this is why your wrong" than "I'm angry that your wrong" if you really want to have this discussion

@judasnixon: c'mon mate, can you name any great art that was initially met with universal praise?

#205 Edited by BumpyBoo (9291 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: Proud of you.

Go get 'em tiger <3

Moderator Online
#206 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: my friend, you are being confrontational. Wit often provides greater insult that fake swearing, you should try to be more "this is why your wrong" than "I'm angry that your wrong" if you really want to have this discussion

Sure buddy -- thanks for the heads up.

#207 Edited by akbogert (3222 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@akbogert: That was a very intelligent and well thought-out comment, and I pretty musch agree with everything you said there

I'm not entirely sure how much this is worth, but I gained some serious respect and I'm not talking about benefit of the doubt respect, I'm talking a bout personal hero respect) for you after reading what you ahve written

"I'm just a man, I'm not a hero; just a boy who had to sing this song..." :P

@judasnixon: you should probably rephrase yourself a bit there, as Razz just asked people not to use that particular phrase.

@lykopis: I am saying that it is unreasonable to play-act as a sex object and be offended when the reception you get is more akin to the reception of a sex object than of a person. While the vast majority of reactions still fall outside the realm of acceptability or defensibility, I think some of what gets dismissed as harassment is simply the logical, natural response that the character & outfit designs were intended to generate in the first place.

Online
#208 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: your welcom.

...

...

'n stuff.

...

...

...

I geuss.

#209 Posted by Pyrogram (38491 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

: I am saying that it is unreasonable to play-act as a sex object and be offended when the reception you get is more akin to the reception of a sex object than of a person.

No offence but that is a really backwards opinion. Its called dressing up for fun not dress up and be touched.

#210 Posted by Shawnbaby (10774 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: There's a really big difference between harmless catcalling and screaming out "I want to (insert sexually explicit activity here) you." There's never a situation where that should be considered appropriate behaviour.

#211 Edited by Pyrogram (38491 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

Cannot believe I have not been aware of this thread until now -- I am disgusted by the ignorance, rape apologists and blatant misogyny that are smeared across four pages of complete sh*t.

F*ck you to all the people who says that anyone who dresses like a cosplayer (or a "slut") should take partial responsibility for harassment, verbal or physical. You all disgust me.

Edited to add: (I forgot to underline)

Can we tone it down a bit with the non-swearing swearing please.

So swearing is banned. But basically sayings it ok to touch without consent is fine. Lovely.

#212 Posted by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

I F-ing hate this thread. When I started this thread I was trying to show people someone's art that I thought was pretty cool...... I never thought this was going to turn into a F-ing debate about if it's Ok to sexual harass someone! This is just stupid........ I'm walking away in frustration.

People never fail to shock do they?

#213 Posted by akbogert (3222 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram: Did you read my much longer and more intricate post? In which I made it quite clear that I'm not talking about touching?

Online
#214 Posted by Pyrogram (38491 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: This thread and you are gold. I take back what I said about Paragraphs. Go ahead. 0_0

#215 Edited by judasnixon (6584 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: @akbogert: Don't care. Still walking away...... If you need me I'll be at the off topic forums arguing why the standup bass is the sexiest musical instrument.......

#216 Edited by Pyrogram (38491 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

@pyrogram: Did you read my much longer and more intricate post? In which I made it quite clear that I'm not talking about touching?

I did. But that comment you made got my attention. The little things stick out.

#217 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

@lykopis: I am saying that it is unreasonable to play-act as a sex object and be offended when the reception you get is more akin to the reception of a sex object than of a person. While the vast majority of reactions still fall outside the realm of acceptability or defensibility, I think some of what gets dismissed as harassment is simply the logical, natural response that the character & outfit designs were intended to generate in the first place.

What are these reactions which are considered logical and natural?

#218 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: @akbogert: Don't care. Still walking away...... If you need me I'll be at the off topic forums arguing why the standup bass is the sexiest musical instrument.......

