Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, February 28, 2013

[OTP - March] Scott wants money for spring training teams

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Tripon Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:05 PM | 2909 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, florida, ot, politics, spring training

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 18 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›
   1701. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4392478)
I think this is a direct quote from Megamind.

We were all 16 once. Lassus will be soon.
   1702. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4392479)
Those whose only contribution, as pathetic as it is, to discussion is to attempt to suppress or restrict it along "our kind doesn't do this" lines have "no hand."


Pointing out inappropriate word choice (and yes it is inappropriate) is hardly suppression or restriction, and I have put forth plenty of other things.

But yeah I stand by my initial statement the fact that you have no idea why it is inappropriate is - while unexpected- very much in tune with your other posts, and sorry Ray is in fact part of the existing "Rape Culture".
   1703. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 20, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4392484)
Don't worry Ray, you weren't 1 of the 2

Really can't add more than 1 person to ignore list? That's weird. I have 2 on mine and have had as many as 7 or 8.

Putting people with opposing viewpoints on ignore

There are always a handful of people that contribute so little to a conversation and annoy one so much that I think it's perfectly logical to put them on ignore.
   1704. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 12:48 PM (#4392489)
No, we've had a number of serious discussions about subjects you don't approve of, or subjects broached in a way you don't approve, and your comments, like those of others, have been just empty suits, restricted to the "I can't believe we're talking about his" and "I can't believe we're talking about this in this way". Then gathering your crinolines about you and going off in a righteous huff. Every time.
   1705. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 12:48 PM (#4392492)
There are always a handful of people that contribute so little to a conversation and annoy one so much that I think it's perfectly logical to put them on ignore.


Yes. More to the point (I think) the site is suppossed to be enjoyable. If you are not enjoying yourself change things. Ignore some people (even me, I don't mind), go to other threads, change how you post, go elsewhere.

Whatever it takes this is not suppossed to be un-fun, the opposite in fact.
   1706. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4392510)
Again, you're not the puritanical ninth-grade teacher.

Strenuous, tough, adversarial discussion and debate is invigorating and, in your word, fun.

You're not having fun? There's the door.

I ignore people--I don't put them on ignore, but I ignore them when to my mind they've shown themselves to be eminently ignorable.

This is about what is said, or should be, not about who says it. That's elementary level debate precept and stricture, yet it is always violated. And always by the same type of mentality. Why? Why is that so hard for the candyass to suck it up and take a discussion that espouses things they don't like. I submit it's because it's their way of trying to win a cheap forfeit. At the minimum that is cheesy.
   1707. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4392512)
and sorry Ray is in fact part of the existing "Rape Culture".


?
   1708. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4392516)
(my aunt loved her dairy cows)


Did she get their consent first?
   1709. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4392519)
No, we've had a number of serious discussions about subjects you don't approve of

What the bloody hell are you talking about? What subjects aren't approved of? Disagreeing with you or incredultiy over your views isn't the same thing as overall disagreement with the topic's existence.


Did she get their consent first?

If you besmirch Snowball's virtue my aunt is going to come kick your ass. She is about three times your size, no lie, and that was even before your new Mudder existence.
   1710. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4392520)
and sorry Ray is in fact part of the existing "Rape Culture".

That's out of bounds. I know Ray, and I can't imagine him ever hurting a woman, or condoning someone who did.

Please retract that.
   1711. tfbg9 Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4392521)
5' 3". I am small. I married up so the boys will both be taller than me


AKA, "The Liddy Strategy."
   1712. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4392524)
and sorry Ray is in fact part of the existing "Rape Culture".


?


Double concur this ? What the hell has Ray done to promote this ubiquitous, ill-defined, catch-all notion of "rape culture?"
   1713. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:06 PM (#4392525)
That's out of bounds. I know Ray, and I can't imagine him ever hurting a woman


Hell, sometimes I have a hard time imagining Ray talking to a woman, much less touching one.
   1714. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:07 PM (#4392526)
If you besmirch Snowball's virtue my aunt is going to come kick your ass.


It's not Snowball's virtue I'm questioning. I'm just wondering how one goes about getting informed consent with a bovine, that's all. Are all dairy farms so inundated with rape culture?
   1715. Blastin Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4392529)
That's out of bounds. I know Ray, and I can't imagine him ever hurting a woman, or condoning someone who did.


That's not what Rape Culture means. It's not the same as "likely rapist." It just means he's perpetuating and not challenging the societal factors that lead to, if not the bad acts themselves, then the discrediting and mistreating of the victim after the fact.

Anyway, just understand it does not mean he is or is likely to become a rapist.

(Note: I'm not saying he is or isn't - although many more people are part of said culture than actually commit crimes.)
   1716. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4392530)
That's out of bounds. I know Ray, and I can't imagine him ever hurting a woman, or condoning someone who did.

Please retract that.


That doesn't help. That's playing the absurd game of that odious mentality I referenced. If someone thinks someone is part of the existing rape culture, whatever that is, they can specify and make an argument. Otherwise,it's just in the nature of a diffused ad hominem. Debate and argument is not or should not be about calumniating or vouching for the debaters. They are immaterial to the subject.

   1717. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4392536)
I'm just wondering how one goes about getting informed consent with a bovine, that's all. Are all dairy farms so inundated with rape culture?

I'm down with sex-with-farm-animal jokes, I've been to Georgia on numerous occasions, I can usually see the family resemblance in places like Columbus and Macon.

But in all seriousness, you don't think what you've written above is more than a bit trivializing?
   1718. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4392543)
That doesn't help. That's playing the absurd game of that odious mentality I referenced. If someone thinks someone is part of the existing rape culture, whatever that is, they can specify and make an argument. Otherwise,it's just in the nature of a diffused ad hominem. Debate and argument is not or should not be about calumniating or vouching for the debaters. They are immaterial to the subject.

Bitter is the one who started with the calumny. I only vouched in response to that.

If he deletes his calumny, I'm happy to delete my vouching.
   1719. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4392545)
But in all seriousness, you don't think what you've written above is more than a bit trivializing?


The entire point of slicing into holy cows is to trivialize them somewhat, in order to release the extra gases which contribute to their bloat.
   1720. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4392546)
That's not what Rape Culture means. It's not the same as "likely rapist." It just means he's perpetuating and not challenging the societal factors that lead to, if not the bad acts themselves, then the discrediting and mistreating of the victim after the fact.


But that becomes condemnation of any objection whatsoever to the prevailing PC conventional wisdom. Which we've seen here from the very beginning. Ray (I can't believe I'm saying this) and SugarBear in particular have tried to be very precise about facts and issue, and all they've gotten is grief--and the grief that comes from unexamined, unthinking kneejerk reactions.

