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.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
But they sure can suck the fun out of the room fast.

Earlier this year in Poland there was a fist fight at a WFB tournament.

In all honesty, it should be discussed with the store owner/employee if someone misbehaves or just smells. If he reacts properly and tells the guy to shower and use a deodorant next time, it's all cool(unless he comes again and doesn't do that), but if the store owner doesn't bother to tidy up his own store, then that's a signal that you probably don't want to spend time at such a place anyway. I know it's not the most fun thing to do to tell someone that he reeks of sweat, but it has to be done and fortunately my FLGS' employee and owner are sensible and care enough to just be honest with people as those are very likely to drive guys away, let alone any girl willing to play a game of M:tG at one of the tables.

Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

By that logic, if I don't want people whose name starts with an "F" to be part of my gaming group because I have a phobia of names starting with an "F", does that make it OK for me to exclude people named Frederick, Fyodor, or Felicia? After all, it's causing me discomfort.

Yes, people who smell bad could change it, but then again, are we going to start excluding people we think look ugly, or people who are fat? After all, "they could easily fix it".

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

That's a rather ignorant assumption to make. There are people with legitimate health problems that cause them to smell more than what you can just wash away.
(see what I'm getting at? The above is actually true, but it's also a very confrontational way for me to say it. Which is often how people that feel left out will confront you. We're not allowed to make assumptions, and then your assumptions are just as bad as anyone else's.)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

By that logic, if I don't want people whose name starts with an "F" to be part of my gaming group because I have a phobia of names starting with an "F", does that make it OK for me to exclude people named Frederick, Fyodor, or Felicia? After all, it's causing me discomfort.

Yes, people who smell bad could change it, but then again, are we going to start excluding people we think look ugly, or people who are fat? After all, "they could easily fix it".

No. To get plastic surgery or to lose weight takes a lot of effort. To stop smelling bad it only takes a shower and some deodorant.

EDIT: Damn, I should have included the disclaimer that if you have a medical condition then these statements do not apply. Sorry folks if I came off as ignorant.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

By that logic, if I don't want people whose name starts with an "F" to be part of my gaming group because I have a phobia of names starting with an "F", does that make it OK for me to exclude people named Frederick, Fyodor, or Felicia? After all, it's causing me discomfort.

Yes, people who smell bad could change it, but then again, are we going to start excluding people we think look ugly, or people who are fat? After all, "they could easily fix it".

No. To get plastic surgery or to lose weight takes a lot of effort. To stop smelling bad it only takes a shower and some deodorant.

"Looking pretty or losing weight only takes some makeup/not taking an additional pizza slice".

False equivalency I believe is the term. To stop being ugly or being fat, like I said earlier, takes a lot of time and effort to do and in some cases there is nothing that can be done. If there is no medical reason then the all of the time and effort to stop being smelly then all it takes is 30 minutes in the morning. That's it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority?

I would say even if they do not realize it yet, it will be better for them to smell nice. So, no ostracizing, but really, even just mentioning the smell (yeah, they may not even be aware that you are annoyed by the smell. Trust me, I know firsthand) is actually likely helping them.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
False equivalency I believe is the term. To stop being ugly or being fat, like I said earlier, takes a lot of time and effort to do and in some cases there is nothing that can be done. If there is no medical reason then the all of the time and effort to stop being smelly then all it takes is 30 minutes in the morning. That's it.

"Putting on make-up only takes 30 minutes and it stops you being ugly."

I'm making a patently ridiculous claim, of course, I'm just not seeing how it's a false equivalence at all. I'll give you the weight loss issue, but smell, like looks, is subjective. I don't think any of us thinks it's OK to tell anyone (primarily women in this example) that they have to wear makeup because their ugly looks offend our delicate sensibilities, so why is that only the case when it comes to sight? That is, why is smell somehow different from sight? One of the more important signs of progress in our societies is that divergent clothing, diverging aesthetics are seen as OK, so why is there a cultural hegemony of smells? Who decides what smells bad and what doesn't?

Bad smells tend to put off the majority of people. As in gak smells bad to around 9/10 people. It's also false equivalence in that ugliness is something you are born with and cannot easily change. Like I said, you can easily change how you smell. If I sound like I am repeating myself it's because I don't buy the argument that ugliness and a lack of hygiene, or more accurately, the intolerance of these things are the same.

