...did I just fight a guy?

[buttmuncher.ops]

@ Spike: I would still be cautious if I shot a dude. Hell, ran a dude through with a sword. Before you question my logic, I have terribad aim that might cause me to shoot the innocent guy next to the criminal so I'd rather keep it short range.

Yay~

You're too anxious if you don't believe in your aim. You have to be like misu~ misu~

Here, watch step one of my tutorial

[Thor Odinson]

No, I have bad aim because I have bad aim. Of course, you can hand me an automatic weapon instead.

[Ansem]

This man is my favourite rapist, though he apparently never raped a woman

i want to die like this

[buttmuncher.ops]

If you mean automatic in that the weapon aims for you I haven't heard of any such thing. Even unmanned drones / long range strike cruise missiles require human input. If you mean automatic as in projectile sub-machine or machine guns the recoil would still fuck with your aim which is why some people advise to aim low and shoot at your target in a sweep motion even at shoulder press. SO NO. GO WATCH THE TUTORIAL AND BECOME LIKE MISU~

[Original Alear]

This is the type of attitude that lets me get first string varsity wide receiver while you're stuck managing towels =)

*Shrugs*

...

Do you pay for towel management?

[Thor Odinson]

No, I mean that I don't give a shit about aim and just shoot everything in sight.

Except bunnies.

[buttmuncher.ops]

IIRC every and any student related to the team had to pay a starter's fee at the beginning of the school year that covered expenses / equipment etc. I don't know if "Towel Boy" is included in that or not though.

I'm glad you don't shoot bunnies otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy

[Raven]

A sniper rifle with a good scope basically hand-feeds you kills. Get the head on the dot in the middle of the circle and pull the trigger. You win.

[Ansem]

Hunting rabbits

Yum

[buttmuncher.ops]

A sniper rifle with a good scope basically hand-feeds you kills. Get the head on the dot in the middle of the circle and pull the trigger. You win.

lol i thought we were talking about RL weapons but you gotta bring FPS into this

[Raven]

I prefer handguns in real life.

[Thor Odinson]

Well, you're trained with them.

Or at least I think you are given what you're going to school for atm.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[uguu]

raven I hate the police

just felt like saying that

[Raven]

Well, you're trained with them.

Or at least I think you are given what you're going to school for atm.

Sadly we're only learning the law and practical sides of things in my course. In the UK, if you're not part of the firearms unit, then you don't get to use live weaponry.

Using an air gun, I feel comfier using a handgun than a rifle. And more accurate.

Edited November 19, 2011 by V-Raven

[Thor Odinson]

Fair enough.

[Inactive Account]

The problem is you are now trying to argue a point that does not matter currently. I'm sure it would be ideal for most women if they could wear whatever they want without sending a guy the wrong message. But that isn't reality. Nobody said "if you say it doesn't happen you're an idiot", I said "if you take a calculated risk and then act like you have no part in it should the outcome be negative, you are stupid".

Sure, for a lot of women it is a problem - one that can be largely prevented by being smart. You can act like what I am saying is a chore to respond to all you want, but the fact of the matter is that I am absolutely correct. You challenged my statements and I provided reason for why they were accurate. I agree with you that it is a bad thing that they are accurate, but there it is.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but so far the discussion has gone roughly:

You: Women who dress revealingly at clubs should not be surprised if they are harassed because of it, this is reality. (using the phrase "asking for")

Me: [incorrectly parses above as casting some degree of blame on victims, responds to that part] And yeah, [roughly the same fact you were stating in different language], and that sucks, and it is a reality that needs to change.

(more)

You: [another restatement of the facts] [clarification that you aren't blaming victims]

Me: [repeated attempt to explain that I understand that this is the reality and needs to change, with a final addendum about how "asking for it" is problematic phrasing as an attempt to explain why I had been reacting as I had]

(more)

Me: [attempts to break loop]

(The idiot bit was from other people who were making essentially the same point as you; that was part of the reason why I said that part without attaching it to a quote.)