If that's providing sustenance to the "rape culture" so be it. Thinking and argument can't countenance such squeamishness. In fact, such squeamishness becomes nice, convenient cudgel to beat those who have different views about at thing. Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird tells his sister that exact thing which she claims the honor of women needs to be respected at all costs. Not at the price of a man's life, he responds. Or of his freedom I would add. So, fueling the rape culture? Boo ####### hoo.

EDIT: Oops. Rickey, too, has been careful with his argument.
   1721. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4392548)
That's not what Rape Culture means. It's not the same as "likely rapist." It just means he's perpetuating and not challenging the societal factors that lead to, if not the bad acts themselves, then the discrediting and mistreating of the victim after the fact.


A "definition" so utterly devoid of specificity it can be levied without concern or worry about whether or not it means anything at all. Ray is not contributing to "rape culture." Stop lying about him.
   1722. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4392550)
That's not what Rape Culture means. It's not the same as "likely rapist." It just means he's perpetuating and not challenging the societal factors that lead to, if not the bad acts themselves, then the discrediting and mistreating of the victim after the fact.

Anyway, just understand it does not mean he is or is likely to become a rapist.

(Note: I'm not saying he is or isn't - although many more people are part of said culture than actually commit crimes.)


Yeah. If one accepts the "rape culture" construct, I assume very nearly everyone who's participated in this thread, no matter his particular stance, can be considered part of it.
   1723. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4392552)
The entire point of slicing into holy cows is to trivialize them somewhat, in order to release the extra gases which contribute to their bloat.

Sam, I'm having a real hard time understanding how thinking rape/sexual assault should be treated very seriously, and the perpetrators punished severely, is a "Sacred Cow".

I mean, I (and many other conservatives) take the same position as the "liberals" and I am clearly no feminist.
   1724. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4392553)
The summary of what I have done in this thread:

1. State that women, especially young women, should be advised not to put themselves in vulnerable positions.

2. State that I have no complaint with [indeed, I actively support this] investigating/trying the two boys who did this and relying on such proceeding to determine the outcome/sentencing.

3. Agree that from what I've read about this case the girl was either passed out at the times in question or at the very least incapable of giving consent.

4. Disagree with the idea that 16 year old boys are incapable of understanding (1) that rape or sexual assault is wrong and (2) what constitutes said rape or sexual assault.

Bitter Mouse: I look forward to your explanation of how the above makes me "part of the existing rape culture," whatever the hell that is. You're just throwing bombs for the sake of bomb throwing, which is pretty despicable.
   1725. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4392556)
Sam, I'm having a real hard time understanding how thinking rape/sexual assault should be treated very seriously, and the perpetrators punished severely, is a "Sacred Cow".


I haven't suggested that thinking rape/sexual assault should be treated seriously, and the perpetrators be punished*, is a sacred cow. I am taking some issue with the amoeba-like entity of "rape culture" that is being trotted out in lieu of specificity and cogent analysis, though.

*you and I have disagreed on the "severely" portion of the punishment here, and elsewhere, because we disagree on the nature of what the criminal justice system is meant to do.
   1726. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4392558)
A "definition" so utterly devoid of specificity it can be levied without concern or worry about whether or not it means anything at all.

If you get to define yourself as a femninist, don't get pissed when other modern people come up with modern definitions for modern themes and trends.
   1727. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4392559)
But yeah I stand by my initial statement the fact that you have no idea why it is inappropriate is - while unexpected- very much in tune with your other posts, and sorry Ray is in fact part of the existing "Rape Culture".


I'm going to assume that this was written awkwardly and that he meant to connect the failure to realize something is inappropriate is related to the overall "Rape Culture"* rather than asserting that Ray personifies "rape culture" or some such thing...

*and I hate the phrase "rape culture"

   1728. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4392561)
Bitter Mouse: I look forward to your explanation of how the above makes me "part of the existing rape culture," whatever the hell that is. You're just throwing bombs for the sake of bomb throwing, which is pretty despicable.


I'll let BM answer for himself, but your heresy against the "rape culture" movement is in your first bullet. It's anathema to suggest that women might need to be on guard and cautious, because that means you really believe that "they were asking for it" if they weren't. It's stupid, but it's sort of a default stupid for the activist classes, that I've seen.
   1729. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4392563)
I am taking some issue with the amoeba-like entity of "rape culture" that is being trotted out in lieu of specificity and cogent analysis, though.

OK, I agree with you there. This "rape culture" stuff is nonsense in regards to anything said in this thread.

Note: I'm not saying that there can't be rape culture(s) in real life, there certainly are. I'm just saying this thread ain't it.
   1730. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4392565)
If you get to define yourself as a femninist, don't get pissed when other modern people come up with modern definitions for modern themes and trends.


Are you questioning my fem-cred? How quaint.
   1731. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4392566)
And I have my suspicions that many here think To Kill A Mockingbird denigrates the plight of the poor girl. In fact, Malcolm Gladwell did that in a essay he wrote for The New Yorker about the novel.
   1732. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4392575)
If he deletes his calumny, I'm happy to delete my vouching.

Except Devil, to the vociferous applause of her personal Eydie Gorme, Andy, has already denominated much of the conversation and people participating in it part of the "rape culture" so it's hard to get too worked up over someone else joining in.

As noted above, it's a gratiutious and vapid insult barely worthy of attention.
   1733. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4392576)
I'll let BM answer for himself, but your heresy against the "rape culture" movement is in your first bullet. It's anathema to suggest that women might need to be on guard and cautious, because that means you really believe that "they were asking for it" if they weren't. It's stupid, but it's sort of a default stupid for the activist classes, that I've seen.


The fewer women in vulnerable positions, the fewer rapes that will occur. It's simply math and logic. It helps _reduce_ any "rape culture," whateverthehellthatis.

What is the counter argument? That by telling women to be careful I'm signaling to men that it's ok to rape, or that I'm condoning rape? How the hell does one follow from the other?

"Rape culture" has been thrown around as a smear -- the phrase "X is contributing to the rape culture" can have nothing but a negative effect -- and nobody even knows what the hell it is.

Bitter Mouse's comments, defamation, and argument style are disgusting, but, sadly, are not beneath him.
   1734. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4392579)
The fewer women in vulnerable positions, the fewer rapes that will occur. It's simply math and logic. It helps _reduce_ any "rape culture," whateverthehellthatis.

What is the counter argument? That by telling women to be careful I'm signaling to men that it's ok to rape, or that I'm condoning rape? How the hell does one follow from the other?


Yes, it's remarkably stupid. It's like saying that warning people not to walk in Central Park, or withdraw money from an ATM at 3 AM is contributing to the "mugging culture"
   1735. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4392581)
The problem is focusing responsibility on the victim, rather than on the rapist.

It's like telling a libertarian that the taxes they complain about are really their fault since they didn't have the good sense to conduct all their economic transactions off the books.
   1736. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4392583)
Are you questioning my fem-cred? How quaint.

