Support NeoGAF

[thatbox]

Out of curiosity did she use the word 'harmful' or is this something else made up? In any case, sexual objectification and its impacts is a mainly subjective matter.

I'm using the adjective harmful to prevent people like you from trying to argue an absurd position that anytime anyone asks someone out they're engaging in sexualization or objectification or something. It is quite possible that someone would claim that all human sexual interactions include some objectification on someone's part. If we stick to "harmful" we can hopefully avoid that pointless rhetorical path and stick to the widely used traditional negative and not all-inclusive interpretations of the terms.

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

So feminists are gay?

I´d actually love to have a feminist gf (well, any gf, but that´s another matter lol), has to be fun having sex with her. Every time it would turn out like anime-rape.

They would probably read Yaoi, so I don't think it's the anime-rape you're thinking about.

 

[thatbox]

This is not about how you live your life or convincing you that you need to be afraid of X or Y. It's about your apparent inability to empathize with the way that someone else experiences a scenario in a different way from the way you do, and that because your circumstances are different, a situation that you find nonthreatening might be one that someone else finds threatening.

And I think the more appropriate comparison for you to make would be to say that you don't live your life in fear of rape or sexual assault. Why don't you? I would imagine that it is because you are a man and outside of certain contexts (mostly involving incarceration) you are not likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. This is precisely the point I am trying to make - a situation you find non-threatening (man approaching you in an elevator for coffee) is one that a woman might find threatening (man who has been watching you in a bar follows you alone into an elevator and asks you to coffee; is he potentially dangerous?). It is the same scenario, but because you are different genders with different perceptions of risk of sexual assault, you view it differently.

I think that what you should do is try to understand and respect that difference in perspective as opposed to what you are doing.

I completely agree with everything you say in this post, but feeling threatened or uncomfortable doesn't make the other person misogynist for approaching you. The reason society has encouraged these perceptions in you is the feminist issue, not the fact that someone politely asked you out.

 

[nib95]

I'm using the adjective harmful to prevent people like you from trying to argue an absurd position that anytime anyone asks someone out they're engaging in sexualization or objectification or something. It is quite possible that someone would claim that all human sexual interactions include some objectification on someone's part. If we stick to "harmful" we can hopefully avoid that pointless rhetorical path and stick to the widely used traditional negative and not all-inclusive interpretations of the terms.

So also made up then, hmm figures.

Anyway, the harmful part is subjective, as is the tact of the approach itself. Asking someone out is one thing, following them in to an elevator and asking them up for coffee is another.

I know if a women who'd been watching me at the bar followed me in to an elevator and told me she found me interesting and wanted to talk more (despite not talking to me prior to this) over coffee....yea...I'd think she was interested in 'sex' as well. I don't thing it would be wrong of me to assume as much, though obviously I'd still be cautious over her intentions.

But then again I'm not a female, so it's hard for me to relate to the issue of threat.

I completely agree with everything you say in this post, but feeling threatened or uncomfortable doesn't make the other person misogynist for approaching you. The reason society has encouraged these perceptions in you is the feminist issue, not the fact that someone politely asked you out.

As mentioned earlier, she never called him a misogynist for approaching her. It is an assumption on your part.

 

[Piecake]

This is not about how you live your life or convincing you that you need to be afraid of X or Y. It's about your apparent inability to empathize with the way that someone else experiences a scenario in a different way from the way you do, and that because your circumstances are different, a situation that you find nonthreatening might be one that someone else finds threatening.

And I think the more appropriate comparison for you to make would be to say that you don't live your life in fear of rape or sexual assault. Why don't you? I would imagine that it is because you are a man and outside of certain contexts (mostly involving incarceration) you are not likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. This is precisely the point I am trying to make - a situation you find non-threatening (man approaching you in an elevator for coffee) is one that a woman might find threatening (man who has been watching you in a bar follows you alone into an elevator and asks you to coffee; is he potentially dangerous?). It is the same scenario, but because you are different genders with different perceptions of risk of sexual assault, you view it differently.