LOL

It's your thread. I think you are allowed to request it be locked, if you feel like it should. For the record, I utterly agree with you.

#219 Posted by JediXMan (30618 posts) - - Show Bio

*sigh*

"Look, don't touch." It's a pretty simple philosophy. It's not unexpected for a girl to get a few looks depending on their clothing, but it's not okay to touch somebody sexually without permission.

And for the record, I've come across topless women at cons. Yeah, not kidding. The philosophy is still held true, and really, it seems I go to cons where there are decent people, because nobody groped her (that I know of. I only saw her for a few seconds as I was leaving). As I mentioned previously, the only "touchy" people at the cons I go to are:

  • The "free hug" people (who aren't usually pushy, regardless of gender - and I found the girls to be more enthusiastic than the guys)
  • People who put their arms around a person they're taking pictures with.

But I haven't witnessed anything abrasive.

Moderator
#220 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6295 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@akbogert said:

@lykopis: I am saying that it is unreasonable to play-act as a sex object and be offended when the reception you get is more akin to the reception of a sex object than of a person. While the vast majority of reactions still fall outside the realm of acceptability or defensibility, I think some of what gets dismissed as harassment is simply the logical, natural response that the character & outfit designs were intended to generate in the first place.

What are these reactions which are considered logical and natural?

Seconded, I'd like to know too.

I'd've thought the only logical natural response to a cosplayer would be seeing someone and thinking,'Hey, that's a cool costume', and maybe going over to tell them that their costume is good, congratulate them on their hard work making it etc. Maybe go as far as asking for a picture with them, so you can show your friends how cool a costume somebody made, or so you can pose with them in a live action version of a famous comic scene or whatever.

I've never been to a convention, but this seems to make sense to me.

#221 Edited by judasnixon (6584 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: No.... This is something that should be talked about. I just don't want to do it anymore.....

#222 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: I hope by never you mean essentially never, becasue I will play the "unlikely except" game with you, and I am not known for beinga t a loss for hypotheticals

@judasnixon: what about the triangle?

@lykopis: No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

#223 Edited by Pyrogram (38491 posts) - - Show Bio

@v_scarlotte_rose said:

@lykopis said:

@akbogert said:

@lykopis: I am saying that it is unreasonable to play-act as a sex object and be offended when the reception you get is more akin to the reception of a sex object than of a person. While the vast majority of reactions still fall outside the realm of acceptability or defensibility, I think some of what gets dismissed as harassment is simply the logical, natural response that the character & outfit designs were intended to generate in the first place.

What are these reactions which are considered logical and natural?

Seconded, I'd like to know too.

I'd've thought the only logical natural response to a cosplayer would be seeing someone and thinking,'Hey, that's a cool costume', and maybe going over to tell them that their costume is good, congratulate them on their hard work making it etc. Maybe go as far as asking for a picture with them, so you can show your friends how cool a costume somebody made, or so you can pose with them in a live action version of a famous comic scene or whatever.

I've never been to a convention, but this seems to make sense to me.

Make that Three.

I have been to a convention like this twice, and I do not go upto a girl and like, Ohh you look nice - Let me hug you without permission, Yes A hug counts to me as you need consent when you do not know the person .. But...What would seem Logical about not letting somebody have consent?

#224 Posted by akbogert (3222 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram: Okay. Then how about the part of what I said which you did NOT quote -- the very next sentence -- in which I made it clear that just because I think some of the objectification is understandable does not mean that "the vast majority" of reactions are defensible (including touching).

@lykopis: Referring back to my original post: "I think it's fairly clear that profanely expressing your desire to manhandle someone is sexual harassment. But when it comes to the verbal stuff, there does seem to be a messy line, and that's even been brought up by a female in this very thread: that telling someone you find them attractive is not inherently harassment and shouldn't be treated as such."

