The Gaming Den

ckafrica wrote:If this individual had been in attendance to her panel discussion he would have heard her discuss her discomfort at the objectification by fans in her fan mail and state that “[Misogyny] is a problem, and maybe watch your own language and your own behaviour to try to root out any biases that may be lurking within you.” and therefore should have realized that this wouldn't be a welcome move (which doesn't preclude his right to try but makes it a bad one).

Actually, if you'd do some reading about what she said during the panel discussion (I'm pretty sure it's described more thoroughly in the exact article you link, as a kicker, so you shouldn't have to go too far), you would know her specific complaints were directed at provocatively vulgar mail and rapethreats. Every single man in that room who had not sent Rebecca Watson some variety of "omg you're so smart and hot I want to stick my penis in you" or "you are an atheist whore and I hope you are raped" failed to meet the criteria for her complaints. It's also certainly the case that the man's behavior in the elevator was neither provocatively vulgar nor a rapethreat, so that also did not fit the criteria for her complaints.

The only way to connect Rebecca Watson's discussions during the panel to the events in the elevator is to take a view of male sexuality that is deeply offensive to men - that we are all sex criminals in our hearts and the merest hint of sexual interest is, unless expressed through channels and circumstances deemed appropriate by Rebecca Watson's sensibilities, no different than telling her you want to rape her. No. The panel is axed. It can have no bearing. Be gone, panel, and vex us no further.

Beyond that, you can ask strangers for casual sex at large social gatherings of college age kids (oh god, did I just say kids? I'M ONLY FUCKING 24 WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN) and get a yes answer a statistically significant portion of the time. It works, because some of the people you ask will think that sounds like a genuinely fun thing to do. Calling it bad judgment is just... silly. It's also not intimidating (you can be prejudicially afraid of anything you want, but fear does not imply intimidation), because not all men who would like to sleep with you are rapists. Not even all the men who go out on a limb and ask if that's reciprocal are rapists. It's not pointless, it's not malicious, and it's not intimidating. And that is assuming it was just a straight offer for sex, as opposed to the even less noteworthy "coffee, actual chatting, and if we both want to go 'there' then we can."

There's more in your post, but it's mostly just "4 am! 4 am!" What in the fuck? The last convention I went to had actual events scheduled straight up until 2 am. When you have a social gathering that runs late into the night (like the one she had just walked away from at the hotel bar) and then starts winding down, asking people who are leaving that social gathering if they want to do things is not weird. It's... normal. That's the time you do that, because it's your last chance to do so.

@frank
I've been to political conventions (Canadian social democrats) and have been involved in late night hook ups and chats and have crashed in stangers' rooms (tubs in the case I'm thinking of) but these encounters weren't started in the elevator or at 4am. Maybe they were happening all around me and I was oblivious but I didn't here any tales of strange pairings beginning at 4am. Of other convention types I cannot attest to, but my imagination would lead me to assume that the age mix of an international atheists convention is probably more like a political one than a Comic one and therefore a slightly more tame animal

Again the lack of details I found in the 20 minutes I checked before typing up my "I don't want to do work on after 8 hours of work final" tirade was that we don't know where this guy came from to be able to pass any truly fair judgement on the appropriateness (there are a fuck load of variables at play that I didn't find). However as she seemed to have pseudo-celeb status (the guy knew who she was) and her views on this sort of thing had been made clear; I'd say it was a bad call but not a cardinal sin.

@DSM

I don't really want to play this stupid who can read better than the other nonsense. But said article that I did read indicates while specific references were made to vulgar threats they were also vulgar advances by fans (as I mentioned in the text you quoted). She went to mention that misogynist behavior was a problem in the atheist community and that members should think about their behavior and "root out any biases that might be lurking within you". Now I suppose that you could take that too mean only lewd emails and threats are where she draws the line but everything else is fair game or you just might think that she was encouraging a broader concept of reducing the sexualization of women within the movement.