I think that what you should do is try to understand and respect that difference in perspective as opposed to what you are doing.

I know. And She is completely justified with her being uncomfortable and awkard and wanting to get out of that situation. What I had a problem with in your post is that you said it is prudent to see all men as potential rapists since 6 out of 10 men commit some sort of sexual assault

I am not claiming that that she shouldnt be uncomfortable or worried in that situation, but living in constant fear of evil man rapists is just fucking stupid. If a situation makes you worried, thats totally justified, gtf out of there. If you are constantly wary of every man you see because you view them as potential rapists, then you have some serious issues.

 

[msv]

But then again I'm not a female, so it's hard for me to relate to the issue of threat.

There was no threat. None. That's why she was being paranoid. Her being uncomfortable is an issue of paranoia, not (potential) misogyny, sexual objectification or potential rape.

 

[nib95]

There was no threat. None. That's why she was being paranoid. Her being uncomfortable is an issue of paranoia, not (potential) misogyny, sexual objectification or potential rape.

There's no way any of us can safely say that. We have no idea if socially awkward man was a threat or not.

That said, she handled the situation perfectly. She politely declined his offer and that was that. Her posts on her blog about her personal thoughts on the matter are well within her rights, and people trying to shoot down her opinions are being a bit crass imo.

Someone mentioned earlier when she declined the guy persisted, but since no link was posted I'm just going to shrug that off as also made up, along with her calling the guy an outright rapist, sexist or misogynist.

 

[Igo]

There was no threat. None. That's why she was being paranoid. Her being uncomfortable is an issue of paranoia, not (potential) misogyny, sexual objectification or potential rape.

Nor was it a response every women would have. She has every right to ask men not to approach her in an elevator - though it doesn't mean men have to oblige - but she doesn't speak for all women. It sounds like she thinks she does though, and any women with a differing opinion is just propagating misogyny and sexual objectification.

edit. I should really proof read my posts before i hit submit.

 

[devilhawk]

As mentioned earlier, she never called him a misogynist for approaching her. It is an assumption on your part.

Yet we make the assumption that the man wanted anything beyond coffee and talk?

 

[nib95]

Yet we make the assumption that the man wanted anything beyond coffee and talk?

Yes, but we also make the point that it is just that, an assumption (one that could prove untrue).

 

[faceless007]

I am not claiming that that she shouldnt be uncomfortable or worried in that situation, but living in constant fear of evil man rapists is just fucking stupid.

Who's doing that?

Again with the straw feminist....

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

HaHa! This shit is still going.

While you patzers were sitting around mincing the words of some ugly feminist blogger and some old fart who probably hasn't had an erection since the first gulf war, I went out and sexually objectified a woman. She returned the favor. I'm going to do it again before the sun goes down.

Someone stop me! I'm a misogynist!

 

[Piecake]

Who's doing that?

Again with the straw feminist....

Huh? Mumei claimed that the prudent thing to do is view all men as potential rapists since 6 out of 10 men commit sexual assault.

Woops, apparently its 1 in 6 women are victims of sexual assault

 

[faceless007]

Then you switched back to saying "she" so I assume you were referring to Watson. Sorry if you weren't.

 

[thatbox]

As mentioned earlier, she never called him a misogynist for approaching her. It is an assumption on your part.

She concretely called him a sexualizer "in that manner," a sexual objectifier, and a "possible" misogynist. All of these are out of line without any assumptions whatsoever on my part.

 

[nib95]

She concretely called him a sexualizer "in that manner," a sexual objectifier, and a "possible" misogynist. All of these are out of line without any assumptions whatsoever on my part.

Not at all. He most probably was sexually objectifying her. Or do you believe otherwise? Lol.

 

[Mortrialus]

Yes, but we also make the point that it is just that, an assumption (one that could prove untrue).

Really now? Matthew Gallant says otherwise.

along with her calling the guy an outright rapist, sexist or misogynist.

You're being disingenuous like many others in this thread because thatbox and I have posted multiple quotes from her claiming the man who asked her out as a possible misogynist and calling out others who have called her out specifically on her thoughts on the man as "Propagating misogynistic views."

