Feminism: Definitions and Opinions

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Or a man provoking another man for that matter, but for different reasons, reasons that might involve violence.
See how that might work? A man's reactions would likely be different from a woman's.

I can't speak for other women, but if I caught someone taking pictures up my skirt... it wouldn't be pretty. I also think you're overestimating how much men are intimidated by other men. It'snot obvious from your story if the husband of the woman was there when the drunk was flirting with her but it's possible the drunk was given a verbal warning first, thought he was the tougher guy and proceeded anyway. Since it's considered "unmanly" to back away from a fight, men are more likely to get beat up, as opposed to women who know their limits and run.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

But if her husband is there...

Her husband?? A woman should not need to be with a man in order to be safe. The possibility of getting beaten up should surely not be the only thing that deters a man from treating a woman like an object. If that's the only thing that deters a man from taking photos up a woman's skirt, then there's something seriously wrong with that guy.

Civilization was never based on common courtesy.

No, that's why we have laws.

But I'd like to think that most people have the decency not to invade other people's privacy. I'd like to think most people have the decency not to use other people as sex objects. I'd like to think that the law isn't the only thing stopping most people from committing murder, rape, robbery etc. So, I'd also like to think that the law or seeing a muscly man isn't the only thing stopping most people from taking photos up a woman's skirt. I'd like to think that common courtesy and conscience play a part for most people.

Originally Posted by Sereena

I can't speak for other women, but if I caught someone taking pictures up my skirt... it wouldn't be pretty.

I agree. I think a lot of women would react strongly. Hopefully, next time he tries this, the woman reacts as he would expect a man to.

I also think you're overestimating how much men are intimidated by other men. It'snot obvious from your story if the husband of the woman was there when the drunk was flirting with her but it's possible the drunk was given a verbal warning first, thought he was the tougher guy and proceeded anyway. Since it's considered "unmanly" to back away from a fight, men are more likely to get beat up, as opposed to women who know their limits and run.

Perhaps it's also considered "unmanly" to take no for an answer? As telling a guy you have a boyfriend is often the only thing that will get him to back off. Just not being interested makes you either a challenge or a b.

If this story is true, this drunk must have been particularly persistent and/or particularly drunk.
Question - hypothetical - if the guy had been harassing a single woman and not taking no for an answer, and the woman, rather than a husband, decked the drunk, would the attitude have been that he "got what he deserved"? Just wondering, hypothetically.

[AldeberanBlack]

Women should lobby to have their skirts registered as corporations.

Then politicians will be falling over themselves to pass laws protecting them

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I also think you're overestimating how much men are intimidated by other men.

Size does matter. However, it's not the winning of the fight that counts. If the other guy knows he can win, but knows it might take some doing...and pain, it might not be worth it. (The hallmark of a coward is getting into fights with those much smaller or weaker)

Originally Posted by Sereena

It's not obvious from your story if the husband of the woman was there when the drunk was flirting with her but it's possible the drunk was given a verbal warning first, thought he was the tougher guy and proceeded anyway.

*nods* I believe that's what happened.

Originally Posted by Sereena

Since it's considered "unmanly" to back away from a fight, men are more likely to get beat up, as opposed to women who know their limits and run.

Bear in mind that the man defending his wife didn't see it as a one-on-one fight. Drunk dude had a few friends with him. (Kudos to the bartender that called security)

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Her husband?? A woman should not need to be with a man in order to be safe.

It's not an ideal world.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

No, that's why we have laws.

Yeah, and there's a price to be paid whenever the law gets broken (assuming the person gets caught and successfully prosecuted).
And sometimes it's simply the price a person pays whenever the unwritten rules of society gets broken. The price of which just might be a bloody nose. It does happen.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

But I'd like to think that most people have the decency not to invade other people's privacy. I'd like to think most people have the decency not to use other people as sex objects.