But fine fuck the panel. Is this really a I should be able to hit on a woman-- fuck that anyone, any time, any place with full impunity of not being called out as a douche or a creep? Am I good to hit on my university students in class? outside of class? after graduation? Should it be no problem to cat call at every attractive person who walks down the street? Is the unsolicited groping that goes on at the bars over here in Vietnam just an acceptable if unpleasant part of the job for most waitresses due to local cultural norms? Should I accept local men putting their hands on my upper inner thigh when I sit and drink with them (it's honestly a thing over here)?

I have no problem with hooking up, casual sex, inter-racial sex, gay sex, prostitution (well as a platonic ideal rather than its more frequent exploitative manifestation), but I do believe there are times and places to initiate. I don't agree an elevator is a particularly good choice for a random catch. I'm sure it can work but how many subjects of an unsolicited come on have thought "what a creep"?

I agree Watson's situation as she described sounds fairly benign but saying that her complaining about it equates any unsolicited sexual advance as a rapist in waiting is something I don't get. All I get is (some) girls find guys hitting them up in elevators at 4am to be potentially creepy especially when they now who you are and presumably your feminist(is this that feminist?) views. That and Dawkins particularly shitty critique was understandably offensive

ckafrica wrote:I've been to political conventions (Canadian social democrats) and have been involved in late night hook ups and chats and have crashed in stangers' rooms (tubs in the case I'm thinking of) but these encounters weren't started in the elevator or at 4am. Maybe they were happening all around me and I was oblivious but I didn't here any tales of strange pairings beginning at 4am.

Any argument that is in any way dependent on 4 AM or an elevator being special circumstances are completely invalid when we're talking about an international convention, which we are.

I'm writing this from Czech Republic. 4 AM for me is 7 PM in Vancouver. If someone had just walked off a plane from Western Canada and was now in Czech Republic at 4 AM, they might feel like it was a pretty good time to... get dinner. Furthermore, elevator etiquette varies wildly from place to place. In Czech Republic, it is considered rude to not talk to random strangers in elevators. The fact that my Czech kind of sucks and I have a hard time making small talk makes me come off as kind of an asshole when I'm in a long elevator ride with locals. I do the bare minimum of saying "Good day" when people come in and "good bye" when they get out, but I can't really chat about the weather or politics quickly enough to avoid seeming a bit on the dickish side.

Any part of any argument which even mentions 4 AM or elevators as relevant data points in the discussion displays gross ignorance of time zones and horrendous cultural chauvinism at best.

-Username17

ckafrica wrote:She went to mention that misogynist behavior was a problem in the atheist community and that members should think about their behavior and "root out any biases that might be lurking within you".

"Telling people to cut out misogynist behavior" = "telling people to cut out X behavior" IFF X = misogynist. Which means if you think Rebecca Watson telling people to cut out misogynistic behavior covers what the man did and ergo "he should have known better," you will have to explain why asking people up to your room for coffee is misogynistic. Because if asking people up to your room for coffee is NOT misogynistic, then there is genuinely no reason to believe Rebecca Watson's request applies at all. And if it is misogynistic, then I want to hear your arguments.

Or here, let's just put it this way: I bet all of the women who like casual sex hate being threatened with rape exactly like Rebecca Watson does, but also would not hate having to refuse polite requests for coffee+whatever like Rebecca Watson does.

ckafrica wrote:Am I good to hit on my university students in class? outside of class? after graduation? Should it be no problem to cat call at every attractive person who walks down the street? Is the unsolicited groping that goes on at the bars over here in Vietnam just an acceptable if unpleasant part of the job for most waitresses due to local cultural norms? Should I accept local men putting their hands on my upper inner thigh when I sit and drink with them (it's honestly a thing over here)?

Which of the following things is not like the other:
1) You ask a woman you've only just met today to come back to your room to have a cup of coffee. Sex is implied as a possibility.
2) You pass back a "D" graded test to a female student, and comment that she has pretty eyes.
3) You catcall and possibly make vulgar gestures at women as they pass you on the street.
4) You grab a woman's ass in a bar despite having never spoken to her.
5) You feel up a waitress everytime she comes to your table.