 

[Sennorin]

Not at all. He most probably was sexually objectifying her. Or do you believe otherwise? Lol.

So you don´t know what "objectifying" means. Gotcha.

 

[thatbox]

Not at all. He most probably was sexually objectifying her. Or do you believe otherwise? Lol.

I absolutely believe otherwise, yes. It is entirely possible to have respectful male-female sexual relationships of any duration.

 

[Piecake]

Then you switched back to saying "she" so I assume you were referring to Watson. Sorry if you weren't.

Well, I was, but in the context that she is completely justified in that situation to feel uncomfortable since I was being called out for not understanding people's feelings. I didnt or didnt mean to imply that Watson said that women should live in constant fear of evil man rapists since, to my knowledge, she has never said something like that.

 

[shintoki]

Should of asked her this.


I'm going to say this. The guy who asked her definitely should have asked at a different time. Going into an elevator to ask a girl you never meant, if she wants to go to your room at 4AM. If he just asked her out to breakfast or something, it would have sounded much better. Hopefully he just took it as a learning experience.

2nd, saying how everyone was wonderful... except for one man to a public platform. Similar to the guy above. I don't particular thing anything was wrong with what she meant. Don't ask me to come to your room at 4AM if I don't know you. But she could have just left it at that or phrased it better. The more she went on, the worse it got.

Dawkins, is completely right basically about everything. Including her initial point, his counter point, and every damn thing relevant to its discussion including this thread. Guy asks girl out at bad time. Gets rejected. That is it. Nothing is wrong with wanting to go back to the room and shag it out either. I see white whine, 1st world problems, etc, used a lot to describe stuff like this. Are we going to have meltdown over Machine Gun Preacher? Another white knight thread over a Kim-dash's ass? Can Beyonce Sing or not? EA smack talking Steam again? Complaining about how pop music sucks today with the MTV music awards? It includes this very post right here. The argument always feels weak because you basically condemn everyone including yourself.

 

[Count Dookkake]

IMO "in that manner" refers to the specific combination of:

1) Approaching after being informed she was tired.

2) Approaching in an elevator.

3) Approaching in absence of others.

4) Being undesirable/awkward.

This is not just about feebly asking out a chick. Had any of these variables changed, we would not have been having this conversation.

 

[faceless007]

Way to keep it classy.

It was a smart-ass way of saying this: It really isn't up to us guys what constitutes unhealthy objectification because we're not the ones it makes feel uncomfortable. She felt uncomfortable. Either you acknowledge her right to feel whatever the fuck she does, which is a pretty damn basic intrinsic right, or you claim the right to determine for all women what they should feel toward you. Which is a little like white people telling black people what is and isn't racist.

I suspect we would just go around in circles, because I really don't see any way around the idea that he was propositioning her, and therefore sexualizing her. The bar was still open, he could have asked her to keep talking before she left, and he didn't have to say "my room."

I don't care what she does beyond falsely categorizing this interaction - this is, incidentally, the same thing that Dawkins seized on. He feels that calling things like this sexist/misogynistic/etc. is harmful to the cause of fighting actual sexism/misogyny/etc. His response was absolutely overly caustic, but that's Dawkins.

Where's the chain of events that starts with Watson derying the guy in the elevator and ends with people taking FGM less seriously? How the fuck does that logic work? No, it's the same tired old fallacy, which I would have thought Dawkins was above, that "You can't talk about X because you haven't written 10,000 words about tangentially-related subject Y, therefore you're a hypocrite." Even if that argument was valid, which it isn't, it doesn't apply because Watson has in fact spent a fair amount of energy as a skeptical advocate talking about gender and the religious right and FGM and other issues.

I disagree. If she hadn't attempted to turn the incident into a feminist issue, nobody else would be arguing that it isn't. People relate socially awkward situations on their blogs all the time without trying to escalate normal, trivial social interactions into massive social commentary. Someone politely hitting on someone else is not inherently wrong, regardless of the sexes and genders involved.

