"Just the facts."

-Joe Friday

The problem is, a lot of times the facts are, "I invited him up to my room. We started making out, and I told him I didn't want it to go any farther. He didn't listen."

And someone will shout, "Well why'd you invite him to your room anyways? He was just picking up the clues you were putting down!"

And that's it. The facts are what the facts are. People try to justify away the facts.

So your problem to facts is speculation.

"JUST the facts."

Joe Friday

I'm not in the states, Canada actually. and I probably could, but really. you are always gonna have asshats.

Maybe they are only asshats in that moment of time, maybe they are saints every other second. Whatever. Asshats exist.

so maybe, just maybe a little bit of conservatism in regards to dress sense is called for.

I'm not saying go full covered. Just. if you are wearing those tights, maybe add a skirt or shorts.

Better yet, ask yourself "would I let my son/daughter go out like this"?

I like to believe my self control is way way above the average person. Still, having to avert ones eyes because someone has really really poor dress sense is... well... tiresome.

"Just the facts."

-Joe Friday

The problem is, a lot of times the facts are, "I invited him up to my room. We started making out, and I told him I didn't want it to go any farther. He didn't listen."

And someone will shout, "Well why'd you invite him to your room anyways? He was just picking up the clues you were putting down!"

And that's it. The facts are what the facts are. People try to justify away the facts.

In many cases they think the facts justify their actions. Most rapist would not **** if they would assume that they do something bad. It might be against the law, but they feel their actions are justified. Same for racist, sexist, whatever. Our prejudice tell as that we are right, that we are the good guys and we are not doing something wrong based on our own morality. People who acting regular against their own morality are rare, people are always the good guys from their own perspective.

"Just the facts."

-Joe Friday

The problem is, a lot of times the facts are, "I invited him up to my room. We started making out, and I told him I didn't want it to go any farther. He didn't listen."

And someone will shout, "Well why'd you invite him to your room anyways? He was just picking up the clues you were putting down!"

And that's it. The facts are what the facts are. People try to justify away the facts.

So your problem to facts is speculation.

"JUST the facts."

Joe Friday

The facts:

They were on a date

She invited him to her room

She said no, I don't want to

He ignored that

There are your facts.

And you will STILL find someone mansplaining away what happened. About how she led him on. She friendzoned him. Etc etc.

Even when given JUST the facts...

People still don't believe the victim.

I'm not in the states, Canada actually. and I probably could, but really. you are always gonna have asshats.

Maybe they are only asshats in that moment of time, maybe they are saints every other second. Whatever. Asshats exist.

so maybe, just maybe a little bit of conservatism in regards to dress sense is called for.

I'm not saying go full covered. Just. if you are wearing those tights, maybe add a skirt or shorts.

Better yet, ask yourself "would I let my son/daughter go out like this"?

I like to believe my self control is way way above the average person. Still, having to avert ones eyes because someone has really really poor dress sense is... well... tiresome.

"Just the facts."

-Joe Friday

The problem is, a lot of times the facts are, "I invited him up to my room. We started making out, and I told him I didn't want it to go any farther. He didn't listen."

And someone will shout, "Well why'd you invite him to your room anyways? He was just picking up the clues you were putting down!"

And that's it. The facts are what the facts are. People try to justify away the facts.

In many cases they think the facts justify their actions. Most rapist would not **** if they would assume that they do something bad. It might be against the law, but they feel their actions are justified. Same for racist, sexist, whatever. Our prejudice tell as that we are right, that we are the good guys and we are not doing something wrong based on our own morality. People who acting regular against their own morality are rare, people are always the good guys from their own perspective.

Exactly. Sometimes, when presented with the facts of a victim... people still say she's wrong. She's lying. Or she deserved it.

She shouldn't have been showing so much skin in that cosplay, am I right?

I'm not in the states, Canada actually. and I probably could, but really. you are always gonna have asshats.

Maybe they are only asshats in that moment of time, maybe they are saints every other second. Whatever. Asshats exist.

so maybe, just maybe a little bit of conservatism in regards to dress sense is called for.

I'm not saying go full covered. Just. if you are wearing those tights, maybe add a skirt or shorts.

Better yet, ask yourself "would I let my son/daughter go out like this"?

I like to believe my self control is way way above the average person. Still, having to avert ones eyes because someone has really really poor dress sense is... well... tiresome.