I proceeded to point out why that's a very subjective line. Frankly, while the sign-wearer doesn't view "I'd bang you" as a compliment, other people would. I think it's best to avoid anything that direct but the point is that the more objectified the character you're cosplaying is, the more lenience should be expected when it comes to objectifying remarks. The sort of person who is easily offended for not being taken seriously/spoken to with the utmost respect should not roleplay as a character whose popularity is primarily based on being eyecandy and whose outfit approaches little more than pasties and a thong (and I saw some of that last weekend in Boston).

Online
#225 Posted by Shawnbaby (10774 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: I hope by never you mean essentially never, becasue I will play the "unlikely except" game with you, and I am not known for beinga t a loss for hypotheticals

I mean in the context presented here of course. And I'm not really interested in getting into an argument about semantics when you know exactly what I'm talking about.

#226 Edited by Pyrogram (38491 posts) - - Show Bio

Did you?

I think some of what gets dismissed as harassment is simply the logical, natural response that the character & outfit designs were intended to generate in the first place.

Explain that.

@akbogert said:

Okay. Then how about the part of what I said which you did NOT quote -- the very next sentence -- in which I made it clear that just because I think some of the objectification is understandable does not mean that "the vast majority" of reactions are defensible (including touching).

#227 Posted by judasnixon (6584 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: Nope...... The only thing that comes close to the standup bass is a vintage accordion.........

#228 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@lykopis: No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

Actually -- that's not what's being debated, part of it perhaps? I can attempt to answer your questions, if you'd like although maybe you should tell me what yours are?

@akbogert said:

@lykopis: Referring back to my original post: "I think it's fairly clear that profanely expressing your desire to manhandle someone is sexual harassment. But when it comes to the verbal stuff, there does seem to be a messy line, and that's even been brought up by a female in this very thread: that telling someone you find them attractive is not inherently harassment and shouldn't be treated as such."

I proceeded to point out why that's a very subjective line. Frankly, while the sign-wearer doesn't view "I'd bang you" as a compliment, other people would. I think it's best to avoid anything that direct but the point is that the more objectified the character you're cosplaying is, the more lenience should be expected when it comes to objectifying remarks. The sort of person who is easily offended for not being taken seriously/spoken to with the utmost respect should not roleplay as a character whose popularity is primarily based on being eyecandy and whose outfit approaches little more than pasties and a thong (and I saw some of that last weekend in Boston).

Still, I want to make sure I misunderstand you because as it stands now -- I am still confused. If someone expresses their appreciation and admiration of someone's cosplay then, that's fine. I am sure the cosplayer appreciates it. But to me, there is no messy line? What would you consider an appropriate remark to the thong, pasties-wearing cosplayer?

Edited: Oops, I meant NOT misunderstand you.

#229 Posted by JediXMan (30618 posts) - - Show Bio

No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

Eh... I think some people are legitimately saying that it's not rape if it's "invited." Least that's what I'm getting.

Moderator
#230 Edited by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: I hope by never you mean essentially never, becasue I will play the "unlikely except" game with you, and I am not known for beinga t a loss for hypotheticals

@judasnixon: what about the triangle?

@lykopis: No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

*There is NO such thing as a sex object. I don't care if she's shaking her breast with noting, but nipple tassels she is a person and never an object.

*People shouldn't have to take precautions in a public setting with hundreds of people around. It isn't a dark alley these women "and men" are in plain site.

*The moment the victim feels uncomfortable or violated.

#231 Edited by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6295 posts) - - Show Bio


Quick unimportant question. What does everyone mean by "pasties"? It's just that here in the U.K., a pasty is a kind of food, like pastry filled with meats, vegetables etc, and I'm guessing that's not what you mean.

^Unless the cosplayer in question actually was dressed like this.^


#232 Posted by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

Quick unimportant question. What does everyone mean by "pasties"? It's just that here in the U.K., a pasty is a kind of food, like pastry filled with meats, vegetables etc, and I'm guessing that's not what you mean.

^Unless the cosplayer in question actually was dressed like this.^

There nipple covers XD

#233 Posted by Shawnbaby (10774 posts) - - Show Bio

@v_scarlotte_rose: Pasties are basically little stickers that cover just the nipple.