So it basically boiled down to a cycle of misunderstanding in which you would say "This is the reality and can't be counted as unexpected", and I would say "Yes it's a reality and not unexpected, but it should be improved" and repeat ad nausaeum, so I tried to break it because I was getting a headache and had things to do that were more important than an internet argument, mainly an assignment that resulted in a worse headache.

You're saying that it's wrong that guys are allowed to do this, but it ISN'T black and white. Often consent is given without words in a club environment (gogo super loud music and lots of buzz), and that type of communication is prone to mistake. Not only that, but Severian is absolutely correct in saying that you should not even go to places where it is entirely acceptable if you're going to freak out when it happens.

The point about implied consent is a valid one, but it's not the whole problem. People who bother to look for the implication of consent are people who do actually care about it, and who will most likely stop if they are informed that their interpretation of body language, etc was mistaken. It is definitely a gray area.

The main problem is with people who don't actually give a damn, and don't bother looking for implied consent-- and the people who consider revealing clothing alone (without context of body language, etc) to be an implication of consent, because it isn't. And yeah, I will say that it is definitely wrong for those people to decide they can do what they want to others. And it's wrong that many of them go largely unchallenged by people who they might listen to about it.

My personal decisions for where I go and what I wear can stay out of this thanks (hopefully we're using the generic "you"), my personal idea of a night on the town is getting out of the box I live in in the computer lab to go visit the other computer lab :P

If you want to play the blame game, don't blame just the guys - blame the women who make it hard for others to go to certain places without having to worry about what messages they're sending, and the establishments that allow it to occur. In the end it is unlikely for this to ever change significantly, but it will NEVER be the fault of only one person.

Again, if mistakes were the only problem, blame would be easier to share. But the assholes who don't give a damn are more of the problem than mistakes.

I agree that it can't be the fault of one person when the entirety of society does a pretty lousy job of teaching about consent issues. I can't speak for other places, but on my trip through the American public school system, consent was never mentioned. The only lesson I can think of that we had about sexual harassment was a fairly useless list of ways to avoid becoming a victim (I mean useless as in some of them literally would not help). A lot of harm (as you mentioned earlier) is done by people who don't think they're doing anything wrong; if everyone were actually taught about how consent works, that could be reduced, and the people who are doing harm out of malice will at least be warned that it's not acceptable (a message that is absent much more often than it should be).

Which I guess brings me to the bit where I posit that it could probably get a fair amount better in the future; it's just not going to get better if nobody does anything about it. That's how progress works-- it has to start somewhere. (As something of a tangent, if only people who are comfortable with the possibility of unwanted attention dress revealingly, it's not going to help, because the people who assume they can do whatever to someone who's showing cleavage are never going to be challenged on it that way.)

Death's original post was perfectly valid. The ones afterwards are irrelevant to the discussion.

Yeah, I was remarking on one of the irrelevant ones, because it struck a nerve, and I was about to wonder why nobody else had said anything about it. Then I realized that it's Death and nobody gives a shit, because the comment was pretty much par for the course with him.

The club issue has everything to do with promiscuity, and if you're ignoring that you have not a leg to stand on. Look. I've never been in a club atmosphere. But let me suggest something. The chemistry that is trying to be achieved in such an environment would, most likely, be highly cramped if people had to ask first for everything. There would be noless spontaneity - romance and passion would be required to be carried out through linguistics first, then other avenues only after that linguistic opening. As absurd as it is to a person as, for lack of a better term, stilted, as I am, I must acknowledge that the "natural" thing was probably not, in the time of our ancestors to find love through language first. Hardly. Language came later. And for some people, especially teenagers and young adults still ripe with hormones, I would not be surprised to find that they would rather have the freedom to express physical, and maybe sometimes emotional, want for another without asking first. And I think not accepting that urge as just as valid as the urge to not be touched without consent is rather one-sided of you, in fact it suggests you have little consideration for the wants of others in this ideal world you seek to build. I don't have the quote with me, but a wise writer wrote in the wake of World War II that (paraphrase) "the reformer should first examine what it is he or she is attempting to reform." I would suggest that you are being overly perfectionist about this desire to have interpersonal sexuality begin with language.