I would only stop them to make sure the outfit matched

Wow do you have children?

"I should be able to do anything consequence free"

Which side of the argument is that?

In terms of anything past staring I'd agree with your point.

In terms of staring. Really hard not to. As pointed out, this is not just with showing skin, this is anything that significantly stands out.

"I should be able to do anything consequence free"

Which side of the argument is that?

In terms of anything past staring I'd agree with your point.

In terms of staring. Really hard not to. As pointed out, this is not just with showing skin, this is anything that significantly stands out.

And it's not their job to prevent you from doing so

and why pray tell should I have to avert my gaze every time people make bad wardrobe choices, or just randomly drop things?

Or during any other attention grabbing event?

Now we are in a stable conversational loop.

There are 2 differing discussions going on here about clothing.

1 - Looking has to be ok, we are not subject to the thought police, or the eye police. If someone is making you uncomfortable, and you let them know (making sure they know is very important) then of course they should stop. By the same token if you are wearing clothing that is screaming "Look at my fun bits" (doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman) you are putting a billboard there saying "Look here"

2 - Anything past staring, is a no. period.

Fun fact, i work in security, i've seen things go bad. I've seen he said she said situations, and no one wins. It sucks. It is really really sh*tty, because i've seen both men and women lie their teethout to prove a point, or not get in trouble, or just because they think they can get away with it. I carry a business card that doubles as a signed consent form, i give them to my clients (when i am working personal security) and say, under no circumstances can you go into a room with anyone alone unless they sign that card. It serves as a safety net for both of them. And it makes me sad and sickened that we as a people have the need for that, on BOTH sides of the argument.

1) it's costing rolling stone $25 million in damages and been a serious blow to their reputation and credibility, Don't thing trusting people cant turn bad on you it can.

bull straw man. Thrusting someone and publishing a story are to complete different things. If you believe that you can publish based on thrust alone than you are delusional about journalistic work.

Y'know that's exactly what rolling stone did right that's why they are being sued because they published a story about gang **** with zero evidence.

The reporter took the word of the "victim" and painted an entire fraternity as serial rapists in a large publication with no proof.

Those guys got death threats and had property vandalized for doing nothing.

Everything reported was wrong and totally and completely proven false.

This isn't a strawman this actually happened.

"I should be able to do anything consequence free"

Which side of the argument is that?

In terms of anything past staring I'd agree with your point.

In terms of staring. Really hard not to. As pointed out, this is not just with showing skin, this is anything that significantly stands out.

Its not hard not to stare

And it's not their job to prevent you from doing so

But that isn't true, it is natural to stare for both men and women. We have evolved past the point of being instinct driven animals and it isn't apropriate, but getting past your biological coding can be a challenge.

"I should be able to do anything consequence free"

Which side of the argument is that?

In terms of anything past staring I'd agree with your point.

In terms of staring. Really hard not to. As pointed out, this is not just with showing skin, this is anything that significantly stands out.

Its not hard not to stare

And it's not their job to prevent you from doing so

But that isn't true, it is natural to stare for both men and women. We have evolved past the point of being instinct driven animals and it isn't apropriate, but getting past your biological coding can be a challenge.

Its still youre resposnibility to not do things that make others uncomfortable

"Just the facts."

-Joe Friday

The problem is, a lot of times the facts are, "I invited him up to my room. We started making out, and I told him I didn't want it to go any farther. He didn't listen."

And someone will shout, "Well why'd you invite him to your room anyways? He was just picking up the clues you were putting down!"

And that's it. The facts are what the facts are. People try to justify away the facts.

In many cases they think the facts justify their actions. Most rapist would not **** if they would assume that they do something bad. It might be against the law, but they feel their actions are justified. Same for racist, sexist, whatever. Our prejudice tell as that we are right, that we are the good guys and we are not doing something wrong based on our own morality. People who acting regular against their own morality are rare, people are always the good guys from their own perspective.

Exactly. Sometimes, when presented with the facts of a victim... people still say she's wrong. She's lying. Or she deserved it.

She shouldn't have been showing so much skin in that cosplay, am I right?

I think here it is always wrong to go to far if the other party says NO. NO means NO.

