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.

 Rimmy wrote:
my $.02 here:


meanwhile, I walk Renn Faire in a kilt and boots. and thats it. like it or don't, its how I roll. same can be said for the ladies.

God help us all if its a windy day. What hath God Wrought! Oh the Younglings!

 Frazzled wrote:
meanwhile, I walk Renn Faire in a kilt and boots. and thats it. like it or don't, its how I roll. same can be said for the ladies.

So the ladies are stomping around your renaissance fairs topless and in Scottish men's wear? Since you mentioned nothing about beards, I will envision the scene as a good thing.

 AustonT wrote:

Spoiler:

Mammary Dentata?

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
meanwhile, I walk Renn Faire in a kilt and boots. and thats it. like it or don't, its how I roll. same can be said for the ladies.

So the ladies are stomping around your renaissance fairs topless and in Scottish men's wear? Since you mentioned nothing about beards, I will envision the scene as a good thing.

renn gets a little racy round these parts. especially at night.

some things are good, other things are very VERY bad. and what is seen cannot be unseen.

and no, the dude in a princess dress with a beard like ZZ top and no undergarments was not attractive. yea, burn that one into your brain.

AustonT wrote:I suppose this one isn't her either?

Wait... so now someone wants to be objectified by wearing a black tank top? Help me understand your reasoning here. What should she wear? A burqa?

DutchKillsRambo wrote:She acted naive by saying she was shocked that men would be rude to her for wearing a racy costume at a comic con. In my mind shes lying. In yours shes not. Only she knows the truth.

Actually, if you want the quote right from her own story, it is this:

I guess I was not surprised to have a couple men ask to pose with me and...

I do not understand how you attribute this to naivete. Her entire post is about how the media itself appeared to be going out of its way to objectify her, rather than treat her like a costuming fan wearing a costume.

To summarize for you: she is upset that she was treated not as a cosplayer, but as a pair of tits in leather.

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Right she can only Cosplay and pose as comic book characters right?

You've lost me now. All I know is that you have failed to show any evidence supporting your statement.

I see plenty of evidence.

This is kind of weaving in and out of my question for Cannerus, but is the issue here that you are equating sexual attractiveness with being objectified? My own account of sexuality is that people are the proper objects of sexuality so even in that technical sense, being the object is not different from being a person -- in other words, this isn't the de-personalizing objectification that we're talking about. (Contrast this with someone who wants to rub their privates against a shoe or a pillow.) A woman being sexy isn't being less of a human being.

I'm sorry I can't hear your point while Mandy Caruso doesn't objectify herself as a fully clothed heroine.

She really wants you to appreciate her for her personality.

Are you saying no one appreciates Red Sonja for her intelligence?

EDIT: Ha! Guess who's on Red Sonja's wiki page?

 AustonT wrote:
She really wants you to appreciate her for her personality.

 Manchu wrote:
A woman being sexy isn't being less of a human being.

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She really wants you to appreciate her for her personality.

 Manchu wrote:
A woman being sexy isn't being less of a human being.

QFT.

I think she looks great. but thats as far as I would ever go with it.

now my personal preference, are people that put some SERIOUS effort intot he costumes, and less into being sexy.

Now to be fair (and I believe it was mentioned eerlier) comic book and video game designers (intentionally or note) DO place heroine's to be on the sexy scantly clad side. it IS after all a male dominated industry, and lets face it, sex sells.

but there is a REAL difference between make believe and real life.

A woman in a sexy costume, is STILL a woman. you MUST treat her with the common decency she deserves. I don't care if they're fully nude, if they say no touch, or back off, its no touch, and back off. end of story.

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
She really wants you to appreciate her for her personality.

 Manchu wrote:
A woman being sexy isn't being less of a human being.

EthicsAlert wrote:You understand the set-up, right? A beautiful, sexy, voluptuous young woman dresses in a mask and leather suit, showing a degree of cleavage that would not be appropriate in the workplace unless it was the Pussycat Lounge, and intentionally turns herself into  a living, breathing fantasy sex object for an audience primarily made up of socially inept, hormonally unfulfilled young men.

EthicsAlert wrote:You understand the set-up, right? A beautiful, sexy, voluptuous young woman dresses in a mask and leather suit, showing a degree of cleavage that would not be appropriate in the workplace unless it was the Pussycat Lounge, and intentionally turns herself into  a living, breathing fantasy sex object for an audience primarily made up of socially inept, hormonally unfulfilled young men.