#234 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@judasnixon: not even the Kazoo?

@jedixman: I've gotten that from nobody so far ( who wasn't just trying to make other people angry over the internet)

@lykopis: answer those three qeustion? sure

1, a sex object is diffucult to quantify under any circumstances, when someone goes nearly nude in public, it might just be that their comfortable in less clothing, or that they can't stand the heat, and thats hard to get around. but then there's clothing that's designed specifically to catch the eye, can you honestly tell me taht anyone is cvomfortable in a corset, or a metal bikini? people who ware those are, more poften than not, playing at being sex onbjects. there nothing wrong with that, everyone (the bvast majority of people) wants to feeel that their beautiful, no matter how they engage in matter sof love and sex.

2. reasonable precaution against sexual assault:

*Don't enter a known den of rapists

*basic knowledge of self-defense is good

* if you stay where everyone can see you, it's easier to get other people to restrain your attacker

* be ready, at the very least, if your going to walk around in public in clothing that is designed to accentuate your physical features

I mean, there's a lot of stuff you could add on or take off of this list, but that's a good bit of what applies here

3. playful insunuation becomes/is likely to become hurtful when:

you are trying to get someone to reveal more than they already are

touching someone in sexy places without permission

describing specific physical actions that you would like to preform on the other party

making (serious) implications about someone else's life based solely on how their dressed

#235 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6295 posts) - - Show Bio
#236 Posted by akbogert (3222 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram: You just quoted me AGAIN while omitting the part that would answer your own question: "While the vast majority of reactions still fall outside the realm of acceptability or defensibility." The point of a caveat is that it points out the exception to the rule. I am saying that a small portion of what people call unacceptable is, in my mind, not really unacceptable given the circumstances. Some of the innuendo/commenting is to be expected based on the nature of the character/costume. I am making excuses only for a fraction of the verbal response (and for the mindset which leads into it). Nothing else.

@lykopis @v_scarlotte_rose

A character who is designed to make people horny -- whose outfit is clearly designed not for practicality but for titillation -- will, if created effectively, cause most people to view the character not as a real, interesting, complete human being, but as someone whose existence is justified by how it makes you feel down below. Why any self-respecting woman wants to embody that, I don't know. I'll still personally give her the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be like me. You spend long enough thinking of a character as someone you'd love to "tap" if they were real, and then you see someone who did such a good job at recreating that character's look that she may as well be that "real" version, and you're bound to say something you wouldn't say to most people. I think it's outrageously naive to be surprised or infuriated by that.

So like I said earlier, greater lenience depending on how objectified the original character is. It's a subjective scale, but it's a scale, not a black and white issue. If you see it as such, cool. I don't. I won't. And while I obviously hate having to disagree with friends, I can't help it if we come to different conclusions when confronted with the question, as @betatesthighlander1 said: "at what point does playful insenuation [sic] cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?" No matter how accepting/lenient a person is, there are obviously people whose comments are just outright crossing lines. I'm merely seeking a more critical evaluation for where that line is, and reminding people that one person's limit may be different from someone else's. For cosplayers, this is a cautionary tale in trying to avoid doing cosplays which are going to draw the sorts of thinking and remarks you know you are not personally comfortable with handling. For non-cosplayers this is a cautionary tale in trying to avoid making anyone uncomfortable with your words, whether or not you secretly think they "are asking for it." If everyone were thoughtful and decent, this discussion wouldn't be happening at all, but since people aren't, I think taking precautions is something everyone should do.

To go back to my original post, I am simply saying that no matter how unfair or limiting it may be, please don't walk through Central Park alone at night. I agree that you should be able to. But the way the world is, it's probably not going to end well for you. So save yourself the headaches. People suck and do and say stupid things and even if you're careful you still have to put up with that. But when you have an opportunity to avoid an obvious pitfall, don't tempt fate. If you do, and things go badly, I'm not going to blame you, and I'll gladly stand beside you when fighting the abusers, but I'll still wish you hadn't done it.