Inviting someone to the bedroom and stuff starts happening is a bad judgment call. I know it's no excuse, but that is putting yourself in a bad situation from the start. The living room to watch movie, and stuff happens is a different type of situation. It's not implied from the start that anything should have happened at all. Inviting someone to your bedroom is sending a mixed type of message to the other party, but it is still up to one person to always respect the other persons wishes even in bad situations.

"I should be able to do anything consequence free"

Which side of the argument is that?

In terms of anything past staring I'd agree with your point.

In terms of staring. Really hard not to. As pointed out, this is not just with showing skin, this is anything that significantly stands out.

Might as well be a case of different perception based on different cultural standards. The most outstanding about a mankini with a boba-fett helmet is the clearly the helmet. Though nude with just helmet would be less outstanding, depending on the environment.

It's nothing that would be considered here unappropriated for children either. If you add a convention environment instead of of public street in downtown it becomes even less outstanding. On a public street downtown in my town you might attract people watching curiously, not staring, because they assume some street art performance

"I should be able to do anything consequence free"

Which side of the argument is that?

In terms of anything past staring I'd agree with your point.

In terms of staring. Really hard not to. As pointed out, this is not just with showing skin, this is anything that significantly stands out.

Its not hard not to stare

And it's not their job to prevent you from doing so

But that isn't true, it is natural to stare for both men and women. We have evolved past the point of being instinct driven animals and it isn't apropriate, but getting past your biological coding can be a challenge.

Its still youre resposnibility to not do things that make others uncomfortable

actually, no. you are responsible to act as a adult, and not break the law. someone else's comfort, while it should be a consideration, is not a right they are entitled to.

"I should be able to do anything consequence free"

Which side of the argument is that?

In terms of anything past staring I'd agree with your point.

In terms of staring. Really hard not to. As pointed out, this is not just with showing skin, this is anything that significantly stands out.

Its not hard not to stare

And it's not their job to prevent you from doing so

But that isn't true, it is natural to stare for both men and women. We have evolved past the point of being instinct driven animals and it isn't apropriate, but getting past your biological coding can be a challenge.

Its still youre resposnibility to not do things that make others uncomfortable

Ah, GOOD. I'm glad you said that.

What if said outfits make me uncomfortable?

I think here it is always wrong to go to far if the other party says NO. NO means NO.

Inviting someone to the bedroom and stuff starts happening is a bad judgment call. I know it's no excuse, but that is putting yourself in a bad situation from the start. The living room to watch movie, and stuff happens is a different type of situation. It's not implied from the start that anything should have happened at all. Inviting someone to your bedroom is sending a mixed type of message to the other party, but it is still up to one person to always respect the other persons wishes even in bad situations.

So I'm going to get on my soapbox here, because what you said makes me feel like I need to.

A person can be entirely undressed and say, "nevermind, I don't want to." If they get assaulted, it is 100% THE FAULT OF THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED THEM.

When you revoke consent, you revoke it. It doesn't matter if you're in a bedroom or a dungeon. It is revoked.

This idea about mixed messages and bad judgment calls makes me sick.

What about the girl who lives with roommates and who's only private space to talk to someone is a bedroom? Is it okay she got assaulted, because she invited someone into her room?

I should never have to think, "this guy may assault me, better not invite him to my room!" NEVER. A bedroom assault is NO DIFFERENT than a living room assault. And the fact that you think it is makes me so, so sad.

"I should be able to do anything consequence free"

Which side of the argument is that?

In terms of anything past staring I'd agree with your point.

In terms of staring. Really hard not to. As pointed out, this is not just with showing skin, this is anything that significantly stands out.

Its not hard not to stare

And it's not their job to prevent you from doing so

But that isn't true, it is natural to stare for both men and women. We have evolved past the point of being instinct driven animals and it isn't apropriate, but getting past your biological coding can be a challenge.

Its still youre resposnibility to not do things that make others uncomfortable

Ah, GOOD. I'm glad you said that.

What if said outfits make me uncomfortable?

Fun fact: YOU CAN LOOK AWAY FROM THAT

BUT YOU LOOKING AT SOMEONE ELSE IS SOMETHING THEY CAN'T STOP

1) it's costing rolling stone $25 million in damages and been a serious blow to their reputation and credibility, Don't thing trusting people cant turn bad on you it can.

bull straw man. Thrusting someone and publishing a story are to complete different things. If you believe that you can publish based on thrust alone than you are delusional about journalistic work.