I would not go so far as to say there should be places where promiscuity before language of consent should be allowed. I will go so far as to say that there WILL be such places, with consent on both sides for much of the foreseeable future whatever you do to change it, and it will occur for reasons just as valid as your wish to not be touched without permission.

See above bit about implied consent in my above response to Tang. I do believe there are some instances, such as the club atmosphere that we've been discussing, in which implied consent is enough, the issue is the people who don't give a shit about it to begin with, the people who are just going to take what they want of others.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that one person's want for sexual contact can sometimes trump another's expressed (verbally, or via body language, etc) want to avoid it, but if you are, no. There is no intrinsic right for anyone to have sexual access to another person who refuses it. (I don't mean just attempting something only to be rebuffed; I mean attempting something despite being rebuffed.)

Re the whole thread: I'm hoping that I'm mostly done here, it is nearing 2AM and I have a headache brought on by internet, work, and lack of food.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Kiryn

[Tangerine]

Such negative connotations come along with the word "argument" these days. I prefer discussion in this case :tangerine:.

The point about implied consent is a valid one, but it's not the whole problem. People who bother to look for the implication of consent are people who do actually care about it, and who will most likely stop if they are informed that their interpretation of body language, etc was mistaken. It is definitely a gray area.

The main problem is with people who don't actually give a damn, and don't bother looking for implied consent-- and the people who consider revealing clothing alone (without context of body language, etc) to be an implication of consent, because it isn't. And yeah, I will say that it is definitely wrong for those people to decide they can do what they want to others. And it's wrong that many of them go largely unchallenged by people who they might listen to about it.

I'd say my opinion on it depends entirely on the environment again. Skimpy clothing = interested in physical contact is something that for the most part holds true in club and bar environments. There is the odd person it does not apply to, and of course people who are wearing something revealing for their partner that they went with.

But like I said, it's related to the environment. Some girl on the bus isn't looking to hook up with a guy going downtown for groceries, so there it's definitely a "wtf" type of thing for someone to do. But at the same time those girls just should not be wearing stuff like that in such a place regardless of how wrong the guy is for responding that way, so it's tough for me to say. I guess what I believe is, that guy is wrong for doing that, but the girl isn't *completely* innocent either.

I'm all for creative and personal freedom, but I'd never wear something revealing in general public. If not to avoid being harassed then just out of respect for other people. There's a time and place for everything.

My personal decisions for where I go and what I wear can stay out of this thanks (hopefully we're using the generic "you"), my personal idea of a night on the town is getting out of the box I live in in the computer lab to go visit the other computer lab :P

Haha, it was definitely a general "you". I wouldn't make things personal in a discussion like this one.

I agree that it can't be the fault of one person when the entirety of society does a pretty lousy job of teaching about consent issues. I can't speak for other places, but on my trip through the American public school system, consent was never mentioned. The only lesson I can think of that we had about sexual harassment was a fairly useless list of ways to avoid becoming a victim (I mean useless as in some of them literally would not help). A lot of harm (as you mentioned earlier) is done by people who don't think they're doing anything wrong; if everyone were actually taught about how consent works, that could be reduced, and the people who are doing harm out of malice will at least be warned that it's not acceptable (a message that is absent much more often than it should be).

I reeeally don't wanna get into a discussion about the school system since it varies so wildly from place to place and it's such a touchy subject to begin with. I feel like some people prefer to take a minimalist approach to "teaching" people about it. For example, they might feel like the less they talk about it, the less likely they are to actually encourage people to do it. I don't personally subscribe to this belief, but that's just the way some things are handled.

But for the most part yeah, incidents could definitely be reduced if guys were more aware of how it makes a woman feel. I don't know how much it would necessarily be reduced in a club or nightclub environment, but it certainly wouldn't do any harm and may prevent some mistakes from being made.

Which I guess brings me to the bit where I posit that it could probably get a fair amount better in the future; it's just not going to get better if nobody does anything about it. That's how progress works-- it has to start somewhere. (As something of a tangent, if only people who are comfortable with the possibility of unwanted attention dress revealingly, it's not going to help, because the people who assume they can do whatever to someone who's showing cleavage are never going to be challenged on it that way.)