Christ, everything isn't about you, Sam. Move your head out of the way so you aren't blocking all the light in the county and can see the computer screen to read what I wrote and how it applies. It has nothing to do with your defined fem-cred, but about you dismissing anyone else being able to apply terms. You can do it and want to be taken seriously, they can do it as well.
   1737. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4392585)
The problem is focusing responsibility on the victim, rather than on the rapist.

I don't think it's strictly either or. As long as you don't diminish the moral or criminal responsibility of the rapist, I see nothing wrong with saying the victim did some things that made the assault more likely.

In any crime, the perp can be fully responsible, and the victim act stupidly.

I mean, how far does this go? If I tell a women friend, "Don't go out with Rapey Jack, he's been rumored to sexually assault women", am I contributing to a rape culture? Or, am I just being a good friend.
   1738. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4392590)
Actually, there is a "rape culture" out there, but it's the exact opposite of the one posited. The true "rape culture" is the one that's converted (and watered down) the heinous crime of rape into an ideology wherein the "proper" stance on non-rape and potential non-rape is required to be sufficiently "concerned" about rape.

Some of the most loudmouted and vociferous adherents demonstrated the culture in the Duke LAX case, though again it's far broader than just that.
   1739. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4392593)
Actually, there is a "rape culture" out there, but it's the exact opposite of the one posited. The true "rape culture" is the one that's converted (and watered down) the heinous crime of rape into an ideology wherein the "proper" stance on non-rape an potential non-rape is required to be sufficiently "concerned" about rape.

No idea what that means.
   1740. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4392600)
No idea what that means.

Can we find a topic where Morty and SBB can debate something from oppostie sides? Because that would be a dream.
   1741. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4392601)
Christ, everything isn't about you, Sam


Speaking of calumny and defamation!
   1742. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4392605)
Can we find a topic where Morty and SBB can debate something from oppostie sides? Because that would be a dream.

I actually agree with a small percentage of what Morty says and have said so in many threads.
   1743. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4392606)
No idea what that means.

The ideology subscribed to by the Duke LAX loudmouths is a good place to start. "Rape" has grown to have an ideological component -- that ideology is the real "rape culture."

Thus, the calumnies addressed to many of us are perhaps best interpreted as a tu quoque.
   1744. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4392607)
I don't think it's strictly either or. As long as you don't diminish the moral or criminal responsibility of the rapist, I see nothing wrong with saying the victim did some things that made the assault more likely.

In any crime, the perp can be fully responsible, and the victim act stupidly.


Yes. This seems pretty straightforward and obvious. But it's a big no-no in some circles. In "rape culture" activism, the mere suggestion that a victim's actions prior to being assaulted were problematic means you're "blaming the victim" for the crime. See also the recent spate of "slut walk" demonstrations around the country.
   1745. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4392610)
It's anathema to suggest that women might need to be on guard and cautious, because that means you really believe that "they were asking for it" if they weren't.


Not only that. The delusional state of affairs wrt to sex and gender relations goes deeper. The fact is that it is men who are protecting them from other men. They can't protect themselves on their own. You can't say it like that because the implication then is that if women can't protect themselves, they are "inferior", so we all play a game construct of alluding to their rights (in capitals please) to be enforced as a matter of right under a socio-politico-legal system while pretending it is not special concessions they are getting. But make no mistake what that means. It's all a delusional farce we must play--because women insist we do and they get (nay, "force") us men to play along with the pretense.
   1746. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4392616)
Yes. This seems pretty straightforward and obvious. But it's a big no-no in some circles. In "rape culture" activism, the mere suggestion that a victim's actions prior to being assaulted were problematic means you're "blaming the victim" for the crime. See also the recent spate of "slut walk" demonstrations around the country.

Now those actions shouldn't necessarily be admissible in court (like in the old days when the defense could use the "she was asking for it" angle) unless they directly bear on the facts at issue, e.g. being fall-down drunk in this case.
   1747. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4392618)
Christ, everything isn't about you, Sam


It's pretty clear that Sam is laboring under some sort of severe form of dyslexia, whereby "some people" reads to him as "Sam." Give the poor guy a break; the fact that he can string words together somewhat intelligibly is downright heartwarming, under the circumstances.

   1748. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:06 PM (#4392625)
See also the recent spate of "slut walk" demonstrations around the country.

Could you provide us with some illustrations for what women should wear to avoid being catcalled; also please provide what their response to said catcalls should be when wearing something publicly appropriate. Lastly, perhaps what should be said when asked why they aren't friendlier or more responsive to the men making the catcalls regarding the size of their tits or what their hips might be able to accomplish if in the right hands.
   1749. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4392634)
and sorry Ray is in fact part of the existing "Rape Culture".


Clearly my comment was not at all clear since I puzzled Ray and offended snapper (neither of which I intended). In fact I saw snappers comment and have not read the rest of the thread (wuill get back to it after posting this mea culpa).

Anyway I was NOT trying to attack Ray or be offensive. I was trying to call back to DIABC's post about Rape Culture which Ray disagreed with. I was in no way trying to accuse Ray of being part of any such culture and really do apologize for saying what I did so very poorly. My bad. Anyway I am sorry.
   1750. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4392637)
Gah a whole pile of posts. Again I do apologize. I was not trying suggest Ray is part of the culture. My sincere apolgies.

I do think statments like Morty's are part of the culture. Likening a female's gentalia to wimpiness and using it as a insult is bad enough, but doing it in a thread about rape is exactly the sort of thing i think she was referencing. But I said it badly enough I realize I have lost the subthread and am horrified. I know Ray has a thick skin, so I hope he forgives and forgets.

Hey I know I'll say somethign stupid and then go out to lunch so I can't be there when it blows up. Sigh.

EDIT: And yes it is far too late to add a mea culpa to my upthread post. Gak. Is the month over yet?
   1751. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4392639)
Now those actions shouldn't necessarily be admissible in court (like in the old days when the defense could use the "she was asking for it" angle) unless they directly bear on the facts at issue, e.g. being fall-down drunk in this case.


Agreed. The fact that the girl in Ohio did amazingly stupid things which contributed, practically, to her being assaulted and raped, in no way removes the guilt of the crime from the two boys who raped her. They are distinct and separate facts. But again, to suggest that she did something wrong - even while caveating out the bit about "but the boys who raped her are the criminals" - will have you tarred and feathered as a "rape culture" apologist in seconds flat.
   1752. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4392641)
They are distinct and separate facts. But again, to suggest that she did something wrong - even while caveating out the bit about "but the boys who raped her are the criminals" - will have you tarred and feathered as a "rape culture" apologist in seconds flat


By whom? Not saying it hasn't happened, but I don't think anyone here has argued that getting blackout drunk, whether you're male or female, is a very good plan.
   1753. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4392642)
Could you provide us with some illustrations for what women should wear to avoid being catcalled;


1. This is a completely different question and conversation, and

2. Catcalls are offensive and rude and men should not be pigs, but catcalls _are not rape._
   1754. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:24 PM (#4392645)
By whom? Not saying it hasn't & doesn't happen, but I don't think anyone here has argued that getting blackout drunk, whether you're male or female, is a very good plan.