Online
#237 Posted by Pyrogram (38491 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert: I understand, thank you for taking the time to write :P

#238 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@shawnbaby: I hope by never you mean essentially never, becasue I will play the "unlikely except" game with you, and I am not known for beinga t a loss for hypotheticals

@judasnixon: what about the triangle?

@lykopis: No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

*There is NO such thing as a sex object. I don't care if she's shaking her breast with noting, but nipple tassels she is a person and never an object.

*People shouldn't have to take precautions in a public setting with hundreds of people around. It isn't a dark alley these women "and men" are in plain site.

*The moment the victim feels uncomfortable or violated.

* If someone is at a sheck-out desk, checking out groceries, is your first thought " I need to keep this person's emotional state in mind, and try not to just presume that this person wants to check out my groceries" or "would you please check these out?"

* I don't think plain-sight sexual harassment at cons is really a big thing, and I'm kind of wondering why you have '"and men"' in quotations

* the problem is, everyone becomes uncomfortable at a different point, some people are made deeply uncomfortable when they see people dreesed in skimpy outfits, or when they have some flirt with them, or if anyone provides any evidence that would compromise their particular beliefs, any action anyone takes could violate or discomfort those around said person

#239 Posted by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

@pyrogram: You just quoted me AGAIN while omitting the part that would answer your own question: "While the vast majority of reactions still fall outside the realm of acceptability or defensibility." The point of a caveat is that it points out the exception to the rule. I am saying that a small portion of what people call unacceptable is, in my mind, not really unacceptable given the circumstances. Some of the innuendo/commenting is to be expected based on the nature of the character/costume. I am making excuses only for a fraction of the verbal response (and for the mindset which leads into it). Nothing else.

@lykopis @v_scarlotte_rose

A character who is designed to make people horny -- whose outfit is clearly designed not for practicality but for titillation -- will, if created effectively, cause most people to view the character not as a real, interesting, complete human being, but as someone whose existence is justified by how it makes you feel down below. Why any self-respecting woman wants to embody that, I don't know. I'll still personally give her the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be like me. You spend long enough thinking of a character as someone you'd love to "tap" if they were real, and then you see someone who did such a good job at recreating that character's look that she may as well be that "real" version, and you're bound to say something you wouldn't say to most people. I think it's outrageously naive to be surprised or infuriated by that.

So like I said earlier, greater lenience depending on how objectified the original character is. It's a subjective scale, but it's a scale, not a black and white issue. If you see it as such, cool. I don't. I won't. And while I obviously hate having to disagree with friends, I can't help it if we come to different conclusions when confronted with the question, as @betatesthighlander1 said: "at what point does playful insenuation [sic] cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?" No matter how accepting/lenient a person is, there are obviously people whose comments are just outright crossing lines. I'm merely seeking a more critical evaluation for where that line is, and reminding people that one person's limit may be different from someone else's. For cosplayers, this is a cautionary tale in trying to avoid doing cosplays which are going to draw the sorts of thinking and remarks you know you are not personally comfortable with handling. For non-cosplayers this is a cautionary tale in trying to avoid making anyone uncomfortable with your words, whether or not you secretly think they "are asking for it." If everyone were thoughtful and decent, this discussion wouldn't be happening at all, but since people aren't, I think taking precautions is something everyone should do.

To go back to my original post, I am simply saying that no matter how unfair or limiting it may be, please don't walk through Central Park alone at night. I agree that you should be able to. But the way the world is, it's probably not going to end well for you. So save yourself the headaches. People suck and do and say stupid things and even if you're careful you still have to put up with that. But when you have an opportunity to avoid an obvious pitfall, don't tempt fate. If you do, and things go badly, I'm not going to blame you, and I'll gladly stand beside you when fighting the abusers, but I'll still wish you hadn't done it.

Now hold up. That is incredibly restricting to women who are comic fans. Wonder Woman, Storm, these women are objects?