Once again, the straw feminist. Two goddamn minutes on a persona vlog was not "massive social commentary," nor did she at any point claim that "hitting on someone else is inherently wrong." The relevant factors keep getting omitted: It was 4 am, she was alone, she had already expressed a desire to go to bed, had been drinking, she was in a foreign country, in an elevator. And it made her uncomfortable. Initially, at least, that's all she said. It wasn't until the rape threats and misogynistic vile started pouring in, and Dawkins, that she put it in the broader context of the supposedly enlightened, rational skeptic community still being pretty damn sexist. And she was absolutely right about that being a feminist issue.

 

[Sennorin]

IMO "in that manner" refers to the specific combination of:

1) Approaching after being informed she was tired.

2) Approaching in an elevator.

3) Approaching in absence of others.

4) Being undesirable/awkward.

This is not just about feebly asking out a chick. Had any of these variables changed, we would not have been having this conversation.

None of these justify her public outrage. Ffs, the guy could have asked her in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night and it still wouldn´t have made him a potential rapist.

How about girls realizing how it takes a lot of courage to ask them?!

 

[Count Dookkake]

None of these justify her public outrage. Ffs, the guy could have asked her in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night and it still wouldn´t have made him a potential rapist.

How about girls realizing how it takes a lot of courage to ask them?!

I don't see her initial comments as outrage. Sounded more like a pro-tip.

I think that most girls realize that it takes courage for socially awkward guys to ask them out. Do socially awkward guys realize that it can take courage to say "no"?

 

[thatbox]

It was a smart-ass way of saying this: It really isn't up to us guys what constitutes unhealthy objectification because we're not the ones it makes feel uncomfortable. She felt uncomfortable. Either you acknowledge her right to feel whatever the fuck she does, which is a pretty damn basic intrinsic right, or you claim the right to determine for all women what they should feel toward you. Which is a little like white people telling black people what is and isn't racist.

She can absolutely feel however she wants to feel, but whether or not the guy is a misogynist doesn't hinge or her feelings: it hinges on whether or not he's a misogynist, and nothing she revealed about the encounter supports that label.

I suspect we would just go around in circles, because I really don't see any way around the idea that he was propositioning her, and therefore sexualizing her. The bar was still open, he could have asked her to keep talking before she left, and he didn't have to say "my room."

I don't think the bar was still open. The article in the OP says that Watson and her fellow skeptics were "closing down the bar," so it sounds like everyone was leaving. And this is the exact issue I was hoping to avoid - maybe respectfully propositioning someone is sexualizing, but it is not unhealthy and completely unrelated to feminism. Under such a broad interpretation, anytime anyone politely pursues someone else he or she is "sexualizing" the other person.

Where's the chain of events that starts with Watson derying the guy in the elevator and ends with people taking FGM less seriously? How the fuck does that logic work? No, it's the same tired old fallacy, which I would have thought Dawkins was above, that "You can't talk about X because you haven't written 10,000 words about tangentially-related subject Y, therefore you're a hypocrite." Even if that argument was valid, which it isn't, it doesn't apply because Watson has in fact spent a fair amount of energy as a skeptical advocate talking about gender and the religious right and FGM and other issues.

And if she has spent so much time talking about these issues, you would think she would recognize that this incident isn't one of them (which is Dawkins's point).

Once again, the straw feminist. Two goddamn minutes on a persona vlog was not "massive social commentary," nor did she at any point claim that "hitting on someone else is inherently wrong." The relevant factors keep getting omitted: It was 4 am, she was alone, she had already expressed a desire to go to bed, had been drinking, she was in a foreign country, in an elevator. And it made her uncomfortable. Initially, at least, that's all she said. It wasn't until the rape threats and misogynistic vile started pouring in, and Dawkins, that she put it in the broader context of the supposedly enlightened, rational skeptic community still being pretty damn sexist. And she was absolutely right about that being a feminist issue.

The elevator incident isn't a feminist issue. The absurd threats and bashing she has experienced since this went viral on the internet are a feminist issue.

 

[Speedymanic]

I don't see her initial comments as outrage. Sounded more like a pro-tip.