On this thread, I would say Devil's post that begins with "I can't even" is tenuously close to this line.
   1755. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4392649)
You may be right. I'll have to go back to re-read, as soon as I pretend to work for a bit.
   1756. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4392654)
You may be right. I'll have to go back to re-read, as soon as I pretend to work for a bit.


@1656
   1757. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4392656)
1. This is a completely different question and conversation, and
2. Catcalls are offensive and rude and men should not be pigs, but catcalls _are not rape._


But you obviously have an opinion on the acceptance of a level of responsibility held by a passed-out drunk woman at a party for what occurs to her.

Slut walks are a response mostly to the sheriff who told a rape victim if she didn't dress like a slut maybe she wouldn't have been raped, but they have expanded into some response to the harrassment of catcalls (And hey, why would a woman feel threatened by a complete stranger asking about her blowjob skills?).

I'm conflating the issues, full and free admittal.

Without getting into gradations of responsibility regarding activity at a party, I'd still ask - if there is a level of responsibility (your words) that needs to be accepted by the woman being passed-out drunk at a high-school party - is the same responsibility matrix employed in regards to catcalls regarding female attire?

If the answer is no, it is no.

If the asnwer is yes, if the same responsibilty is there for the actions, what is YOUR line for accepting - or owning as Ray might say - that responsibility?

I am not trying to ask any unfair or gotcha questions. I know that catcalls are not rape, however I do find these similar questions in regards to your meta point regarding responsibility.
   1758. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4392658)
The fact that the girl in Ohio did amazingly stupid things which contributed, practically, to her being assaulted and raped, in no way removes the guilt of the crime from the two boys who raped her. They are distinct and separate facts. But again, to suggest that she did something wrong - even while caveating out the bit about "but the boys who raped her are the criminals" - will have you tarred and feathered as a "rape culture" apologist in seconds flat.


Well I and others have stated what she did was wrong (at least irresponsible). And I was only tarred and feathered when I said ... well something really poorly worded that had nothing to do with that. In general there is some attacking of thsoe who say things like that, especially when they do not caveat with something like "in no way removes the guilt of the crime from the two boys who raped her" because of the history of these sorts of events and various "defences" over the years. It evokes a reaction from folks (without that caveat), even when in an ideal world it maybe shouldn't (but arn't you the one claiming we are all monkeys, so this can't surprise you).
   1759. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4392665)
Yes. This seems pretty straightforward and obvious. But it's a big no-no in some circles. In "rape culture" activism, the mere suggestion that a victim's actions prior to being assaulted were problematic means you're "blaming the victim" for the crime. See also the recent spate of "slut walk" demonstrations around the country.

The issue with harping about the victim's responsibility is that it is entirely counter-productive, if what you are actually trying to do is reduce the occurrence of rape. Again, nobody sets out to get black-out drunk, and pass out in the car of a guy they shouldn't trust. Young girls (and guys) are going to act foolishly, and recklessly, are going to make stupid judgements, and are going to ignore well-intended advice. Always have, always will.

So the only thing you achieve by calling her stupid and reckless, is making her feel guilty about it. And a victim who is under the impression that they are going to be blamed, threatened, and receive abuse if she comes forward, is much less likely to do so.
And victims actually coming forward, is by far and away the best way to prevent future rapes. It gets those that are undeterrable off the streets, so they can't hurt any more people, and it sends a clear signal to those that can be deterred, that they can't get away with it.

Now, thankfully, I don't have a teenage daughter. But yes, I would discuss risks and how to minimize them with her, and hope that she takes them to heart. But above all else, I hope that I would be able to make her understand, that no matter what happens, she can always count on having an understanding, sympathetic and non-judgemental father to talk to, when she needs one.
   1760. formerly dp Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4392667)
But again, to suggest that she did something wrong
She did nothing wrong, unless you're going to categorically label getting blackout drunk "wrong." She made a choice that had a bad outcome. And this is the heart of male privilege-- I have passed out drunk in several environments and never had to worry about one of the consequences of my "decision" being rape or other sexual violation. I've never even considered this a possibility. I'm guessing you've probably got similar incidents in your past as well. Your problem is that you're labeling what she did 'wrong' when it's nothing of the sort. "Inadvisable," I will grant you, but again, that applies to virtually everyone who decides to get "blackout drunk" outside of the confines of their home-- bad things can always happen.

And Sam, at the risk of indulging your swollen ego-- please, please stop pretending being a neo-retroist requires some sort of moral courage, like you're adding anything new to the conversation by restating "she had it coming" in fancier phraseology. The point of Devil's comment is that any attempt to direct attention to the victim diverts it away from the perpetrators-- this is why the "rape culture" designation fits this whole conversation quite aptly (though I'm not a fan of the term). Yes, that means sometimes, to avoid perpetuating rape culture, you have to suck it up and bite your tongue, rather than publicly chastising the victim of a sexual assault for making the bad choice to be sexually assaulted. It's not terribly complicated, but apparently the ####### lot of you need it explained.

Every gender discussion gives BTF two big, fat black eyes.
   1761. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4392672)
unless you're going to categorically label getting blackout drunk "wrong."


It's not?

(If you wind up making me side with the likes of SBB, Ray & Sam in this thread, I'm going to hunt you down & kill you. I'm already having a hard time dealing with the fact that most of what Snapper has posted has fit in nicely with my own views.)
   1762. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4392675)
She did nothing wrong, unless you're going to categorically label getting blackout drunk "wrong."


Call me a secular humanist puritan, but I do think a minor getting blackout drunk is wrong. Still has nothing to do with the responsbility of those who attacked her, but if no assault had happened, if nothing bad had happened, I still think she did something both wrong and illegal.

Edit: Coke to gef, who probably wants me off his side also (for the time being).
   1763. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4392678)
Maybe I'm biased because I can't drink anymore, but I would venture to say that getting blackout drunk is wrong, period, regardless of age or sex or, hell, just about any other factor.
   1764. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4392684)
Without getting into gradations of responsibility regarding activity at a party, I'd still ask - if there is a level of responsibility (your words) that needs to be accepted by the woman being passed-out drunk at a high-school party - is the same responsibility matrix employed in regards to catcalls regarding female attire?


The matrix would go something like this:

No woman should be sexually harassed for walking down a public street, regardless of wardrobe.