They embody powerful women and they look good doing it, and yes that person should be infuriated. It isn't their fault that random guy has a Wonder Woman fetish and can't control himself? They just wanted to dress up, take pictures and have fun, and challenging their self respect based on what someone else considers modest is ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but this sounds alot like you are defending someones inappropriate behavior.

#240 Posted by Shawnbaby (10774 posts) - - Show Bio

If you can't leave the house without sexually harassing an attractive women in a revealing outfit...you shouldn't leave the house. Saying that it's her fault for dressing in a way that stimulated you is basically admitting that you are not in control of your own impulses. 'Nuff Said.

#241 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6295 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

@lykopis @v_scarlotte_rose

A character who is designed to make people horny -- whose outfit is clearly designed not for practicality but for titillation -- will, if created effectively, cause most people to view the character not as a real, interesting, complete human being, but as someone whose existence is justified by how it makes you feel down below. Why any self-respecting woman wants to embody that, I don't know. I'll still personally give her the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be like me. You spend long enough thinking of a character as someone you'd love to "tap" if they were real, and then you see someone who did such a good job at recreating that character's look that she may as well be that "real" version, and you're bound to say something you wouldn't say to most people. I think it's outrageously naive to be surprised or infuriated by that.


Could you give an example of such a character?

I think people should keep inappropriate comments to themselves, even if they are infatuated with the fictional representation of the character. People shouldn't have to become part of someones sexual fantasy just because they're dressed as a character that they like.

Can anyone tell me if there is security people at conventions that deal with people behaving inappropriately? If there isn't, maybe there should be. Like, if someone does something wrong they could get thrown out or fined or something. That might make discourage people from not behaving properly.

#242 Posted by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

@blood1991 said:

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@shawnbaby: I hope by never you mean essentially never, becasue I will play the "unlikely except" game with you, and I am not known for beinga t a loss for hypotheticals

@judasnixon: what about the triangle?

@lykopis: No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

*There is NO such thing as a sex object. I don't care if she's shaking her breast with noting, but nipple tassels she is a person and never an object.

*People shouldn't have to take precautions in a public setting with hundreds of people around. It isn't a dark alley these women "and men" are in plain site.

*The moment the victim feels uncomfortable or violated.

* If someone is at a sheck-out desk, checking out groceries, is your first thought " I need to keep this person's emotional state in mind, and try not to just presume that this person wants to check out my groceries" or "would you please check these out?"

* I don't think plain-sight sexual harassment at cons is really a big thing, and I'm kind of wondering why you have '"and men"' in quotations

* the problem is, everyone becomes uncomfortable at a different point, some people are made deeply uncomfortable when they see people dreesed in skimpy outfits, or when they have some flirt with them, or if anyone provides any evidence that would compromise their particular beliefs, any action anyone takes could violate or discomfort those around said person

Not sure where you are going with that first bit

Men can get harassed too, but it is less prevalent

I fail to see how seeing someone in something that is usually swimsuit like would make you uncomfortable. Just from personal experience I don't think a human body is disgusting and don't see why anyone else would be, but regardless personal beliefs can't infringe on personal freedom and cosplay is a form of expression.

#243 Posted by Ellie_Knightfall (4819 posts) - - Show Bio

If you can't leave the house without sexually harassing an attractive women in a revealing outfit...you shouldn't leave the house. Saying that it's her fault for dressing in a way that stimulated you is basically admitting that you are not in control of your own impulses. 'Nuff Said.

Thaaaaaaaaank you.

Not sure why this isn't just common sense?

#244 Edited by Shawnbaby (10774 posts) - - Show Bio

@blood1991 said:

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@shawnbaby: I hope by never you mean essentially never, becasue I will play the "unlikely except" game with you, and I am not known for beinga t a loss for hypotheticals

@judasnixon: what about the triangle?

@lykopis: No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

*There is NO such thing as a sex object. I don't care if she's shaking her breast with noting, but nipple tassels she is a person and never an object.