I think that most girls realize that it takes courage for socially awkward guys to ask them out. Do socially awkward guys realize that it can take courage to say "no"?

It doesn't take courage to say no. If anything, it takes courage to say yes as most girls will be putting their fears to one side and hoping for the best possible outcome.

 

[faceless007]

It's NOT a big deal that she vlogged about it.

Then why did that provoke such outrage?

It's NOT a big deal that Dawkins commented on her (with a sound argument, though flamey/trollingly).

"Stop talking about X because Y exists" is not a sound argument. You ever complain about anything, ever, on this forum? Video game, crappy roommate, asshole boss? Tough, people are starving in Africa. So, no criticizing anything, ever, I guess?

It IS a big deal that she's gunning for boycotting Dawkins' books,

Christ, will people cut it with the straw feminist crap? No she isn't (see #4).

it IS a big deal that there's this incredibly stupid and misguided article in the OP, it IS a big deal that she's mentioning her paranoia and actual sexual assault in the same breadth. All around it's ridiculous.

Once again, assuming your premise, which I don't, how the fuck does one single blogger being irrationally paranoid justify the shitstorm in response? OK, so she's paranoid? Why is it important that this one particular travesty of injustice against all men be corrected? Why is that a big deal?

 

[shintoki]

None of these justify her public outrage. Ffs, the guy could have asked her in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night and it still wouldn´t have made him a potential rapist.

How about girls realizing how it takes a lot of courage to ask them?!

Not to sound mean, it doesn't make you a potential rapist. But it sure as fuck isn't going to do you any favors and only going to make you come off creepy.

I think she went into it more than she should have. Similar to how he should have read the situation better. But I don't see much wrong with what she was trying to get at either.

 

[faceless007]

She can absolutely feel however she wants to feel, but whether or not the guy is a misogynist doesn't hinge or her feelings: it hinges on whether or not he's a misogynist, and nothing she revealed about the encounter supports that label.

Which is why she never called him a misogynist, she only described the issue as a whole as one of "potential misogyny." Which it was.

don't think the bar was still open. The article in the OP says that Watson and her fellow skeptics were "closing down the bar," so it sounds like everyone was leaving.

Skip to 10:00. The bar was still open.

And this is the exact issue I was hoping to avoid - maybe respectfully propositioning someone is sexualizing, but it is not unhealthy and completely unrelated to feminism. Under such a broad interpretation, anytime anyone politely pursues someone else he or she is "sexualizing" the other person.

Once again, I will note the irony of a guy dictating to the feminist community what is and isn't worthy of being considered a feminist issue. In any case, in the loosest sense possible, it is a feminist issue because of the following factors which you keep ignoring: It was 4 am, she was alone, she was in a confined space, and, and this is the most important one, she had already expressed her wishes to go to bed. To ignore that and proposition her in violation of her own wishes, is in fact, in the loosest, mildest, and least harmful possible sense, an example of a man asserting over his will over the woman, which is the crux of feminism. No, it wasn't rape or even sexual assault. Which is precisely why it warranted, to her, no more than a two-minute digression in a personal vlog.

And if she has spent so much time talking about these issues, you would think she would recognize that this incident isn't one of them (which is Dawkins's point).

And therefore what? She shouldn't even talk about it for 2 minutes in a personal vlog?

 

[Sennorin]

Not to sound mean, it doesn't make you a potential rapist. But it sure as fuck isn't going to do you any favors and only going to make you come off creepy.

I think she went into it more than she should have. Similar to how he should have read the situation better. But I don't see much wrong with what she was trying to get at either.

I agree. But it also makes me slightly sad and angry, how a guy cannot want to fuck a girl without the girl accusing him of being some kind of sick fuck. Dear girls of the world, I want to fuck you. Thank you.

Thing is, why did she feel the need to publicly demonize that guy, and why did she think that she´s doing her feminist agenda any good by blowing such a case that much out of proportion? God, makes me so angry. I sent her an e-mail an hour ago, wonder if she´s going to reply.

 

[msv]

Then why did that provoke such outrage?