You honestly just built a slippery slope of "well if things that are possibly offers of implicit sex aren't creepy, then I guess everything up to and including sexual assault isn't creepy either!" I know you can't possibly believe that when you stop and turn it over in your head a few times. I'm certain you have to have some inkling of how offensive that might be to people who are victims of genuine coercion. I am very much hoping that, given the opportunity, you'll just walk it back.

ckafrica wrote:I agree Watson's situation as she described sounds fairly benign but saying that her complaining about it equates any unsolicited sexual advance as a rapist in waiting is something I don't get.

Her complaints are that it was threatening! What other possible reason is there to bring up that it happened in an elevator? No, really. What possible reason could there possibly be to emphasize restraints upon her ability to escape other than to imply perceptions of threat? It's not even a trivial point. She goes to great (and very dishonest) lengths to leverage the fact that it happened in an elevator to launch emotional appeals. At the start of the controversy, her complaints read like "don't ask women for sex in an elevator." By the end of the controversy, that morphed into "don't corner women in elevators and ask them for sex." She ends up toeing the line between hyperbole and false accusations of a crime! So yes, perceptions of threat are critical to Rebecca Watson's complaints.

Now you say, "okay, she felt threatened. So what? She can't help it if she is sometimes afraid of men, even though they haven't tried to intimidate her or coerce her or wrong her in anyway. Fear just happens." That's treacherous terrain, and I don't want to touch it. Which is good, because Rebecca Watson skipped right over that treacherous terrain - she went onto youtube to tell the internet that man did something wrong. She went onto skepchick to tell the internet that man sexually objectified her. That is far beyond acknowledging the fact that sometimes human beings will sometimes be afraid of other human beings. That is straight into "your behaviors should accomodate my fears, even if you don't know those fears exist."

FrankTrollman wrote: Any part of any argument which even mentions 4 AM or elevators as relevant data points in the discussion displays gross ignorance of time zones and horrendous cultural chauvinism at best.
-Username17

This is bullshit. An important part of cross-cultural exchange is learning what behaviors people from other cultures find comfortable or uncomfortable, which can only happen if people express their preferences. If the young man in question in fact came from a country where elevator chat is common, then "guys, don't do that" was a legitiamte education service.

Orion wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: Any part of any argument which even mentions 4 AM or elevators as relevant data points in the discussion displays gross ignorance of time zones and horrendous cultural chauvinism at best.
-Username17

This is bullshit. An important part of cross-cultural exchange is learning what behaviors people from other cultures find comfortable or uncomfortable, which can only happen if people express their preferences. If the young man in question in fact came from a country where elevator chat is common, then "guys, don't do that" was a legitiamte education service.

No, you dumb fuck. Neither she nor the man in question was from that area, and neither one has the right to expect the other to a priori accept either person's home town elevator protocols. Not, of course, that New Jersey (Rebecca Watson's home state) has a blanket ban on talking to people in elevators. But even if it did, getting upset because someone didn't recognize that ban while in Australia is nothing short of insane. The very best she could possibly expect would be to request that people who had started talking to her in elevators stop doing so and have them respect that. Which she did, and he did, meaning that she has no valid complaint at all.

Fundamentally, there is no merit at all in Rebecca Watson's complaint. There is no rubric by which attempting to start a conversation using polite and non-condescending language is in any way rude. Her only complaint is that in her opinion someone was hitting on her and she wasn't interested. Which means that basically, her argument is "No fatties." And if it was a white male making her exact argument about a woman he wasn't interested in, all of you dumb assholes would see that immediately.

Yes, women are treated shittily by society in a lot of ways. But that doesn't mean that they are always in the right when complaining about male behavior, or anyone's behavior. Women, homosexuals, and people of color can all be wrong about stuff. Just because they are oppressed in general doesn't mean that any specific event is an example of them being oppressed. Women get hospitalized more by domestic violence than men do, but domestic violence against men is still a problem. Women can be, and frequently are, wrong and in the wrong about all kinds of stuff. The stifling nature of the patriarchy means that there is a lot of things for women to legitimately complain about, but "an unattractive man tried to hit on me" is not fucking one of them.