Well, progress in general doesn't just go from point A to point G. We can't just say "hey this should be like this, let's do it". What steps would you propose taking to improve the situation realistically? I mean, talking about it here won't do much other than perhaps inspire the younger guys to watch what they do when they're of age (and who are still reading after it stopped being a silly thread) but I'd still be interested in hearing what you think.

For the most part my entire message in this thread has been for the purpose of protecting the girls younger than us that I see posting here and viewing the topic. The possibility exists and there are a variety of ways to protect yourself and largely prevent these situations from occurring.

Yeah, I was remarking on one of the irrelevant ones, because it struck a nerve, and I was about to wonder why nobody else had said anything about it. Then I realized that it's Death and nobody gives a shit, because the comment was pretty much par for the course with him.

Basically, you can't really take those comments he makes seriously .

Re the whole thread: I'm hoping that I'm mostly done here, it is nearing 2AM and I have a headache brought on by internet, work, and lack of food.

Haha, you shouldn't let it get to you like that! It's just a random discussion, not like there is anything personal or urgent behind it. Respond whenever you have time or feel like it. Sleep well, and good luck on your assignment.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Tangerine

[Defeatist Elitist]

Such negative connotations come along with the word "argument" these days. I prefer discussion in this case :tangerine:.

There is almost nothing better in this world than a good argument.

I'd say my opinion on it depends entirely on the environment again. Skimpy clothing = interested in physical contact is something that for the most part holds true in club and bar environments. There is the odd person it does not apply to, and of course people who are wearing something revealing for their partner that they went with.

But like I said, it's related to the environment. Some girl on the bus isn't looking to hook up with a guy going downtown for groceries, so there it's definitely a "wtf" type of thing for someone to do. But at the same time those girls just should not be wearing stuff like that in such a place regardless of how wrong the guy is for responding that way, so it's tough for me to say. I guess what I believe is, that guy is wrong for doing that, but the girl isn't *completely* innocent either.

I'm all for creative and personal freedom, but I'd never wear something revealing in general public. If not to avoid being harassed then just out of respect for other people. There's a time and place for everything.

The problem is that this implies there is some sort of blame on the woman, when there really shouldn't be any. Now, maybe in a night club some guy might touch when it is unwelcome, and maybe that's an understandable misconception (maybe he misread body language or something), but a bit of clarification along the lines of "please don't touch me" is really all that's necessary (though unfortunately a lot of women are uncomfortable telling people they are in an uncomfortable situation, if you understand what I'm saying), and if it doesn't stop after that, then it's definitely a problem. While revealing clothing might make men think it's more acceptable, that's sort of irrelevent. That is to say, what those men think is wrong. Arguing that knowing that people think this, women should dress more conservatively is like saying that, knowing that it was frowned upon, black people never should have tried to sit at the front of the bus.

I just think it's a sort of fucked up message to send, because if a woman is partially to blame for harrasment/sexual assault/rape, then basically by definition it is not harrasment/sexual assault/rape.

I feel like some people prefer to take a minimalist approach to "teaching" people about it. For example, they might feel like the less they talk about it, the less likely they are to actually encourage people to do it. I don't personally subscribe to this belief, but that's just the way some things are handled.

But the people who think that are demonstrably wrong...

Well, progress in general doesn't just go from point A to point G. We can't just say "hey this should be like this, let's do it". What steps would you propose taking to improve the situation realistically? I mean, talking about it here won't do much other than perhaps inspire the younger guys to watch what they do when they're of age (and who are still reading after it stopped being a silly thread) but I'd still be interested in hearing what you think.

I think the point is to change how people think about this, though I'll discuss exactly what I mean below.

For the most part my entire message in this thread has been for the purpose of protecting the girls younger than us that I see posting here and viewing the topic. The possibility exists and there are a variety of ways to protect yourself and largely prevent these situations from occurring.

But I think what it teaches those girls, indirectly, is that if they experience some sort of unwanted physical sexual attention that it is in some way their fault. I think that message propogates the bizarre notion that somehow victims have some blame in their rape.