But, as mentioned before, you should politely inform people that they smell bad. They may not be aware of it since the human nose tends to filter out persistent smells.

And if we'd asked people 100 years ago, 9/10 might have answered that the place of a woman was in the kitchen cooking food and tending babies. Argumentum ad populum.

Further, "ugliness" if anything is a social construct. Honestly, I think we can all agree that aesthetic tastes vary. As it's not something objective, it's not something we ought to judge by. Similarly, I'd put it that smells are subjective (I for one can't stand the smell of some perfumes, it's just too much) and as such, from an objective point of view, really oughtn't matter at all.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And if we'd asked people 100 years ago, 9/10 might have answered that the place of a woman was in the kitchen cooking food and tending babies. Argumentum ad populum.

Further, "ugliness" if anything is a social construct. Honestly, I think we can all agree that aesthetic tastes vary. As it's not something objective, it's not something we ought to judge by. Similarly, I'd put it that smells are subjective (I for one can't stand the smell of some perfumes, it's just too much) and as such, from an objective point of view, really oughtn't matter at all.

No, but that certain people look different is a fact. Another fact is that your body and the bacteria on it secretes chemicals that are known to smell unpleasant. By washing and applying deodorant you are stopping a build up of these unpleasant chemicals. This isn't a product of our time or a social construct, sir. This is simply a fact.

Now, tell me, why should we accommodate people who refuse to wash when the solution to their issue is so easy and simple?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we doing a thought experiment on the smelly kind when this thread is about gamer chicks and gamer dudes getting along?

Not that it's not an interesting discussion, but is this the place for it?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And if we'd asked people 100 years ago, 9/10 might have answered that the place of a woman was in the kitchen cooking food and tending babies. Argumentum ad populum.

Further, "ugliness" if anything is a social construct. Honestly, I think we can all agree that aesthetic tastes vary. As it's not something objective, it's not something we ought to judge by. Similarly, I'd put it that smells are subjective (I for one can't stand the smell of some perfumes, it's just too much) and as such, from an objective point of view, really oughtn't matter at all.

No, but that certain people look different is a fact. Another fact is that your body and the bacteria on it secretes chemicals that are known to smell unpleasant. By washing and applying deodorant you are stopping a build up of these unpleasant chemicals. This isn't a product of our time or a social construct, sir. This is simply a fact.

Now, tell me, why should we accommodate people who refuse to wash when the solution to their issue is so easy and simple?

Arguably for the same reason that we should accomodate people who don't want to have to wear a certain kind of clothing or behave in a particular manner. After all, all they'd have to do is not do/wear whatever it is we object to.

 kronk wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we doing a thought experiment on the smelly kind when this thread is about gamer chicks and gamer dudes getting along?

Not that it's not an interesting discussion, but is this the place for it?

I'd argue that it's "second-hand related" to the topic, inasfar as it pertains to a matter that pertains to the main subject matter at hand. We started off discussing why there aren't more female players in the wargaming hobby, body odors was offered as a contributing cause. I'm merely building on that claim and trying to examine wether it holds water or not.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And if we'd asked people 100 years ago, 9/10 might have answered that the place of a woman was in the kitchen cooking food and tending babies. Argumentum ad populum.

Further, "ugliness" if anything is a social construct. Honestly, I think we can all agree that aesthetic tastes vary. As it's not something objective, it's not something we ought to judge by. Similarly, I'd put it that smells are subjective (I for one can't stand the smell of some perfumes, it's just too much) and as such, from an objective point of view, really oughtn't matter at all.

No, but that certain people look different is a fact. Another fact is that your body and the bacteria on it secretes chemicals that are known to smell unpleasant. By washing and applying deodorant you are stopping a build up of these unpleasant chemicals. This isn't a product of our time or a social construct, sir. This is simply a fact.

Now, tell me, why should we accommodate people who refuse to wash when the solution to their issue is so easy and simple?

Arguably for the same reason that we should accomodate people who don't want to have to wear a certain kind of clothing or behave in a particular manner. After all, all they'd have to do is not do/wear whatever it is we object to.

Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

Is it indeed, though? I dislike stenchly neckbeards as much as the next guy, but the argument being presented in this thread is that, at least in certain stores, they're the majority.