For fuck's sake, blade still hasn't explained how his supposedly simple rubric allows homosexual men to ever hit on any people under any circumstances. Since there's a non-zero chance of any dude being made uncomfortable by a gay man hitting on them, shouldn't they be blanket banned from ever asking anyone on a date ever? According to Blade, it's in no way demeaning to men to tell them that they can't talk to people if there is any chance that doing so might make the other person uncomfortable, so I guess gay men have to stay in a literal closet lest they make others uncomfortable by being physically visible.



It's a slippery slope that is in fact an actual cliff that tramples on the human rights of everyone and produces a segregated society that is in fact not even safer than the one we live in. See: Saudi Arabia, which is a real fucking place that actually enforces the rules Rebecca Watson claims to want (although for everyone, not just the men Watson personally finds unattractive).

To move forward as a people, we have to find and defend universal human rights, not simply support any random idea that a person from an oppressed class might have. There is no defensible stance on human rights that condemns attempting to start a conversation with a stranger in a polite manner, and then accepting getting shot down graciously and walking off alone. That's admirable fucking behavior, and if you condemn that, we are fucked.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: It's a slippery slope
-Username17

That's seriously the best you can do? That you are unironically making a slippery slope argument might be evidence that you should rethink your commitments. I'm not sure where to begin with that post because we are jumping all over the place. If it would be helpful, I could

--Explain how I think disparities in elevator etiquette should be handled by international travelers
--Explain why Saudi Arabia is not very much like Wastonland
--Explain why gay panic is not very much like rebecca watson's video
--Explain what the actual rules are about who you get to sexually proposition
--Explain why the possibility of the man being a rapist is not a necessary premise of Watson's claim
--Explain why the possibility of the man being a rapist is in fact a relevant consideration

Would you find any of that interesting?

I would find all of that interesting, because I'm pretty sure if you checked it very carefully, it would boil down to "I think it's different because my instinct is to sympathize with the more oppressed class of person in each case." Because there is no actual difference between gay panic and Watson panic.

Let's consider a real etiquette difference, as opposed to a made up one. There really isn't any set of rules banning strangers from talking to each other on elevators anywhere in North America, but there is a set of rules in many places against kissing people you just met. On the other hand, in France there is really a rule against not kissing people you just met. That's a quandary. Obviously, if you are in Atlanta and you kiss a Georgian who is being introduced to you, that's a faux pas. Equally obviously, if you're in Marseille and you don't give a cheek kiss to a French person you are being introduced to, that's rude. But if you happen to be French, and you're in Bangkok being introduced to someone who happens to be from Montana, and you kiss them on the cheek, that is not worth getting upset over. The etiquette on that is ambiguous. And defaulting to your own normal behavior when in an ambiguous situation is totally normal and to be expected.

-Username17

@Orion: you could try, but I am certain you will fail miserably on almost every single one of those points. Fuck, look at your last one: is the possibility that black people might be criminals relevant to appropriate social norms for black people? No? Then why is the possibility that men might be rapists relevant to appropriate social norms for men? A whole-hearted and enthusiastic fuck you for telling me that I have an obligation to be less scary to women because some of them are afraid, completely baselessly, that I might rape them. If my actions are threatening, then I am in the wrong. If my actions are not threatening, but perceived as threatening, then those are your fears and they are on you and I'm sorry you're experiencing them but letting your fears dictate my acceptable social behaviors is a non-starter. People are genuinely fucking afraid of ethnic minorities, but that doesn't mean we get to assign special standards of behavior to them. That is quite obviously racist. The fact that you want to discriminate against a privileged class on the basis of genitals instead of skin color isn't noble.

I would also be amused to see you try and doublethink Watson's "he cornered me on an elevator!" rants into not being about fears of rape. I mean, she had other arguments, but they're laughable at their face, and 90% of what she actually says about the topic is "scary words" where coffee becomes immediate sex (do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars) and talking to people on the elevator becomes cornering them.

Okay, let's start with "the threat of rape is not an essential part of her claim." It's actually very hard to tell what exactly she's trying to say from those handful of sentences in that video. Possibly she has explained in more detail somewhere, but I haven't read it if so. However, as I recall she didn't say anything explicitly about rape, just discomfort at being approached while alone in an elevator.