*People shouldn't have to take precautions in a public setting with hundreds of people around. It isn't a dark alley these women "and men" are in plain site.

*The moment the victim feels uncomfortable or violated.

* If someone is at a sheck-out desk, checking out groceries, is your first thought " I need to keep this person's emotional state in mind, and try not to just presume that this person wants to check out my groceries" or "would you please check these out?"

* I don't think plain-sight sexual harassment at cons is really a big thing, and I'm kind of wondering why you have '"and men"' in quotations

* the problem is, everyone becomes uncomfortable at a different point, some people are made deeply uncomfortable when they see people dreesed in skimpy outfits, or when they have some flirt with them, or if anyone provides any evidence that would compromise their particular beliefs, any action anyone takes could violate or discomfort those around said person

Are you seriously comparing Sexual harassment to Checking out groceries? It's a flawed analogy anyway...because we aren't talking about restricting people's thoughts here...we're talking about people acting out on those thoughts. There is nothing stopping you from thinking "That chick is incredibly hot...I would like to perform many sexual acts with her". But those thoughts don't give you permission to touch or grope her. She is not a toy for your amusement and you have no right to treat her as such.

#245 Edited by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: its not someones fault for being pickpocketed, but there are precautions that can make pick-pocketing less likely, and if someone is willing to pick some else's pocket with no remorse, than it's gonna be hard to make those urges just disapear

@v_scarlotte_rose:

is it, as far as your concerned, appropriate for peopel to say to WW or PG cosplayer "you fill out that costume very well" or "I didn;t think there were women built like that in real life"?

at the conventions I attend, there are usually police standing by, but I've never seren a lady get any more than oggled at Dragon Con

@blood1991: you realize that WOnder WOman was designed with bondage imagery in mind?

#246 Edited by Tacos_Kickass (844 posts) - - Show Bio

Are people really arguing for harassment? I wonder what your mothers would think if they knew some of you were pro - sexual harassment.

#247 Posted by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1: Yeah that was 1941 and she was become a feminist icon so maybe try another example. Oh maybe Lucy the Riveter!

Wow Kelly hope no one objectifies you for dressing up!

#248 Posted by Shawnbaby (10774 posts) - - Show Bio

@shawnbaby: its not someones fault for being pickpocketed, but there are precautions that can make pick-pocketing less likely, and if someone is willing to pick some else's pocket with no remorse, than it's gonna be hard to make those urges just disapear

@v_scarlotte_rose:

is it, as far as your concerned, appropriate for peopel to say to WW or PG cosplayer "you fill out that costume very well" or "I didn;t think there were women built like that in real life"?

at the conventions I attend, there are usually police standing by, but I've never seren a lady get any more than oggled at Dragon Con

@blood1991: you realize that WOnder WOman was designed with bondage imagery in mind?

We're not talking about a woman walking alone down a dark alley here. We're talking about women getting groped in broad daylight, surrounded by people. And you're saying "They should just expect that"

#249 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7462 posts) - - Show Bio

@blood1991: with the first bit I'm trying to say that when someone looks the part, its kind of expected they get treated as such

the second seems fairly settled

the third point, cxat-calling is also self expression, and there are some people who want others to talk dirty to the,m so it only seems logicle for them to act dirty to others

@shawnbaby: that whole rant was really aimed more at the "naked lady shaking her boobs at ou" scenario

#250 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6295 posts) - - Show Bio

@v_scarlotte_rose:

is it, as far as your concerned, appropriate for peopel to say to WW or PG cosplayer "you fill out that costume very well" or "I didn;t think there were women built like that in real life"?

at the conventions I attend, there are usually police standing by, but I've never seren a lady get any more than oggled at Dragon Con

I don't think that would be appropriate. There's probably better ways to say the same kind of things, like, "That costume really suits you", or "You look exactly like the character" or things like that. Seeing as it's about costumes and characters, it's probably better to focus on talking about that, and not the persons body.