I could be misinterpreting him, but I believe where AlmightyWalrus is going with this is that it could seem odd to ask an extant group to change their behavior to suit a highly theoretical addition that may or may not ever actually materialize. Something to consider, either way.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

Is it indeed, though? I dislike stenchly neckbeards as much as the next guy, but the argument being presented in this thread is that, at least in certain stores, they're the majority.

I could be misinterpreting him, but I believe where AlmightyWalrus is going with this is that it could seem odd to ask an extant group to change their behavior to suit a highly theoretical addition that may or may not ever actually materialize. Something to consider, either way.

If it were just a matter of "girls don't join the hobby because fat dudes are stinky" you'd be right (but that argument isn't exactly settled yet), however there are a lot of guys in this thread who are complaining about the smell of certain players, independant of the desire to attract women to the game. I'm a guy gamer. I am already in the hobby and am not a theoretical addition and I think there are a lot of dudes who could stand to be introduced to showers and soap and deodorant, and there seem to be a lot of guys in this thread who have the same opinion. Yeah, if smelly dudes stopped being smelly, girls might come play plastic dudemen with us. BUT, if smelly dudes stopped being smelly, we'd all have a much nicer time standing around the table in the back room playing plastic dudemen.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

Is it indeed, though? I dislike stenchly neckbeards as much as the next guy, but the argument being presented in this thread is that, at least in certain stores, they're the majority.

I could be misinterpreting him, but I believe where AlmightyWalrus is going with this is that it could seem odd to ask an extant group to change their behavior to suit a highly theoretical addition that may or may not ever actually materialize. Something to consider, either way.

Oh. I thought we were arguing about that one smelly guy that's putting everyone off and whether it is right to get him to bathe.

Hmm, that's a bit trickier. If they are in the majority it is still wrong of them to not bathe but at the same time you have no leverage to get them to start taking regular showers. I suppose in that case you could either complain to the store owner about it or make your own club.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

Is it indeed, though? I dislike stenchly neckbeards as much as the next guy, but the argument being presented in this thread is that, at least in certain stores, they're the majority.

I could be misinterpreting him, but I believe where AlmightyWalrus is going with this is that it could seem odd to ask an extant group to change their behavior to suit a highly theoretical addition that may or may not ever actually materialize. Something to consider, either way.

This, basically, but even if they're not in the majority, why are they the ones who must change to conform to some sort of standard?

squidhills wrote:
BUT, if smelly dudes stopped being smelly, we'd all have a much nicer time standing around the table in the back room playing plastic dudemen.

This is what I'm trying to point out; you're assuming that your definition of what constitutes a nice time is the only valid one. If the people who smell don't care or even like it (probably a very theoretical situation, admittedly, but still) why is it that they'd have to change to accomodate your taste? Or, by extention, that of anyone? Us being in the majority opinion (that people who smell are unpleasant) doesn't make us right, it just makes us the majority.

If you don't think that smelling bad is wrong in of itself then there is no reason why a group of smelly people should accommodate your tastes. If you are asking if there is an inherent, objective reason of why it's wrong... Well, I guess it can't be good for your health but then there is a lot of habits like that.

So, yes, I suppose then there is no inherent, objective reason of why it is wrong to be smelly and that asking people to start bathing is just to get them to change to match your sensibilities. However, I am of the opinion that the majority rules in this case. If you are impacting the quality of life for the majority of people then I believe that is wrong if you can do something to easily to change it. In the case of the obnoxious movie goer he can hang up his phone or in the case of the unwashed man he can take a bath. That way, everyone can enjoy the movie and the game.

Admittedly this sentiment gets tricky because the definition of "Easily changed" is highly subjective.

"Smelling bad" may be shorthand for the variety of issues mentioned in this thread.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

squidhills wrote:
BUT, if smelly dudes stopped being smelly, we'd all have a much nicer time standing around the table in the back room playing plastic dudemen.

This is what I'm trying to point out; you're assuming that your definition of what constitutes a nice time is the only valid one. If the people who smell don't care or even like it (probably a very theoretical situation, admittedly, but still) why is it that they'd have to change to accomodate your taste? Or, by extention, that of anyone? Us being in the majority opinion (that people who smell are unpleasant) doesn't make us right, it just makes us the majority.