Reality versus what "you'd like to think" doesn't work. Especially since most women have a problem with what you "think." (Just pointing to those women in the porn industry, they wouldn't think kindly of your thoughts)

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Question - hypothetical - if the guy had been harassing a single woman and not taking no for an answer, and the woman, rather than a husband, decked the drunk, would the attitude have been that he "got what he deserved"? Just wondering, hypothetically.

Are you kidding? I've seen that before. People laugh seeing that! And yes, the drunk would have it coming. (Bartender usually "mans" up if the guy gets pushy after that)

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

That just points to cowardice. Entitled cowards preying on someone they assume won't be able to physically defend themselves. Some guy takes a photo up a woman's skirt because he's pretty sure she won't be able to punch him if she sees him.

I hate to nitpick, but I believe the most recent case in the news was thrown out specifically because a view up the women's skirts was already easily visible to everyone who happened to be walking by (they were sitting on stairs). It wasn't a violation of their privacy because--and I know how this sounds--what was under their skirts already wasn't being kept private. The judge makes a point of saying how disturbing the guy's behavior was, but notes that photographing "publicly exposed areas" isn't illegal.

So I think the guy's motive was not "these women won't defend themselves," but rather, "well this is easy."

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

(The hallmark of a coward is getting into fights with those much smaller or weaker)

Oh you mean like the men who pester women who don't have a man to act as "bodyguard"?

Reality versus what "you'd like to think" doesn't work. Especially since most women have a problem with what you "think." (Just pointing to those women in the porn industry, they wouldn't think kindly of your thoughts)

If they choose to work in the porn industry, that's their business. The women who had photos taken did not choose to do so. Choice matters.
And do most women want to be seen as sex objects? Really? Most women want to be seen as sexual beings. Not sex objects. Seeing a woman as a sex object means that she is just there for the gratification of the man, that her feelings are irrelevant.
And I am pretty sure that most women do not want to have their underwear photographed without their permission.
And is the reality that most men do not respect women? Is the reality that most men would assault a woman or take secret nude pictures of a woman if they thought they'd get away with it? I do not think that most men are so entitled and dangerous.

Originally Posted by canismajoris

I hate to nitpick, but I believe the most recent case in the news was thrown out specifically because a view up the women's skirts was already easily visible to everyone who happened to be walking by (they were sitting on stairs). It wasn't a violation of their privacy because--and I know how this sounds--what was under their skirts already wasn't being kept private. The judge makes a point of saying how disturbing the guy's behavior was, but notes that photographing "publicly exposed areas" isn't illegal.

So I think the guy's motive was not "these women won't defend themselves," but rather, "well this is easy."

Then, if one is to leave aside the potential for violence, would the same apply if a woman was zooming her camera on a guy in his swimming trunks for example? Or, up a loose pair of shorts? It's on public display, after all.

Then, what of paparazzi who lie on pavements to take photos up celebrities' skirts? Is that also publicly exposed? Even when her underwear is only exposed to the pavement??

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Then, if one is to leave aside the potential for violence, would the same apply if a woman was zooming her camera on a guy in his swimming trunks for example? Or, up a loose pair of shorts? It's on public display, after all.

Of course. If a casual observer can see it just by happening to be there, then why would it automatically be illegal to take a photograph of it? I don't think it would hurt (and I don't think it would be sexist) to suggest that people be mindful of accidentally exposing themselves when they don't intend to. Not even because there's risk of being exploited--I just know I've seen a lot of body parts I never wanted to over the years.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Then, what of paparazzi who lie on pavements to take photos up celebrities' skirts? Is that also publicly exposed? Even when her underwear is only exposed to the pavement??

Well without getting too graphic, I suspect a paparazzo doing that is probably hoping there won't be any underwear. And I think that's clearly invasive and wrong, but as I alluded to before, the relationship between the press and celebrities has gotten just... really weird and dark. Invading the privacy of celebrities is highly profitable, evidently, and as consumers that's really really the problem we should be thinking about. It's hard to condemn behaviors that we (as a group) would seem to desire.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Oh you mean like the men who pester women who don't have a man to act as "bodyguard"?