Except no.

- Workplace standard? Explain why this is material for a cosplayer at a comic book convention.
- She intends to be a fantasy sex object? This is a conclusion for which you have consistently failed to show any support.
- Con attendees are mindless animals? Even the woman in question, who was sexually harassed by con attendees, denies that generalization.


What pray tell is this "Ethics Alert"? Are you just quoting something you wrote on a different website?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rimmy wrote:
A woman in a sexy costume, is STILL a woman. you MUST treat her with the common decency she deserves.

Folks here seem to believe that wearing a sexy costume means she deserves no common decency. Of course, they would phrase it as "shouldn't be surprised when she's treated rudely."

 Manchu wrote:
Folks here seem to believe that wearing a sexy costume means she deserves no common decency. Of course, they would phrase it as "shouldn't be surprised when she's treated rudely."

I said she should not be surprised at being treated poorly at a con by socially inept weirdos.

You honestly think that I therefore believed she deserved to be treated poorly?



That's like saying 'I'm not surprised that the black guy got insulted when walking past a BNP rally' is the same as 'he deserved to be insulted'.

Expecting a negative outcome and agreeing with that negative outcome are quite different.

They aren't the same thing at all. This woman should not have been insulted, but I'm not surprised that she was and her degree of outrage is, imo, disproportionate, especially given that she otherwise appears to have strong confidence and promotes herself visually through highly sexualised photography of her wearing items of clothing that in this society, are considered revealing and designed to promote a sexual attraction in the opposite (and some of her own) gender.

Exalted MGS. You wrote a much more succinct version of what I was trying to say.

. They have every right to go to a con in whatever the hell outfit they choose, for whatever reason they choose, just as you do, without being subjected to this kind of vile harassment. It is not a woman's fault if a man is sexist towards her, it is the man's fault for being sexist towards her.

Does this apply to men as well, if an equivalent man was to attend the con wearing only a thong, socks and shoes? I find it difficult to believe that people would not think of this as shameless (Either saying so or just thinking it). A clear double standard offensive to both men and women.

MGS: You tell me that she shouldn't be surprised then immediately tell me she's disproportionately offended. Now do we agree that those are separate issues or not? (For the record, she seems to think they are separate.). If so could you please explain what is disproportionate about her being offended.

Yo Manchu, do you jaywalk? Do you Jaywalk with the explicit intent of crossing the street or getting hit by a car? If you get hit by a car, guess what, pedestrians still have right of way, so it isn't you're legal obligation to watch out for cars, and it's a terrible thing to have happen. But really, if you get hit by a car while jay walking no ones going to make a huge deal over it.

That's what we're annoyed about with this woman. She got hit while jaywalking and expects us all to pull our hair and wail about how horrible the driver was for hitting her.

Lastly Manchu, what the heck is your deal? Can you just not read? Nearly everyone who has responded to you has repeatedly told you that what the interviewer did was not justifiable and your response to that is, "OMFG HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS LIKE THAT!!! I BET YOU THINK RAPE IS THE FAULT OF THE VICTIM! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

I swear, you're probably the worst debater I have yet seen on Dakka.

What was the woman doing that was either illegal or wrong? How is it comparable to jay walking?

What I see in this thread is people saying "he shouldn't have done that BUT she had it coming." In other words, it's not really important that he did something wrong; the real problem is her.

LOL @ your ironic insult.

But really, if you get hit by a car while jay walking no ones going to make a huge deal over it.

In what universe? Hit a pedestrian, ANY pedestrian, and you are in some serious mojo, especially if speeding. Go 50 in a 35 and hit someone and you are in line for vehicular manslaughter.

What I see in this thread is people saying "he shouldn't have done that BUT this isn't surprising at all, it happens all the time on a daily basis, move on ma'am."

Fixed.

No, its more like "what the dude did was wrong and she really shouldn't have been surprised that what happened happened"

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, its more like "what the dude did was wrong and she really shouldn't have been surprised that what happened happened"

So you'd say she has every right to be just offended as she is, regardless of being surprised or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
move on ma'am."

What exactly does that last part mean?

What was the woman doing that was either illegal or wrong?

Nothing, in the majority of the country Jaywalking isn't a crime, and at worst is only a fine. Yet most people seem to inherently grasp the dangers of jaywalking, even though it is entirely acceptable within society.

How is it comparable to jay walking?