My only rebuttal is that society has some generally agreed-upon standards of hygene, behavior and dress that, if ignored, can lead to people being ostracized from groups. From a legal standpoint, a male player could show up to a 40K game wearing a mankini and a pair of shoes, but society agrees that that is not appropriate dress for a trip to the FLGS. People in the store would be within their rights to ask that person (probably named Borat) to go home and change or refuse to play with him. Americans generally have agreed that showering once a day is the acceptable standard of hygene that people should meet when going out to interact with others socially (can't say this for everyone in the world, but we Yanks love our shower products). Did you just finish a shift working in a hot warehouse or at a construction site? Then its understandable that you might be a tad ripe, and most people would give you a pass. Did you just get out of bed and do you already stink like a three day old corpse? Perhaps learning to shower before you head out to the FLGS would be in order, as society has generally agreed that smelling like a three day old corpse, when you have it in your power to do something to correct the smell, is a bad thing. Failing to meet society's agreed-upon minimum standards can lead to people not wanting to have anything to do with you, and that is not society's fault. Put another way, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Just because you can choose to not shower and then go around to enclosed buildings and stand in close proximity to other people, doesn't mean that you should, as other people may not want your particular odors inflicted upon them. Showering isn't about individuality or sticking it to the man; it is about being considerate of others, which is a basic social interaction trait.

This is going to come off way too callous, but I dont care. I guess I have to define what I meant, since there is always a 'bleeding heart' out there who has to say 'thats not fair to........'. When they know I and others did not include that group of people from the start.

I don't care if my opponent is: fat, ugly, male, female, alien mutant, jaundice, has an incurable std, cancer patient who is bald and proud, hell I don't care if they have a cold, but pure bad hygene is where I draw the line.

Medical conditions like Trimethylaminuria are treatable with diet restrictions, antibiotics and special soaps. It does not smell the same as a guy who just hit the Gym or worked outside in 30 C/86 F for 8 hours or sat in his apartment for 3 days with no shower.

The people I'm talking about are the people who refuse to take care of themselves or don't care too. Some people even have an adversion to deoderant because they: tested them on animals, cause x disease or y disorder, unnatural, etc. Simple go into a natural/ organic store or on the internet and find a host of eco friendly 100% natural deoderants for the same price as my animal tested Right Guard. (not sure if Right Guard does that just sayin')

Why should they change for the majority of people? The same reason I change my behavior in public, its a common courtesy of society. When I'm at home I belch at the dinner table, walk around with no shirt on, and may not shower saturday morning. Why, Im at home. When in public I never belch while dinning, always wear a shirt, and shower before I leave home. Doesn't matter if I'm on a date with my wife, at work, or at my FLGS its simple courtesy to others and not for my benefit.

On a related note, if you're wearing too much perfume or axe body spray or whatever new awful-smelling thing people douse themselves in, that can be just as bad as body odor. Sometimes it's even worse, as I'm pretty sure no one is allergic to funky body smells, but loads of people will go into a sneezing fit over your gallon of Sexy Cougar Funtime cologne.

 Badablack wrote:
On a related note, if you're wearing too much perfume or axe body spray or whatever new awful-smelling thing people douse themselves in, that can be just as bad as body odor. Sometimes it's even worse, as I'm pretty sure no one is allergic to funky body smells, but loads of people will go into a sneezing fit over your gallon of Sexy Cougar Funtime cologne.

This, people who wear Axe body spray in hopes of recreating the commercials make my wife wrinkle her nose and cause my toddlers to cry and I personally despise the stench.

Not quite as bad as the guy who asked if he could eat Surstromming in my house.

I was once unaware of what that was, but after that, hoo boy I'd rather dunk my head in Hakarl for a year than ever relive that.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Some people even have an adversion to deoderant because they: tested them on animals

Not those sold at The Body Shop. I just hope I knew a place to buy toothpaste not tested on animals.

Did anyone else wonder how they test toothpaste/pitstick on animals? Like do they grab a dog and brush his teeth? Cause I have been doing that to mine for years his teeth are amazing but when he sees that brush.....omg he is fast and limber. Also What animals even have pit sweetglands?

So, in the end body odor more or less comes down to "because society says so!", as opposed to any actual negative reprecussions to society at large, such as in the example of rape jokes?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, in the end body odor more or less comes down to "because society says so!", as opposed to any actual negative reprecussions to society at large, such as in the example of rape jokes?

Well, you're not going to shout out rape jokes in public, either...