I don't know. Better question would be, do I care? Answer is no.

Christ, will people cut it with the straw feminist crap? No she isn't (see #4)

Stupid logic to get out under some dumb stuff she said. She doesn't read his books, because he made her cry, boo-hoo.

Once again, assuming your premise, which I don't, how the fuck does one single blogger being irrationally paranoid justify the shitstorm in response? OK, so she's paranoid? Why is it important that this one particular travesty of injustice against all men be corrected? Why is that a big deal?

What shitstorm? And what the fuck do I and my arguments have to do with it?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Even if you think the first words out of your mouth when talking to a random lady being hitting her up for a one-night stand isn't the teeniest bit misogynist, it is obvious that her elevator experience was at the very least an issue of potential misogyny-- because talking about it released that potential. The potential was measured at 64.593 KiloBitchisuglyandneedstogetlaids and converted with a 93.772% efficiency.

 

[BocoDragon]

I agree. But it also makes me slightly sad and angry, how a guy cannot want to fuck a girl without the girl accusing him of being some kind of sick fuck. Dear girls of the world, I want to fuck you. Thank you.

Thing is, why did she feel the need to publicly demonize that guy, and why did she think that she´s doing her feminist agenda any good by blowing such a case that much out of proportion? God, makes me so angry. I sent her an e-mail an hour ago, wonder if she´s going to reply.

You're White Knighting the dude?

 

[Always-honest]

You're White Knighting the dude?

how is he?

 

[Mumei]

Not to sound mean, it doesn't make you a potential rapist. But it sure as fuck isn't going to do you any favors and only going to make you come off creepy.

I think she went into it more than she should have. Similar to how he should have read the situation better. But I don't see much wrong with what she was trying to get at either.

Correct.

If it is true that women are at greater risk of sexual assault and rape than men, that that risk is not a small one, and that women have imperfect knowledge of the intentions of men they interact with (all of which are true), then women have to do a threat gauge based on your behavior, the environment, etc. So if you want to be non-threatening, you should consider those same factors as to how you come across.

If you are interested in a woman and don't want to come off as creepy or threatening, don't approach her alone in the middle of a dark parking lot or cornered on an elevator. This is pretty simple stuff, and complaints that it takes courage to ask in the first place don't really register. Sure, it might take a level of courage to ask, but that doesn't prevent you from choosing an appropriate time and place - and that was all she was saying.

 

[dinazimmerman]

5.Saying I’m “too ugly to rape” misses the scientific fact that rape has nothing to do with attraction. Babies get raped, in case you hadn’t noticed.

The paragon of rationality and skepticism, people. =P

 

[Sennorin]

If you are interested in a woman and don't want to come off as creepy or threatening, don't approach her alone in the middle of a dark parking lot or cornered on an elevator. This is pretty simple stuff, and complaints that it takes courage to ask in the first place don't really register. Sure, it might take a level of courage to ask, but that doesn't prevent you from choosing an appropriate time and place - and that was all she was saying.

Okay. So we can choose between 1.) living in a fear-mongering world where guys cannot approach girls because location and time are indicative of evil motives and 2.) freeing our minds from silly prejudice and judge every individual for his/her deserved worth, not labeling them as potential dangers. I think 2.) sounds nicer, doesn´t it.

 

[Dude Abides]

Okay. So we can choose between 1.) living in a fear-mongering world where guys cannot approach girls because location and time are indicative of evil motives and 2.) freeing our minds from silly prejudice and judge every individual for his/her deserved worth, not labeling them as potential dangers. I think 2.) sounds nicer, doesn´t it.

Making inferences about someone's possible intentions based on the location and time they approach you is actually the opposite of silly and has nothing to do with prejudice.

 

[etiolate]

I'm not all that fond of Richard Dawkins, and I do agree that greater evils do not render lesser evils unimportant, but that girl is definitely overreacting. Simply getting hit on in that manner is not sexism. Reminds me of this "alert" I received through my campus email a quarter or two ago:

"A female student relayed the following information to UCSC officers about an incident that occurred while she was running on a Pogonip trail near the UCSC Firehouse at around 11:30 yesterday morning:

She reported that she noticed a male jogging behind her, that she asked him not to, and that he complied with her request.

