Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Where did I say she deserved it? I only dared to point out that "blame the victim" shouldn't be a phrase anyone can just throw out to absolve someone of any responsibility for their own actions that may have had an unpleasant outcome.

As I tried to allude in my first post, its one thing to blame a woman for dressing in a miniskirt and being raped, and another to blame her for dressing in a miniskirt and having guys just be general dicks. One is an extremely obvious foreseeable outcome, so someone can look at the guy and say "shame on you" and then turn to the woman and say "come on, what did you honestly expect?"

 AustonT wrote:
She went to that con to be objectified

Evidence?

 AustonT wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Obvious outcomes are obvious.

This isn't a moral argument. Also, your comparison is still poor. It seems to me you're saying that the woman went to the con in order to be sexually harassed.

She went to that con to be objectified, she got treated like an object. Cue end credits.

You walked into the street to try and get blown by gay men. It's your own fault.

People go to conventions for all sorts of reasons. I went to GenCon to make contacts and didn't play any games. If someone treated me rudely would it be ok because I wasn't there for the main purpose of the convention? There are people at NYCC promoting movies and TV shows that have nothing to do with comic books either, are they also attention seeking whores deserving of being treated poorly? There isn't a singular purpose to these events, there are many purposes: promotion is one of them, having fun another, and for some it is work.

There is nothing to back up that her shock and humiliation is 'faux-anything'. Knowing something might happen and having it actually happen are two very different things. We all know that humans can die at any moment, but if you came on the boards and said that your brother was in a car accident and was killed, and that you were shocked, it would be cruel and asinine to tell you that you are stupid for being surprised and that we all know that if happens.

If you are used to being treated nicely, and people are friendly and outgoing to you at every con you have been to and then suddenly some people try to humiliate you it will be a shock and a surprise.

 LordofHats wrote:
I only dared to point out that "blame the victim" shouldn't be a phrase anyone can just throw out to absolve someone of any responsibility for their own actions that may have had an unpleasant outcome.

And I already told you to stop running away via generalization and actually talk about the topic. So what's your take here: should we blame the victim in this case or not?

 Manchu wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I've said dozens of times harassing women is not ok. But I still think she did this all on purpose.

So you think she went to the NYCC that day with the specific intention of being sexually harassed?

No. But I do believe that she was well aware that it could happen. And then oh look post on my blog, get media on my side, watch hits on my blog skyrocket, make money. I think she's quite clever actually, not this naive young girl that saw the horrible things men could say for the first time. At age 23. In NYC.

 kronk wrote:
I liked the first couple of pages where there were pictures of hot chicks in costumes.

Yea, those were good times weren't they? The sun was shining, small animals were playing in the meadow, and spring was in the air. It was before the Dark Time....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I've said dozens of times harassing women is not ok. But I still think she did this all on purpose.

So you think she went to the NYCC that day with the specific intention of being sexually harassed?

How about just causing a ruckus she could use to her advantage?

 kronk wrote:
I liked the first couple of pages where there were pictures of hot chicks in costumes.

Me too!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She went to that con to be objectified

Evidence?

Uh... her outfit maybe?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
not this naive young girl that saw the horrible things men could say for the first time

You realize that's not what's going on here right? I mean, neither she nor anyone else (except you) have made such a claim.

 Ahtman wrote:


There is nothing to back up that her shock and humiliation is 'faux-anything'. Knowing something might happen and having it actually happen are two very different things. We all know that humans can die at any moment, but if you came on the boards and said that your brother was in a car accident and was killed, and that you were shocked, it would be cruel and asinine to tell you that you are stupid for being surprised and that we all know that if happens.

If you are used to being treated nicely, and people are friendly and outgoing to you at every con you have been to and then suddenly some people try to humiliate you it will be a shock and a surprise.

So you really think a 23 year old attractive girl living in NYC has NEVER been hit on rudely before? I'd love to see the percentages on that cuz it just aint happening. Have any of you ever been to NYC? Just walking down the street with my then girlfriend would elicit hoots and hollers from hispanic day laborers on a weekly basis. And this was the nice section of Manhattan. And similar experiences with literally every single girl I know thats lived there or visited there. Again, its not ok. But its also not a surprise.

 kronk wrote:
I liked the first couple of pages where there were pictures of hot chicks in costumes.

I wonder what their cup sizes are. Should probably ask next time I see them. They're expecting it anyway.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
But I do believe that she was well aware that it could happen.

Anyone could be attacked at any moment, are you telling me that if a significant person in your life just showed up at your door bloodied and bruised saying they had been attacked that you would just shrug and say 'you should have been aware that it could have happened' and not be surprised at all?

 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She went to that con to be objectified

Evidence?

Uh... her outfit maybe?

I'd need an up-close and in-person view of the costume in question to be sure...

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She went to that con to be objectified

Evidence?

Uh... her outfit maybe?

Go on, whembly. Let's tease that thought out a bit. What about her outfit proves that she went to the NYCC to be objectified?

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She went to that con to be objectified

Evidence?

Uh... her outfit maybe?

Go on, whembly. Let's tease that thought out a bit. What about her outfit proves that she went to the NYCC to be objectified?

Okay... why did she wear it...

For that matter, what does any chick wear flattering, revealing clothing?

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She went to that con to be objectified

Evidence?

Uh... her outfit maybe?

Go on, whembly. Let's tease that thought out a bit. What about her outfit proves that she went to the NYCC to be objectified?

Okay... why did she wear it...

For that matter, what does any chick wear flattering, revealing clothing?