Basically, what I'm saying is that a concession that "well if they really want to avoid it they just shouldn't dress like that" just furthers gender stereotypes, and reinforces the idea that women who dress revealingly have less of a right to complain when they are the victim of sexual assault.

[ReformBlade]

But I think what it teaches those girls, indirectly, is that if they experience some sort of unwanted physical sexual attention that it is in some way their fault. I think that message propogates the bizarre notion that somehow victims have some blame in their rape.

Basically, what I'm saying is that a concession that "well if they really want to avoid it they just shouldn't dress like that" just furthers gender stereotypes, and reinforces the idea that women who dress revealingly have less of a right to complain when they are the victim of sexual assault.

Bingo.

In other news, I think this whole discussion got completely mired in 'messages and meaning'. Yes, they exist, but they shouldn't have as much of an impact on how we do things as this thread seems to imply. Quite simply, people should be able to dress as they want (blatant inflammatory things excluded) without having to think "Well damn, this is gonna get me some sexual harassment." Maybe I'm the incredibly odd man out when it comes to clothes, seeing as I just see them as cloth and nothing more, but I don't see why this has to even be discussed to any extent. A woman wearing X amount/style of clothing should (<<<<< Key word) not give any indication of how she wants to be touched, if at all.

[Tangerine]

wtf, I keep seeing your post and then not seeing it. Something is up with this thread >_>.

The problem is that this implies there is some sort of blame on the woman, when there really shouldn't be any. Now, maybe in a night club some guy might touch when it is unwelcome, and maybe that's an understandable misconception (maybe he misread body language or something), but a bit of clarification along the lines of "please don't touch me" is really all that's necessary (though unfortunately a lot of women are uncomfortable telling people they are in an uncomfortable situation, if you understand what I'm saying), and if it doesn't stop after that, then it's definitely a problem. While revealing clothing might make men think it's more acceptable, that's sort of irrelevent. That is to say, what those men think is wrong. Arguing that knowing that people think this, women should dress more conservatively is like saying that, knowing that it was frowned upon, black people never should have tried to sit at the front of the bus.

I just think it's a sort of fucked up message to send, because if a woman is partially to blame for harrasment/sexual assault/rape, then basically by definition it is not harrasment/sexual assault/rape.

It is a touchy subject. I don't want to outright say that it is also the woman's fault, but I don't believe you are innocent if you are wearing something that you KNOW will attract that kind of attention. It would be different if things were how Kiryn believes would be ideal and some guy was still doing it. But in today's society this is how things are. If you can prevent it from happening and choose not to then it is impossible to say that you had no part in the occurrence of such a situation. I don't think that the comparison between this and racial segregation is accurate at all, and I am definitely not going to go any further into that past this statement - it is a whole other ball of wax that I am not interested in talking about on Serenes.

Of course, I don't think that it can be defended. It's entirely different in a club or party scene - I will defend a dude completely in that scenario assuming it is nothing serious. While I do believe that mentality transfers over to every-day life and that it is also the fault of the women who give them that idea (as well as the complete lack of awareness and guiding in places of learning), I don't believe that it is correct for them to think that way. When I said "there is a time and a place for everything" it applied to them as well. Skimpy outfits do not belong in the general public, but neither does the mentality that skimpy outfit = looking for a man.

But the people who think that are demonstrably wrong...

Did I not say that in a nicer way ? I'm not quite sure what this response was for.

But I think what it teaches those girls, indirectly, is that if they experience some sort of unwanted physical sexual attention that it is in some way their fault. I think that message propogates the bizarre notion that somehow victims have some blame in their rape.

I don't really think that teaches them that at all. The point is that there ARE women at fault and they are part of the reason all of us have to be careful about how we dress and act in certain settings. If you took precautions and are still sexually harassed by someone I don't understand how anyone could believe it is their fault. That person would have done it anyway. As noted, there are men who are just pigs.

Basically, what I'm saying is that a concession that "well if they really want to avoid it they just shouldn't dress like that" just furthers gender stereotypes, and reinforces the idea that women who dress revealingly have less of a right to complain when they are the victim of sexual assault.