There are many reasons one might be uncomfortable being approached in an environment one cannot escape. The threat of physical assault is one of them. So is verbal assault, for that matter. But honestly, sometimes it's just the threat of awkwardness. If I'm going to be called on to turn someone down, it's nice to have the option to scurry off and end the interaction rather than have it artificially prolonged.

Her original video features a giant list of things which are supposably reasons he should not have done the thing he did.. The list is "was a single woman... in a foreign country... at 4 am... in a hotel elevator... with you... just you."

Two of those five things make it less awkward (single, alone). Two of those five things are pretty much awkward neutral (foreign country, 4 am). Sure, the elevator gives you maybe 30 seconds of "oopsies," but I think two mature adults can manage to stomach that unless one of them decides to be a dick about it (in which case, you have harassment, and this discussion becomes moot). Three of those five things (4 am, in a hotel elevator, alone) are pretty clearly meant to invoke concerns of safety. Because they have fuck all to do with awkwardness and everything to do with setting the mood for an emotional appeal to "sometimes men rape women and that's scary. This situation sounds vaguely like one in which someone might be raped when I stress these three aspects."

Then there was this exchange:

Stef McGraw wrote:My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”

Rebecca Watson responding wrote:I pointed out that she posted a transcript of my video but conveniently left off the fact that I had already expressed my desire to go to sleep. I also pointed out that approaching a single woman in an elevator to invite her back to your hotel room is the definition of “unsolicited sexual comment.” But those are unimportant details in comparison to the first quoted sentence, which demonstrates an ignorance of Feminism 101 – in this case, the difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification. The former is great – be attracted to people! Flirt, have fun, make friends, have sex, meet the love of your life, whatever floats your boat. But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the “object” in question. That’s what we shouldn’t be doing. No, we feminists are not outlawing sexuality.

I covered this already, but the general gist is:
1) Really? Fucking really? You're going with "I said I was calling it a night in order to leave that particular social function! Clearly this means no one would ever say yes to any offered alternative under any circumstances! Except when they do, because that is how people hook up all the time."

2) Unsolicited sexual comment? You're dropping a polite request for coffee which likely means "have coffee, chat, and yes sex is on the table if we go there" into the same category as "nice tits, babe?" No.

3) Somehow this is sexual objectification, which is actually a pretty offensive statement about male sexuality. Not an uncommon one in bullshit feminist blogs, but still offensive. Believe it or not, I can be attracted to women, even strangers, without reducing them to a fleshlight on legs, and telling me that because I might want to have sex with a woman I don't know I can't possibly think she's a person is pretty offensive. Shove your sexual mores up your ass, I don't share them.

Then there's another video where she treads the line between hyperbole and false accusation in order to up the rhetoric from "asked for coffee in an elevator" to parodying her detractors with "I don't see the problem in cornering a woman in an elevator..."

And that's everything. Really, that's it. You've got "it's threatening," "I said I was going to bed (not in response to you, mind)," "unsolicited sexual comment," and "sexual objectification." All four of those are bullshit. Most of the people in this thread have chosen to argue in defense of her use of scary words to create an emotional appeal, because they can sympathize with women who are victims of rape, not realizing that by reducing all men to potential rapists and advocating social norms based on that Rebecca Watson is crossing the line in a horribly offensive way from defending rape victims to outright misandry.

Orion wrote: There are many reasons one might be uncomfortable being approached in an environment one cannot escape. The threat of physical assault is one of them. So is verbal assault, for that matter. But honestly, sometimes it's just the threat of awkwardness. If I'm going to be called on to turn someone down, it's nice to have the option to scurry off and end the interaction rather than have it artificially prolonged.

DSM handles why Rebecca Watson's arguments are bullshit in great detail. I'll let him handle that part. I will instead focus on this part.

Look, no one is saying you can't feel uncomfortable in any situation for any reason or no reason at all. In fact, we are saying that you have the right and the ability to feel uncomfortable in any situation for any reason or no reason at all. And that's the problem. Because the things that make different people uncomfortable are different. And you cannot expect other people to tiptoe around all of the things, because that would be all of the things.