So they can date someone hotter than you.

 Manchu wrote:
should we blame the victim in this case or not?

You say running away, I say it's a trap!

The topic is: Woman dresses sexily and gets harassed by guys.

The frank answer is: "Lady what did you think was gonna happen?" and "Come on guy have some class." The statements may be issued in any order or for convenience placed on opposite ends of a sign so both may be read at once.

 Ahtman wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
But I do believe that she was well aware that it could happen.

Anyone could be attacked at any moment, are you telling me that if a significant person in your life just showed up at your door bloodied and bruised saying they had been attacked that you would just shrug and say 'you should have been aware that it could have happened' and not be surprised at all?

She was bloodied and brusied? Violent attacks happen as often as rude words? See where Im going with this? Getting violently attacked is not at all similar to getting rudely hit on.

If your significant other showed up and said a group of guys yelled obscene things at here while walking home would you get all Liam Neeson and go beat them up for not showing a woman the utmost respect? No you'd probably try to be nice to her and say something to the effect "sorry dear some people are donkey-caves but you cant let it get to you"

We all know women only exist to please men. Certainly they would never do anything for any other reason. If it weren't for men, women would just wear head to toe burlap sacks.

 kronk wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She went to that con to be objectified

Evidence?

Uh... her outfit maybe?

I'd need an up-close and in-person view of the costume in question to be sure...

I concur... we need evidence to render our verdict....

Just being a good citizen here...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
We all know women only exist to please men. Certainly they would never do anything for any other reason. If it weren't for men, women would just wear head to toe burlap sacks.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
But I do believe that she was well aware that it could happen.

Anyone could be attacked at any moment, are you telling me that if a significant person in your life just showed up at your door bloodied and bruised saying they had been attacked that you would just shrug and say 'you should have been aware that it could have happened' and not be surprised at all?

She was bloodied and brusied? Violent attacks happen as often as rude words? See where Im going with this? Getting violently attacked is not at all similar to getting rudely hit on.

If your significant other showed up and said a group of guys yelled obscene things at here while walking home would you get all Liam Neeson and go beat them up for not showing a woman the utmost respect? No you'd probably try to be nice to her and say something to the effect "sorry dear some people are donkey-caves but you cant let it get to you"

What I have gathered from this thread is that you are not good at understanding analogies, and even worse at making them. Though you make a mean strawman, I give you that.

That argument isn't about violence or overreacting, but about your consistent argument that since people know it can happen it shouldn't be a surprise. We are giving examples of why it is entirely possible to know something is a possibility and still be surprised.

Shame that she had to meet some jerks who cannot control themselves. Well now we know what camp I am in, now for the rest.

Could she be using this for more coverage for herself? Yes. Could she be using the coverage she is getting to show that the behavior is inappropriate? Yes. Why is the first statement more likely for some folks and the second one so far fetched?

And I may have missed it as this thread got HUGE fast...but has someone linked to the blame the victim thread yet?

 whembly wrote:
For that matter, what does any chick wear flattering, revealing clothing?

Whatever the answer is, it is wrong to assume it is so that you or anyone else can be rude to her.

You know, I think all our troops in Afghanistan are just asking to be shot.

I mean, they went there knowing what it was like. And then they wear those outfits that really make them stand out and even put little US flags on their sleeves even though they know how it makes some people feel. If you wear the outfit of an american soldier around Taliban, you get shot. And yet they keep on wearing it and going out there, dressed like 'that'.

Or maybe this whole "they are asking for it because they dressed that way" argument is stupid no matter how you try to apply it.

For the record I was being sarcastic in my last reply. Women wear what they want for whatever reason they want. No one psychically knows this. Some days I wear light make up, girl jeans and a tight t-shirt. Other days I wear a looser shirt, a cool jacket and a beanie. It's based on what I feel, not to please others (though getting service at places and not getting arrested is a concern, otherwise I'd just be naked all the time). In either case I'm not begging for someone to call me a disparaging slur or worthless stoner hippy.

 LordofHats wrote:
The frank answer is: "Lady what did you think was gonna happen?" and "Come on guy have some class." The statements may be issued in any order or for convenience placed on opposite ends of a sign so both may be read at once.

No, the only answer is "come on guys have some class." You put that other one on there and "come on guys have some class" is meaningless. It becomes "she had it coming."

I can know I could be struck by lightning, but then I should know that if I drink five beers I'm gonna be a little tippy.

There is a difference between knowing things can happen and knowing they WILL happen.

No, the only answer is "come on guys have some class." You put that other one on there and "come on guys have some class" is meaningless. It becomes "she had it coming."

If you absolutely demand that any statement pointing out that a woman in sexy clothes is going to attract negative attention to be a condemnation of the woman then I guess you can spin it that way but its a rather narrow way to look at the world.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Getting violently attacked is not at all similar to getting rudely hit on.

Let's put all our difference aside for just a second and be reminded that different outcomes can have similar causes. A child playing with a knife might just knick her finger or she might slit her throat. If she only knicks her finger, we don't wait until she slits her throat to act.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
For that matter, what does any chick wear flattering, revealing clothing?

Whatever the answer is, it is wrong to assume it is so that you or anyone else can be rude to her.

Hey... didn't say it's an excuse.

She should've bitched slap him...

There are idiots in this world...

Modeling in skimpy outfit at a Comic Con and dealing with THOSE a-holes... I'd consider that as an occupational hazard.

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She went to that con to be objectified

Evidence?

Exhibit A