With that said, sexual signalling exists and is real and construction workers are not known for their highly advanced sense of social propriety. That's regrettable, and I would be open to policy options to decrease harassment on the streets in general, but it's stupid and ignorant to try to simply clap our hands, stomp our feet and say very loudly in offended postures "we no longer want sexual signalling to mean anything at all; we demand that hundreds (if not thousands) of years of socio-cultural evolution be abrogated and forgotten overnight!" Humanity is not a robot to be reformatted and uploaded a new operating system in a matter of hours.

Women should not be subjected to harassment and feel threatened on public streets. But don't pretend that wearing a leather mini and ####-me pumps isn't a social signal broadcast on an open bandwidth to anyone you walk past, either. We can have a better conversation than that. Please.

A woman who gets so incapacitated in unsafe areas of the public spaces, or even worse, in private spaces, is putting herself in harm's way. By willfully relinquishing control of her body - that's what intense inebriation does - she puts the safety of her body in the hands of others. Literally. The others are responsible for their behavior in that case, obviously, but by giving up her own control she is making the decision to take a risk on the people around her. That's a bad idea.
   1765. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4392685)
BTW, I'd ask anyone with similar views to Sam chime in on #1757, SteveF, SBB, Ray, Morty, Good Face, anyone else.

I think it's a valid question. Feel free to disabuse me of that as well, of course.
   1766. GregD Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4392686)
Back to the Pope news
   1767. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4392687)
Can we find a topic where Morty and SBB can debate something from oppostie sides? Because that would be a dream.


I think I saw that once.
   1768. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4392688)
Maybe I'm biased because I can't drink anymore, but I would venture to say that getting blackout drunk is wrong, period, regardless of age or sex or, hell, just about any other factor.


I am enough of a libertarian to be OK with people following their own private path to perdition. It is legal at any rate, and if it hurts no one else and an adult is doing it knowing the risks then I have a hard time calling it wrong (though not a choice I would make certainly).
   1769. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4392690)

Edit: Coke to gef, who probably wants me off his side also (for the time being).


Nah. My ideological scorecard is out of date, so I can't remember whether you're to be hung from the nearest lamppost or not come the revolution.
   1770. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:51 PM (#4392694)
I am enough of a libertarian to be OK with people following their own private path to perdition. It is legal at any rate, and if it hurts no one else and an adult is doing it knowing the risks then I have a hard time calling it wrong (though not a choice I would make certainly).


By "wrong," in this sense I'm meaning "ill-advised" or "stupid," not ... I dunno ... immoral.

I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with, let's see, eating a Baby Ruth. But if I eat a Baby Ruth (I love the things, BTW, or would if I could), I've acted wrongly, because it would leave me in considerable abdominal pain (because of the peanuts).

Is there anything positive or even enjoyable to be gained from drinking to a blackout state? Maybe there is, & I'm just too much of a puritan at heart to grasp it. (I've never done so; the only hangover I ever had was at at age 25, & that was enough to curtail my drinking to excess for pretty much ever after, before Crohn's sealed the deal for good maybe 8 or 9 years ago.)
   1771. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4392698)
I was in no way trying to accuse Ray of being part of any such culture and really do apologize for saying what I did so very poorly. My bad. Anyway I am sorry.


Fair enough. Thanks for the apology, BM. Consider it forgiven and forgotten.


   1772. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4392700)
And Sam, at the risk of indulging your swollen ego-- please, please stop pretending being a neo-retroist requires some sort of moral courage, like you're adding anything new to the conversation by restating "she had it coming" in fancier phraseology. The point of Devil's comment is that any attempt to direct attention to the victim diverts it away from the perpetrators-- this is why the "rape culture" designation fits this whole conversation quite aptly (though I'm not a fan of the term). Yes, that means sometimes, to avoid perpetuating rape culture, you have to suck it up and bite your tongue, rather than publicly chastising the victim of a sexual assault for making the bad choice to be sexually assaulted. It's not terribly complicated, but apparently the ####### lot of you need it explained.

I'm actually far closer to this than it might appear and am also somewhat puzzled by the public insistence that women be taught not to put themselves in poteantially bad situations. Not that it's "wrong," but it's wholly incongruent with the alleged crime.

My primary concern is that men accused of sexual misconduct get fair trials and due process, based on clear standards separating crime from non-crime. The "rape culture" and its loudmouths and ideologies run counter -- often happily so -- to this age-old pillar of justice and thus I wholly dissent from the "rape culture" and will challenge it loudly, however the chips may fall.

My more primary concern is protecting women from the heinous crime of rape, but there seems to be unanimity on that point; thus, I've left it unspoken. That concern is entirely consistent with the other concern and no "side" need be chosen between the two. I entirely reject and resist any suggestion otherwise.
   1773. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4392701)
Also, I too apologize in that my reaction in criticizing you probably went overboard.
   1774. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4392703)
She did nothing wrong, unless you're going to categorically label getting blackout drunk "wrong." She made a choice that had a bad outcome. And this is the heart of male privilege-- I have passed out drunk in several environments and never had to worry about one of the consequences of my "decision" being rape or other sexual violation. I've never even considered this a possibility. I'm guessing you've probably got similar incidents in your past as well. Your problem is that you're labeling what she did 'wrong' when it's nothing of the sort. "Inadvisable," I will grant you, but again, that applies to virtually everyone who decides to get "blackout drunk" outside of the confines of their home-- bad things can always happen.


If the crux of your rebuttal is that we should say "inadvisable" rather than "wrong" well, okay. Seems pedantic to me, but the entire conversation is pedantic at the heart of things.

To your point about "male privilege," yep. True. I can get shitfaced in public, pass out on Jersey transit and miss my stop by three stations, have to turn around and take the southbound back "home" and never once feel like I'm at risk of anything more than a poke from the ticket taker. Because I'm a six foot tall, 220 lb guy with the build of an ageing linebacker and that's the way #### rolls. I'm sorry that we haven't so completely denatured the world such that physical presence is moot considerations, but no matter if I'm sorry or not, the world is all that is the case.
   1775. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4392711)
The issue with harping about the victim's responsibility is that it is entirely counter-productive, if what you are actually trying to do is reduce the occurrence of rape.


Simply false. Reducing the denominator reduces the number of rapes.

Again, nobody sets out to get black-out drunk, and pass out in the car of a guy they shouldn't trust.