You can sympathize with the fact that she might be uncomfortable being talked to in an elevator. So can I. But you know, objectively, that elevator door is going to open and close in thirty seconds, putting more real and effective distance between her and the guy than if she was in the middle of an open field. Would it have been better for him to approach her in the middle of an open field? Maybe for her, certainly not for everyone.

You can sympathize with the fact that she might be uncomfortable being talked to while she was alone. So can I. Would it have been less awkward if there had been an audience of strangers? Would it have been less awkward if there had been an audience of her friends? Maybe for her, certainly not for everyone.

You simply cannot make proscriptive statements about what people can and cannot do based on what non rational things might conceivably make someone uncomfortable. You not only should not do that, you cannot do that, because that things that might make someone uncomfortable include the set of all things done and not done.

For your line of argument to be even a thing that had to be taken seriously, you would have to present at least one situation where a person could talk to a stranger that would actually pass your test. And none exist. None can exist. So you're simply wrong out of hand.

-Username17

So am I misunderstanding this whole thread or do the arguments here boil down to:

" Making unwanted advances is creepy " vs " Can't know if advance is unwanted without making it " ?

Josh: the "Making unwanted advances is creepy" crowd are flipping out about polite inquiries which take no for an answer and then depart. Even presenting an unwanted touch is a strawman by the Watsonites. No one is suggesting that anyone touch anyone else without permission. Merely that you have the right to ask for that permission in the first place (just as the other person has the right to deny that permission).

-Username17

@Frank and @DSM

As far as I can tell, neither of you is actually contesting the claim I'm actually making. Frank's entire post is mostly about whether Watson's proposed rules make sense. DSM's is about sexual objectification. For the record, the Watson quote DSM posted does indeed appear to be bullshit. And Frank is right that we can't accommodate everyone's comfort all of the time.

All I'm saying is that she made a claim about how she wished people would behave and backed it up with appeals to her personal comfort. She didn't call anyone a rapist or a potential rapist, explicitly or implicitly. DSM's post actually supports my claim here. Her perception of sexual objectification may be inaccurate or inaccurate, but it''s what she chose to complain about -- not physical safety.

Josh_Kablack wrote:So am I misunderstanding this whole thread or do the arguments here boil down to:

" Making unwanted advances is creepy " vs " Can't know if advance is unwanted without making it " ?

While your comic is completely unrepresentative of anything, not quite. See, it is actually about that, but the people who say that making unwanted advances are creepy are so completely unwilling to admit that is their argument that they spend the entire time tag teaming, so one person says "But you forgot that she might be raped" and then ten minutes later that person leaves and someone else comes in and says "what's all this rape talk, it has nothing to do with rape" to set up the other person to come back and say "But you forgot rape."

Because "You shouldn't make unwanted advances to people who might want them." is so obviously stupid that they can't even hold a straight face while saying it.

Speaking of which, Orion, stop being a lying shit bag, you offered to explain a bunch of things, I want fucking explanations of all those things.

Orion wrote:All I'm saying is that she made a claim about how she wished people would behave and backed it up with appeals to her personal comfort.

No that's not all she did. She said that all men have to behave in a specific way when approaching all women and that no doing so makes them bad people. And specifically, that this guy was a bad person in this situation.

She did not say "In the future, could people please treat me a specific way." Which is a claim that absolutely no one would have complained about.

DSM wrote:Her original video features a giant list of things which are supposably reasons he should not have done the thing he did.. The list is "was a single woman... in a foreign country... at 4 am... in a hotel elevator... with you... just you."

That list is a description of a specific circumstance. And you forgot that she had already declared her intentions to go to bed. If you change the specifics on the list - any one of them - then Watson's comments do not apply.

Maj wrote:That list is a description of a specific circumstance. And you forgot that she had already declared her intentions to go to bed. If you change the specifics on the list - any one of them - then Watson's comments do not apply.

1) We have been given no reason to think that she said that in front of him.

2) We have told you why saying that you are going to be is also the exact same things you say when you want to go have sex.

If you aren't going to address the issues with your argument, then stop repeating it.

Does anyone actually think that saying "I'm going to bed" makes the reply "would you like to get some coffee?" an inadmissable reply? Anyone?