Officers searched the area but were unable to locate the male. He is described as white; about 20 years of age; of medium height; shirtless, wearing basketball shorts short, and a backwards baseball cap.

No crime is alleged to have occurred. But as a precaution, we wanted to share this information with you.

Thank you."

What the fuck.

hahaha

I think I posted that same email in some other thread, as I got it, too. I remember just staring at it for a few minutes.

oh santa cruz

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Making inferences about someone's possible intentions based on the location and time they approach you is actually the opposite of silly and has nothing to do with prejudice.

Shut up dude, one time a guy jumped out of a bush on the trail I was hiking on and I wasn't afraid at all. It turned out he just liked to say hi to people really suddenly.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

"Don't ask me for coffee, it's objectifying, LOL."

 

[tiff]

The paragon of rationality and skepticism, people. =P

It often doesn't.

 

[meltingparappa]

"Don't ask me for coffee, it's objectifying, LOL."

She also has a skepchick pinup calendar, and helped organized "boobquake".

The pertinent issue that brings up however, is that obviously she has an absolute right to be in control of how she uses her sexuality, and just because she has used that image as her profile picture in the past isn't an open invitation for sleaziness.

I don't want to throw any more terrible fuel on this ugly fire, but the implication there isn't that far from the argument that rape victims shouldn't have dressed provocatively and ultimately isn't relevant to the discussion at large.

I hope everyone can approach the points that both her and Dawkins brought up, and argue their validity with enough respect to to not seriously go down that awful tangent.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

She also has a skepchick pinup calendar, and helped organized "boobquake".

The pertinent issue that brings up however, is that obviously she has an absolute right to be in control of how she uses her sexuality, and just because she has used that image as her profile picture in the past isn't an open invitation for sleaziness.

I completely agree, and I even thought of putting in that exact disclaimer. I thought otherwise so someone like you would say something so I could expand upon it.

I don't want to throw any more terrible fuel on this ugly fire, but the implication there isn't that far from the argument that rape victims shouldn't have dressed provocatively and ultimately isn't relevant to the discussion at large.

This is terribly wrong.

"It's your fault you were raped, you shouldn't dress in that manner" is nowhere near "You pose for pin-up calender and feel sexualize and objectified when someone invites you to their room for coffee?" Women are completely free and welcome to express her sexuality, but someone who poses for such photos looks like a fucking hypocrite when she starts labeling the guy a misogynist and sexual objectifier.

I hope everyone can approach the points that both her and Dawkins brought up, and argue their validity with enough respect to to not seriously go down that awful tangent.

Dawkins was a complete dick about the situation, no doubt. She got patted on the back and saying she was assaulted, by that I mean she's being overly sensitive and pretty offensive to women who have actually suffered sexual violence against them or even threatened by it.

She desperately needs perspective. She was not objectified, she was invited back to someone's room for coffee. The unknown man is not a misogynist, he simply extended an offer to a women he found attractive.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

He just invited her to his room for coffee defense force is worst defense force.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

He just invited her to his room for coffee defense force is worst defense force.

You possibly the most dense poster in this thread. You are a disgrace.

 

[Piecake]

He just invited her to his room for coffee defense force is worst defense force.

and you're a prude who apparently sees something wrong with casual hookups and/or asking someone if they want to come in for some 'coffee'.

 

[meltingparappa]

I completely agree, and I even thought of putting in that exact disclaimer. I thought otherwise so someone like you would say something so I could expand upon it.

I should note that I wasn't trying to call YOU out on it, it's just that on both the original blog and the otherwise civil NESS board, inevitably that picture gets posted and the discussion goes down that terrible road.

 

[state-of-the-art]

So essentially this whole thing began with Dawkins posting a trollish comment in the vain of "LOL, white whine." Then people disproportionately came down on Dawkins, which devolved into "Y U NO LET ME HIT ON YOU!?"