Sorry, but getting drunk doesn't happen randomly, like, you're walking down the street and all of a sudden you're drunk. You make a conscious decision to take the first few drinks, at least. Isn't that what the whole problem with drunk driving is? That you're intentionally making decisions to get drunk and then get behind the wheel? So why all of a sudden when it shifts to the rape context are the same people arguing, "Well, hey, nobody sets out to get black-out drunk." Would that excuse fly from you in the drunk driving scenario? Or is it a good idea to try to educate people not to get drunk and then get behind the wheel?
   1776. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4392712)
With that said, sexual signalling exists and is real and construction workers are not known for their highly advanced sense of social propriety. That's regrettable, and I would be open to policy options to decrease harassment on the streets in general, but it's stupid and ignorant to try to simply clap our hands, stomp our feet and say very loudly in offended postures "we no longer want sexual signalling to mean anything at all; we demand that hundreds (if not thousands) of years of socio-cultural evolution be abrogated and forgotten overnight!" Humanity is not a robot to be reformatted and uploaded a new operating system in a matter of hours.

And again - how on earth have unknown millions of men somehow managed NOT to catcall, harrass, and be pigs throughout the entirety of history? Are they from some mirror dimension? Freaks of evolution? What? Also, I'm not stomping my feet or clapping my hands and abrogating shit. I'm asking when you think men deserve to be given credit for not solely being animals controlled by mysterious internal chemicals. Because if it's never, it's never. I'm happy to simply disagree.


Women should not be subjected to harassment and feel threatened on public streets. But don't pretend that wearing a leather mini and ####-me pumps isn't a social signal broadcast on an open bandwidth to anyone you walk past, either. We can have a better conversation than that. Please.

That's what I was doing. You didn't bother listening. If a happily married, short, fit woman is wearing a business skirt that fits well and heels so she's not towered over by everyone in her office, what am I pretending if I'm asking you where her responsibility of sexual signalling lies for an audible Wall Street comment on her ass? (If you think this is a construction worker thing you don't get out much.) What does she have to wear for her to bear none or all of the responsibility for what is said to her? I absolutely want to know your line, because if you think catcalls are primarily from 5-inch heels and leather miniskirts, you're just not living in the world.
   1777. The Good Face Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4392716)
Maybe I'm biased because I can't drink anymore, but I would venture to say that getting blackout drunk is wrong, period, regardless of age or sex or, hell, just about any other factor.


I am enough of a libertarian to be OK with people following their own private path to perdition. It is legal at any rate, and if it hurts no one else and an adult is doing it knowing the risks then I have a hard time calling it wrong (though not a choice I would make certainly).



I don't know that it's wrong, but it's incredibly foolish behavior in most circumstances. Unless you're either in the privacy of your own home, or surrounded by multiple people that you trust to care for you (and have good reason to trust them), you're increasing the probability of some very bad things happening to you.

A shame really, because it can be a lot of fun hitting it hard and going down for a nice power blackout, but we ignore reality at our peril.
   1778. formerly dp Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4392719)
It's not?
Why would it be? I don't see the case.

By "wrong," in this sense I'm meaning "ill-advised" or "stupid," not ... I dunno ... immoral.
OK, that makes more sense. But lots of things people find enjoyable fall into the category of "ill-advised". And I think I covered that in my post.
Is there anything positive or even enjoyable to be gained from drinking to a blackout state?
The people in this video might suggest there is (woo-woo!).
   1779. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4392720)
She made a choice that had a bad outcome.


She made a bad choice. Say it, formerly dp, it won't kill you, or make you a rapist, except maybe in the eyes of your cohorts.
   1780. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4392723)
OK, that makes more sense. But lots of things people find enjoyable fall into the category of "ill-advised". And I think I covered that in my post.


Funny videos aside (which of course I'm not about to view here at work), what possible positive outcome can derive from becoming blackout drunk ... unless, of course, one deeply desires oblivion & can't readily obtain it any other way (I've been pretty close to that myself, admittedly)?

   1781. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4392724)
Simply false. Reducing the denominator reduces the number of rapes.

You can't reduce the denominator that way.

Sorry, but getting drunk doesn't happen randomly, like, you're walking down the street and all of a sudden you're drunk. You make a conscious decision to take the first few drinks, at least. Isn't that what the whole problem with drunk driving is? That you're intentionally making decisions to get drunk and then get behind the wheel? So why all of a sudden when it shifts to the rape context are the same people arguing, "Well, hey, nobody sets out to get black-out drunk." Would that excuse fly from you in the drunk driving scenario? Or is it a good idea to try to educate people not to get drunk and then get behind the wheel?

There's a vast chasm between wanting to get drunk, and wanting to get black-out drunk. Most people, especially young people, have a poor grasp of how much alcohol their system can handle. And the effect of alcohol is not instantaneous. So many people keep drinking past the point, because they don't realize they have passed it. It's only an hour later that they realize, when it's too late.

And the issue with drunk driving is not the drinking part, it's the driving part.
   1782. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4392726)
Part of me wonders if the main point of the recent thrust of this thread is to give people an excuse to yell at one another. (More than usual)
   1783. DevilInABlueCap Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4392728)
False on both counts, but keep making blind assumptions if you like.


I wasn't making blind assumptions as much as I was using what I read in this thread to come to the conclusion that no one who actually knew a rape survivor would speak so inconsiderately on the subject. Clearly, I am wrong, which puts mark 1,789,362 on my list of "reasons to hate humanity".


The amount of "it's just fingering" is kind of mind-boggling.


An absolute misrepresentation of anything said by anyone on this thread, to my knowledge.


There was a long discussion two or three pages back about why this is being called rape to begin with, as no penises were involved. CrosbyBird especially has argued that there is an appropriate form of penetration that takes it from "kind of rapey" to "definitely rapey" and that fingers are below that level. Also, SBB has continued to talk about this particular case as "not violent" because it didn't involve force or the threat of force. I chose to make a general address to clarify, in case anyone was reading those thoughts and nodding along.

If there is any confusion about what consent looks like, I, as a lady, am more than willing to offer guidelines because clearly men are not talking about consent very well. (Also, you might ask yourself if you've raped someone. Think hard about it!)


Well gosh. Thanks. Will there be charts and graphs for us poor, stupid men? You know how we love a pretty picture.


I am using the words of men in this thread (not in my building or across the street or in my neighborhood) that started talking about Stubenville as "blurred lines" and spouting off about "determining consent" and how we were all 16 once. Multiple times, men in this thread (not all men, but holy moly, a lot of you) have exhibited stunning lack over what consent looks like or what the boundaries of consent are.

To Ray, my parenthetical was not to every single man in this thread, but for those who seemingly question what consent looks like. Unless you're a child, you (general "you") should know what sexual consent looks like, and if you're unsure (blurred lines, and all that idiocy), then one might look back at your sexual encounters and wonder if you had consent (if you didn't, I'm sorry to say, you raped someone).

And just to throw one last thing out there: this entire discussion is one big exhibit on rape culture


Well of course it is. This conversation involves men discussing rape without having asked you for permission and appropriate parameters of acceptable speech, and some have even had the audacity to question some of the baseline assumptions of the public conversation to date, which means it *must* be "on big exhibit on rape culture," because to have an open conversation without a hall pass from you, "as a lady," is obviously the equivalent of supporting "rape culture." How could it not be, really?