-Username17

No one that I'm aware of.

Yeah, actually. If I say I'm tired and I'm going to bed, and then proceed to get off my butt and go there, it means I'm done and I'm going to bed. An invitation to the contrary by a complete stranger (hell, even a friend) is a major sign of disrespect (presuming that person was present for said announcement) because it shows a complete disregard for what I personally said and acted on.

FrankTrollman wrote:Does anyone actually think that saying "I'm going to bed" makes the reply "would you like to get some coffee?" an inadmissable reply? Anyone?

-Username17

Maj's position is that 100% of Watson's statement must be included before any possible position can be declined, so presumably, if he had asked her for coffee in her room instead of his that would have been okay. Except for the part where anyone with a brain can see that Watson still would have thrown an identical fit over the statement.

Orion wrote:All I'm saying is that she made a claim about how she wished people would behave and backed it up with appeals to her personal comfort. She didn't call anyone a rapist or a potential rapist, explicitly or implicitly.

No. She did not describe how when men do X it makes her uncomfortable for personal reasons. She described how when men do X it is wrong and socially unacceptable because it makes her personally uncomfortable. Those are different statements. The first is completely within Rebecca Watson's rights, but is not a statement about how people should behave (unless they can read her mind or something). The second is a statement about how people should behave, but is offensive and sexist. The reason it is offensive and sexist is because her potential discomfort AND the rhetoric she uses to defend herself is 100% about sexual harassment/assault/rape all the way down, and setting behavioral standards for men based on the possibility that they might be rapists is obviously unacceptable. Remember: when people argued with her about whether or not what the man did what was appropriate, the language shifted such that she could describe the man as being as aggressive as possible without actually accusing him of aggressive behavior. I genuinely do not know what she could do or say to make it more obvious what she was trying to do without actually saying the word rape.

Maj wrote:Yeah, actually. If I say I'm tired and I'm going to bed, and then proceed to get off my butt and go there, it means I'm done and I'm going to bed. An invitation to the contrary by a complete stranger (hell, even a friend) is a major sign of disrespect (presuming that person was present for said announcement) because it shows a complete disregard for what I personally said and acted on.

You are being an idiot. I am 100% certain that counter-examples to your ridiculous bullshit exist in your own life and it is only through willful ignorance you are able to say this stupid tripe. When someone says "I'm going to bed," in order to excuse themself from a gathering, the takeaway isn't "I am too tired to do literally anything you could imagine, including receive autographed piles of money from my favorite celebrities," it is "what is happening now is no longer sufficiently motivating to keep me from going to bed." Offering alternatives is completely appropriate, and saying "no, those alternatives are also insufficiently motivating to keep me from going to bed" is completely appropriate if that is how you feel.

Over here in the real world, people will not only not be offended by that question, some of the time they will say yes! You're seriously trying to suggest asking your partner "quicky before bed?" is disrespectful to them, and so is asking the girl you've been talking to all night if she'd rather come back to your place than call it a night. And so on and so on through the giant list of examples where it looks completely fucking normal to offer people alternatives to going to bed.

DSM wrote:I am 100% certain that counter-examples to your ridiculous bullshit exist in your own life and it is only through willful ignorance you are able to say this stupid tripe.

Of course there are counter examples, but they address the disrespect... Something like, "I know you're tired and you want to go to bed, but we should really talk about XYZ before you sleep." Or, "I know you said you're tired, but if you just wait a few more minutes, I have a surprise for you." Or, "OH MY GOD I JUST CUT OFF MY FINGER AND I NEED HELP!" (serious situation).

The point is, if I say what I want, and am working toward that goal, you failing to acknowledge what I said is rude. Now, I might go along with it because mysterious stranger is some sort of person that I am obliged to deal with socially, but I'm sure as shit flipping them off in my mind.

DSM wrote: You're seriously trying to suggest asking your partner "quicky before bed?" is disrespectful to them

If my husband says to me that he's tired and just wants to sleep, putting my own personal needs ahead of his is utterly selfish and inconsiderate. It's a giant "I don't care what you want because what I want takes priority."