Y'know that's exactly what rolling stone did right that's why they are being sued because they published a story about gang **** with zero evidence.

The reporter took the word of the "victim" and painted an entire fraternity as serial rapists in a large publication with no proof.

Those guys got death threats and had property vandalized for doing nothing.

Everything reported was wrong and totally and completely proven false.

This isn't a strawman this actually happened.

And has zero relevance with trusting a victim. It has everything to do with doing a smear peace without any journalistic integrity. You point is completely irrelevant for the topic.

And has zero relevance with thrusting a victim. It has everything to do with doing a smear peace without any journalistic integrity. You point is completely irrelevant for the topic.

Yo I doubt victims want to be thrusted.... ;]

We have a few women that play in our scene.

You know what probably helps them feel comfortable?

Viewing them as people instead of women.

No one ever mentions "Hey, it's great to have some 'gals in here." That would be the equivalent of someone telling me "Hey, it's great to have more visible minorities in here." I respect OP's intention to improve the situation, but I think this kind of conversation scares people away from the game more than anything.

I understand that there sometimes needs to be a distinction between misogynist douchery and ordinary douchery - but they're both unacceptable in my books. Assuming her account is the truth, the men she had the misfortune of dealing with seem like real pieces of work and I would think any of us - regardless of our gender - would have a problem with their behaviour.

I think here it is always wrong to go to far if the other party says NO. NO means NO.

Inviting someone to the bedroom and stuff starts happening is a bad judgment call. I know it's no excuse, but that is putting yourself in a bad situation from the start. The living room to watch movie, and stuff happens is a different type of situation. It's not implied from the start that anything should have happened at all. Inviting someone to your bedroom is sending a mixed type of message to the other party, but it is still up to one person to always respect the other persons wishes even in bad situations.

So I'm going to get on my soapbox here, because what you said makes me feel like I need to.

A person can be entirely undressed and say, "nevermind, I don't want to." If they get assaulted, it is 100% THE FAULT OF THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED THEM.

When you revoke consent, you revoke it. It doesn't matter if you're in a bedroom or a dungeon. It is revoked.

This idea about mixed messages and bad judgment calls makes me sick.

What about the girl who lives with roommates and who's only private space to talk to someone is a bedroom? Is it okay she got assaulted, because she invited someone into her room?

I should never have to think, "this guy may assault me, better not invite him to my room!" NEVER. A bedroom assault is NO DIFFERENT than a living room assault. And the fact that you think it is makes me so, so sad.

completely agree, the only time you cannot withdraw consent is after the fact. Doesn't matter if you are in the middle of the act, no means no. That doesn't mean you need to like the person after, or ever speak to them again. but no is no.

"Just the facts."

-Joe Friday

The problem is, a lot of times the facts are, "I invited him up to my room. We started making out, and I told him I didn't want it to go any farther. He didn't listen."

And someone will shout, "Well why'd you invite him to your room anyways? He was just picking up the clues you were putting down!"

And that's it. The facts are what the facts are. People try to justify away the facts.

In many cases they think the facts justify their actions. Most rapist would not **** if they would assume that they do something bad. It might be against the law, but they feel their actions are justified. Same for racist, sexist, whatever. Our prejudice tell as that we are right, that we are the good guys and we are not doing something wrong based on our own morality. People who acting regular against their own morality are rare, people are always the good guys from their own perspective.

Exactly. Sometimes, when presented with the facts of a victim... people still say she's wrong. She's lying. Or she deserved it.

She shouldn't have been showing so much skin in that cosplay, am I right?

I think here it is always wrong to go to far if the other party says NO. NO means NO.

Inviting someone to the bedroom and stuff starts happening is a bad judgment call. I know it's no excuse, but that is putting yourself in a bad situation from the start. The living room to watch movie, and stuff happens is a different type of situation. It's not implied from the start that anything should have happened at all. Inviting someone to your bedroom is sending a mixed type of message to the other party, but it is still up to one person to always respect the other persons wishes even in bad situations.

Hey. The person responsible for assault is the person doing the assaulting. Always.

No matter what type of judgment you think the survivor of said assault has. It shouldn't even enter into it. "No," is not a mixed message, no matter what room it's said in.