There are a few men on this board who are discussing sex and the parameters under which women should/should not expect sexual assault (and how we as a society should handle those assaults). Instead of that discussion on a crime that disproportionately affects women trying to include female voices, emphasize that there is no culpability on the part of the victim, express that consent should be a clear, bright line and without that clarity, no sex should take place, we're getting "common sense" that women shouldn't fall unconscious (because then her orifices are up for grabs, and we all know that people just can't abide unused orifices), discussion of what kind of penetration of a person's sexual organs is "traditional rape" (I guess legitimate would have given the game away) and a general tenor to the proceedings that seems to prize men's right not to be called rapists (even when convicted) over women's right not to be raped. Or, worse, equates a false accusation (rare) to a real rape (common). Because rape is about a ruined reputation or something, instead of a complete violation of bodily autonomy.

Rape culture, for the uninitiated, is not about being a rapist. It's about creating a world that constantly calls into question the legitimacy of sexual assault victims, that shifts blame away from people who commit sexual crimes and onto the people who are subject to them. It's about creating an environment that calls women "sluts" or "teases" when they speak out about assault, and suggests that some kinds of violation aren't really violations because "how bad is one finger?" It's a world where women don't speak out for fear that their every misdeed (getting a C in junior Trig/drinking underage/the color of her bra/wearing a skirt of any length) will be combed through, and men don't even bother to report (a very serious problem). It's when 19,000 assaults happen on average per year in the world's best resourced military and only 2400 are reported, and only 240 come to trial (not conviction, just trial). It's where the narrative about rape is that a scary, insane looking guy sits in the bushes, grabs a knife and holds it to the neck of a (white) virginal schoolgirl on her way home from Bible study and "defiles" her while she fights back viciously (but not in a way that harms her ethereally beautiful face) instead of what it is: a crime marked only by its lack of consent, committed as opportunities come with women, men, girls and boys of varying attractiveness and dress.

Rape culture is in the air we breathe, because sex is still discussed as something women "have" and men "get" instead of a mutually beneficial arrangement that people agree to. Rape culture is something like Stubenville being reduced down to "little more than a scene from the Jackass movies". And it's why bodily autonomy and sexual orifices are turned into property whenever an analogy to rape is made (women's sexual safety has been compared to wallets, $50 bills, $100 bills, and other objects) instead of acknowledging that one's physical boundaries are not capable of being "flaunted" nor replaceable. Rape culture is never clearer than this: whenever one of these discussions come up, it is always, always, always about how we make women less rape-able rather than rapists more easily caught.
   1784. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4392729)
And again - how on earth have unknown millions of men somehow managed NOT to catcall, harrass, and be pigs throughout the entirety of history?


The fact that some men behave doesn't mean all men will behave. What you're asking is why we haven't bred this out of the population by now, and the answer is "because selective breeding takes lots of time."

If a happily married, short, fit woman is wearing a business skirt that fits well and heels so she's not towered over by everyone in her office, what am I pretending if I'm asking you where her responsibility of sexual signalling lies for an audible Wall Street comment on her ass?


If the wardrobe is office appropriate then she should feel safe on the street. If she doesn't, there's a problem with the individuals who are making her feel unsafe. Wearing an office appropriate skirt on a public street is not similar to getting black-out drunk at a high school party surrounded by idiotic adolescent boys.
   1785. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4392730)
But don't pretend that wearing a leather mini and ####-me pumps isn't a social signal broadcast on an open bandwidth to anyone you walk past, either. We can have a better conversation than that. Please.

I want to return to this. If you want us to have a better conversation than that, don't reduce catcalls to construction workers vs. ####-me heels and miniskirts. That's YOU not wanting a good conversation, not me.

And in asnwer to #1784, what's the line? Between miniskirt and heels and office attire, what is the line for harrassment vs. sexual signalling/boys will be boys? What should a woman not feel safe wearing? Where's the responsibility? My original question.
   1786. Tripon Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4392731)
Just days after two Steubenville, Ohio, high school football players were sentenced to juvenile detention for the rape of a 16-year-old girl, another story of sexual assault involving a 13-year-old female and two football players in Torrington, Conn., is coming to light. And like Steubenville, the incident is gaining traction on social media long before it reaches the inside of a courtroom.
While the exact facts of their cases remain sealed, 18-year-olds Edgar Gonzalez and Joan Toribio have been charged with three identical felonies, including second-degree sexual assault of a 13-year-old. Both cases were initiated on Feb. 10 of this year. Gonzalez is scheduled to appear in court on April 2, and Toribio on April 23. Gonzalez remains at New Haven Correction Center, while Toribio is free on a $50,000 bond.


And twitter gets into the situation. Funny how it almost mirrors the last two pages, at least on one side of the argument.
   1787. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4392733)
If you want us to have a better conversation than that, don't reduce catcalls to construction workers vs. ####-me heels and miniskirts. That's YOU not wanting a good conversation, not me.


Seriously? I don't see that, but okay. Whatevs. You seem to be confusing my acknowledgement that sexual signalling is real and exists in the world with some sort of de facto defense/justification of catcalling vis a vis "boys will be boys." That's not something I've argued.
   1788. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:20 PM (#4392734)
I believe the preferred phrase is "monkeys will be monkeys."
   1789. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4392735)
Seriously? I don't see that, but okay. Whatevs. You seem to be confusing my acknowledgement that sexual signalling is real and exists in the world with some sort of de facto defense/justification of catcalling vis a vis "boys will be boys." That's not something I've argued.


Indeed. The straw store called and they are finally out of straw. They can no longer continue to supply this thread.
   1790. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4392736)
Also, I too apologize in that my reaction in criticizing you probably went overboard.


Hey man I started it with a really poorly written statement - you were right to be offended, but f & f on my side as well.
   1791. Tripon Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4392737)
[url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/03/live-bell-corruption-verdicts-read-by-jury.html]
Oscar Hernandez, Luis Artiga, Victor Bello, George Cole, Teresa Jacobo and George Mirabal were arrested in September 2010 in a far-ranging municipal corruption case in which prosecutors alleged that money from the city’s modest general fund flowed freely to top officials.[/url] 12:15 p.m.: The jury said it was unable to reach a verdict on multiple counts. The judge is questioning the jurors to determine how many verdict votes they took and whether there was any change in the vote count.

12:10 p.m.: Luis Artiga was acquitted on all counts. He faced 12 counts of misappropriation of public funds related to payment for services on several boards between Jan. 1, 2008 and July 26, 2010.

Artiga, a pastor in Bell, was appointed to the City Council long after salaries for council members had been boosted, a point his attorney underscored in closing arguments.