The use of "sexual assault" is going to make people believe we are discussing a much more serious form of harassment than we actually are and any response I make is going to make me sound like a terrible person. Just to make it clear to people reading - sexual assault is any form of contact without previously given consent, verbally or physical. Not just 'that'.

But yes, I do think that choosing to dress promiscuously in certain settings is on you and that you are taking a calculated risk. If you go to a club dressed in revealing clothing you are sending guys a message, whether it is the one you intend to send or not. You are entering an establishment in which that type of contact is ACCEPTED and dressing like all of the women who Raven has described in a previous post.

If you say no or tell him to stop and the situation escalates then it is on him. But you cannot simply say "oh that guy is terrible, he's wrong".

Edited November 19, 2011 by Tangerine

[Nanami Touko]

I think that verbal sexual harassment should be partially the fault of the woman dressing in revealing clothing, because she knew what she was wearing, and she should be fine with getting called out on that, but if physical sexual harassment is involved, I find it hard to blame the woman at all. I know the club setting blah blah blah and if someone dresses revealing and walks into there they should be more cautious, but I don't think physical harassment should ever be partly the fault of the woman.

That's just my opinion on this. Hands should be kept to themselves, no matter how provocatively a woman is dressed ' x'

Edited November 19, 2011 by seph1212

[Nightmare]

It's both sides' fault.

[Tangerine]

I think that verbal sexual harassment should be partially the fault of the woman dressing in revealing clothing, because she knew what she was wearing, and she should be fine with getting called out on that, but if physical sexual harassment is involved, I find it hard to blame the woman at all. I know the club setting blah blah blah and if someone dresses revealing and walks into there they should be more cautious, but I don't think physical harassment should ever be partly the fault of the woman.

That's just my opinion on this. Hands should be kept to themselves, no matter how provocatively a woman is dressed ' x'

"should be", that is something that keeps coming up. If the world were ideal that would be perfect - but it isn't. I cannot fathom how a man can take all the blame in the settings being discussed. The fact is that a ton of women dress in revealing clothing so men will do that to them. You have to be cautious BEFORE entering that situation. If you can prevent it by showing less skin then why shouldn't you?

If a guy starts getting personal in the way a lot of those women go to clubs to do, except this time the woman is not into it and didn't intend for that message to be sent, how can you blame only the guy? If she spazzed out on him that would be utterly ridiculous because she chose to dress that way. She either has to accept that she dressed in a way that might bring that attention onto herself and get over it (thus they both had some part in the altercation), or they have to accept that neither of them were necessarily wrong.

And I see those situations all the time. Very rarely is the guy actually some creepy weirdo, but women will freak out on him regardless. Those are the guys I am defending. They are the majority. The creepy dudes who escalate the situation are entirely at fault.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Tangerine

[Raven]

It's both sides' fault.

That is true.

I think what's being discussed is how much of the blame belongs to the woman who dresses provocatively.

[ReformBlade]

"should be", that is something that keeps coming up. If the world were ideal that would be perfect - but it isn't. I cannot fathom how a man can take all the blame in the settings being discussed. The fact is that a ton of women dress in revealing clothing so men will do that to them. You have to be cautious BEFORE entering that situation. If you can prevent it by showing less skin then why shouldn't you?

If a guy starts getting personal in the way a lot of those women go to clubs to do, except this time the woman is not into it and didn't intend for that message to be sent, how can you blame only the guy? If she spazzed out on him that would be utterly ridiculous because she chose to dress that way. She either has to accept that she dressed in a way that might bring that attention onto herself and get over it (thus they both had some part in the altercation), or they have to accept that neither of them were necessarily wrong.

And I see those situations all the time. Very rarely is the guy actually some creepy weirdo, but women will freak out on him regardless. Those are the guys I am defending. They are the majority. The creepy dudes who escalate the situation are entirely at fault.

The thing is, there would be no incident if 'the man' wasn't committing any wrongdoings. I'm sorry, but that to me kinda places all the blame on the man.