This lady and the jaywalker are both in the legal and moral right. Basically, is what she dressed in inherently provacitive or wrong? No, not really, can it be construed as such? Absolutely. Hence when she wore said clothing she should be prepared for the kind of actions and judgements it will likely bring. The fact that those actions are unjustified in polite society is moot.

What I see in this thread is people saying "he shouldn't have done that BUT she had it coming." In other words, it's not really important that he did something wrong; the real problem is her.

You see I'm not sure if this is a case of willful ignorance on your part or if you're simply seeing what you want to see. Just about everyone who has touched on the topic who hasn't agreed with you already has stated that no, she did not have it coming to her and it's pretty crappy that it did come to her. However, no one is surprised that it did happen, hence why everyone, you and you mates excluded, are somewhat bemused as to her shock that the that it did happen.

It means gak happens. If we all went onto the internet and decried the world for the things that happen to us all the time, we'd never get anywhere. EDIT: I seriously doubt this is the first or last time men will be horrible to her. Jerks don't go away because the rest of us don't like them.

I just described half the content of the internet didn't I

Listen, I dont go to a Raiders game wearing a 49ers Shirt and expect to be treated nicely. This is the culture, deal with it. Yes, at a glance, you will be objectivied, but in the end, its like going into the Lions dens with a full meat suit, you expect to be pounced on.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, its more like "what the dude did was wrong and she really shouldn't have been surprised that what happened happened"

So you'd say she has every right to be just offended as she is, regardless of being surprised or not?

What I'm saying is, she had no right to go and complain to the media and make a big deal of it. She should have just slapped him and walked away in a huff. Nothing more, nothing less.

And if she came crying to me I'd say deal with. If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.

In what universe? Hit a pedestrian, ANY pedestrian, and you are in some serious mojo, especially if speeding. Go 50 in a 35 and hit someone and you are in line for vehicular manslaughter.

I mean no ones going to agree with her being outraged at being hit. It wouldn't hit the news. Well, except for local possibly, and even then it would only be an accident report, it wouldn't be a full on write up of how outraged she is about getting hit by a car while jay walking.

So you'd say she has every right to be just offended as she is, regardless of being surprised or not?

Yes, but it isn't anything that justifies her going, "Look at me my outrage is special and significant because I was ogled and objecrtifeid while attending a comic convention in a sexy outfit!"

What exactly does that last part mean?

It means get over it.

Why the hell is going to the media wrong again?

Well, this escalated quickly...

She was unduly harassed. Having a group of neckbeards stand around and ask what your cup size is is completely inappropriate. I wouldn't even do that at a strip club.

If you're going to dress like that, as a man or a woman, you need to expect a certain amount, and a certain type, of attention. People are going to stare, maybe take photos, and talk about what you're wearing.

But what happened to that woman is well beyond what is acceptable, and should not be something that regular people have to worry about. People, in this day and age, should know better.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Why the hell is going to the media wrong again?

Because its silly. This incident is not worth the time it takes to report it.

It would be like Times Magazine doing an article about a car accident in a small town.

...so yell at the media for wasting their time?

Edit: I'm actually curious where this rare person who doesn't want attention is.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Hence when she wore said clothing she should be prepared for the kind of actions and judgements it will likely bring.

Who said she was unprepared? To the extent she was unprepared, it was because most people at cons don't act like this guy. But again, that's a separate issue. So when you say "she should be prepared" you seem to mean "she shouldn't be offended or if she is she should just take it." But by all means, explain to me how that is not what you are saying. I have been waiting for your ace debate skills to reveal that key distinction but alas to no avail as of yet.

 LordofHats wrote:
If we all went onto the internet and decried the world for the things that happen to us all the time, we'd never get anywhere.

How is this woman making a legitimate complaint holding us up as as society? If anything, her feeling like she can talk about this openly is progress. Conversely, people saying she should just "get over it" is holding us back.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
in the end, its like going into the Lions dens with a full meat suit, you expect to be pounced on.

A bit like going onto a 40k message board with a MLP avatar? Are you asking to be pounced on? If you are, day after day, is that just something you should get over and we moderators should just let it happen because after all, you shouldn't be surprised?

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.

There is an important thing you're glossing over by saying she should just shut up: namely, whether or not someone is rude to her, being rude to her is still wrong and in fact there's no reason to even talk about how "it's just a fact" that people might behave in a terrible way. There is no connection. If you are suggesting there is one, can you just come out and say it?