The special allegations that he took property exceeding $65,000 and $100,000 were also found to be not true.

He wiped away tears as the court clerk read the verdicts.

12:05 p.m.: The verdict was mixed for Victor Bello.

He was found guilty of four counts of misappropriation of funds relating to the Solid Waste and Recycling Authority between Jan. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2009.

He was found not guilty of four counts of misappropriation of funds relating to payment for services as a member of the Public Finance Authority during the same time period.


   1792. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4392738)
I believe the preferred phrase is "monkeys will be monkeys."


I believe what I said was closer to "monkeys gonna do what monkeys do." Which isn't the same as justifying harassment, no matter how badly you read it that way. The point of that comment is simple. We are primates. We are sexual beings. We all broadcast ourselves and our intentions to other primates, via animal and cultural signals. To pretend otherwise is a waste of time and an exercise in futility. You're never going to breed the monkey out of the man.
   1793. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4392742)
That's not something I've argued.

You know what, this sounds like you are:
"...we demand that hundreds (if not thousands) of years of socio-cultural evolution be abrogated and forgotten overnight!" Humanity is not a robot to be reformatted and uploaded a new operating system in a matter of hours.
To me, that's boys will be boys, humanity is what monkeys are, etc. If you feel the problem is with the audience, I can grok that, but the audience/speaker question was brought up in the past, maybe that's to be looked at by both of us.

EDIT: Well, if you're going to say I should never have confused "monkeys gonna do what monkeys gonna do" with "boys will be boys", I'm going to say that's not a problem with the auidience.
   1794. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4392744)
I believe the preferred phrase is "monkeys will be monkeys."


Ouch.
   1795. formerly dp Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4392745)
If the crux of your rebuttal is that we should say "inadvisable" rather than "wrong" well, okay. Seems pedantic to me, but the entire conversation is pedantic at the heart of things.
The crux of my rebuttal is that, unless she actually consented, you ignore the victim's actions. Again, sometimes this means you have to restrain your desire to pronounce your feeling on the victim's action. This should not be difficult, unless you just love hearing yourself talk.
I'm sorry that we haven't so completely denatured the world such that physical presence is moot considerations, but no matter if I'm sorry or not, the world is all that is the case.
You can dress up your sexism in any language you like. You're the one who decided to make the victim's actions the primary focus of your comments. No one else did that. That's on you, Sam. You can embrace your position that doing so was "courageous" because you think people are "afraid" to say it, but you're mistaking reasoned good sense for fear.
===
She made a bad choice. Say it, formerly dp, it won't kill you, or make you a rapist, except maybe in the eyes of your cohorts.
Again, I'm not sure why you feel the need to divert attention away from the rapists. This seems to be an odd desire, both on your part, and on Sam's. The point that feminists have pressed repeatedly is that your tactic has the effect of excusing the actions of the rapists. I know that they're feminists and that means they're bad people who just want to make all men out to be evil meanies, but feminists have an advantage you lack-- they've actually studied the issue, and worked with victims. You're just some dude on the internet who wants publicly declare that he would have made a better decision than the sixteen year-old rape victim made. Congrats on your superior intellect, Ray.
   1796. Tripon Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:29 PM (#4392747)
(Reuters) - The head of Colorado's prison system was shot dead at his home in what police said may have been a targeted killing, just hours before the governor on Wednesday signed new gun control laws spurred by a rash of deadly mass shootings in Colorado and elsewhere.
   1797. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4392748)
Indeed. The straw store called and they are finally out of straw. They can no longer continue to supply this thread.

Well, with the amount you went through, that is hardly surprising, Ray.
   1798. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4392750)
You can dress up your sexism in any language you like. You're the one who decided to make the victim's actions the primary focus of your comments. No one else did that. That's on you, Sam. You can embrace your position that doing so was "courageous" because you think people are "afraid" to say it, but you're mistaking reasoned good sense for fear


If my positions are sexism, that term has no viable meaning in the world. If you call me a misanthropist, I'll cop to it every time. If you suggest I have some sort of hatred of women specifically, you're out of your mind.
   1799. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4392752)
Again, I'm not sure why you feel the need to divert attention away from the rapists.


Why is a conversation "diverting attention away from" anything? The rapists were tried and convicted of rape. Why would repeating those facts over and over again be even vaguely interesting?
   1800. DevilInABlueCap Posted: March 20, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4392754)
The discussion went on as I wrote that long comment. To help with the newer posts:

Ways Women Can Not Be Raped:
*Don't drink when you're around rapists
*Don't date rapists
*Don't marry rapists
*Don't walk with rapists
*Don't let rapists into your house
*Don't spend time with rapists at night
*Don't spend time with rapists during the day
*Don't befriend rapists
*Don't ignore or condescend to rapists (they take it really badly, and then try to rape you)
*Don't be lesbian and near a rapist (correctional rape)
*Don't be straight and near a rapist
*Don't be bi and near a rapist (with how you'll have sex with either gender, it creates confusion as to why you are not accepting sex with them, as they are of a gender)
*Don't wear revealing clothes around a rapist
*Don't wear concealing clothes around a rapist
*Don't be a teenager around a rapist
*Don't be an old lady around a rapist
*Don't be female around a rapist

That's not a comprehensive list, but you guys are definitely capable of adding on!
Page 18 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWith 8-2 win Tuesday, Orioles clinch first American League East title since 1997
(52 - 3:46pm, Sep 18)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3112 - 3:45pm, Sep 18)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(89 - 3:45pm, Sep 18)
Last: Dolf Lucky

NewsblogMcCarthy’s immaculate inning highlights Yankees win
(46 - 3:42pm, Sep 18)
Last: SandyRiver

NewsblogRon Washington Departed Over Legal Issues
(74 - 3:42pm, Sep 18)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(58 - 3:38pm, Sep 18)
Last: Booey

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-18-2014
(11 - 3:34pm, Sep 18)
Last: bobm

NewsblogJoe Girardi put Derek Jeter’s farewell tour ahead of the team
(87 - 3:34pm, Sep 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(254 - 3:26pm, Sep 18)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogThe Numbers Behind the Nationals’ Division Title Celebration
(1 - 3:16pm, Sep 18)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(48 - 3:16pm, Sep 18)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogThe Jake Peavy-Dee Gordon rivalry seems to be, um, heating up
(6 - 2:45pm, Sep 18)
Last: DCA

NewsblogJays pitcher Stroman suspended 6 games
(12 - 2:12pm, Sep 18)
Last: Batman

NewsblogChris Davis Rescues Man Pinned Under Truck
(47 - 12:54pm, Sep 18)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogJoe Girardi: ‘Pitch the right way’
(58 - 11:37am, Sep 18)
Last: AROM

Page rendered in 1.0518 seconds
52 querie(s) executed