Why yes.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

If they choose to work in the porn industry, that's their business. The women who had photos taken did not choose to do so. Choice matters.

And the law more so.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

And do most women want to be seen as sex objects? Really? Most women want to be seen as sexual beings. Not sex objects.

If you say so. I know a few ladies that would say differently. That they want to be seen as "sexy." (And I should wonder if that means something differently to others)

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Seeing a woman as a sex object means that she is just there for the gratification of the man, that her feelings are irrelevant.

I'm sure that your interpretation is different from other women.

Sex sells. If it isn't appealing then it won't.
I believe that most women want to be seen as sexy. The cosmetics, the clothing, etc...all that which the more extreme feminists despise, is that which many women aspire to; to be sexually appealing. And I don't know any woman that doesn't want that.

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

If you say so. I know a few ladies that would say differently. That they want to be seen as "sexy." (And I should wonder if that means something differently to others)

Sexy is one thing. Thinking "Oh, I'm gonna wear this skirt because when I look nice my self esteem is better" and thinking "oh, I'm gonna wear this skirt and hope the men who see me in it will think I have no free will, no personality and a third boob where my brain should be" are two very different things in my opinion. No doubt some women like to be seen as objects but that's only because they've been reading too much "Fifty shades of grey".

I believe that most women want to be seen as sexy. The cosmetics, the clothing, etc...all that which the more extreme feminists despise, is that which many women aspire to; to be sexually appealing.

Women dress nicely and wear make-up even if there aren't any men around. For most people (men and women alike) when you look good you feel good.

And I don't know any woman that doesn't want that.

I don't think there are any heterosexual men out there who are completely indifferent to how women view them either. We all like to impress potential romantic partners, it's part of courtship but it's not the same as objectification.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I don't think there are any heterosexual men out there who are completely indifferent to how women view them either. We all like to impress potential romantic partners, it's part of courtship but it's not the same as objectification.

I have to wonder.
I recall a guy I knew who firmly objected when I said "A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste." I told him it was natural. But he even objected when a man thought that way with his wife. He called it "objectification." I called it "keeping that marriage bed interesting" and "keeping her smiling."

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Of course. If a casual observer can see it just by happening to be there, then why would it automatically be illegal to take a photograph of it? I don't think it would hurt (and I don't think it would be sexist) to suggest that people be mindful of accidentally exposing themselves when they don't intend to. Not even because there's risk of being exploited--I just know I've seen a lot of body parts I never wanted to over the years.

Of course, people - men and women - should be careful not to expose themselves. However, that should not not mean it's a free for all when they do. Just like people should be careful to remember to lock their cars - but it's still a crime to steal something, even if the owner forgets to lock the car.
Would it be a mitigating factor for a burglar if the homeowner forgot to lock their front door? Didn't have an alarm, or forgot to set it? Would it earn the burglar a reduced sentence, because the homeowner wasn't careful? Then why on earth are there such mitigating factors in sex crimes?

By the way, let me say that I understand that this case was thrown out because the individual in question hadn't broken any laws. I'm speaking about sex-related crimes in general.

Well without getting too graphic, I suspect a paparazzo doing that is probably hoping there won't be any underwear. And I think that's clearly invasive and wrong, but as I alluded to before, the relationship between the press and celebrities has gotten just... really weird and dark. Invading the privacy of celebrities is highly profitable, evidently, and as consumers that's really really the problem we should be thinking about. It's hard to condemn behaviors that we (as a group) would seem to desire.

I think there is something to condemn in society when society as a group seems to think that it's acceptable to violate the privacy of others. Clearly there's a market for these photos -both paparazzi and stolen. If there was no market for it, the paparazzi wouldn't be taking up-skirt shots, the hackers wouldn't be stealing.
And here's a question - why is there no demand for stolen nude pictures or paparazzi nude photos of male celebrities???

Originally Posted by Sereena

Sexy is one thing. Thinking "Oh, I'm gonna wear this skirt because when I look nice my self esteem is better" and thinking "oh, I'm gonna wear this skirt and hope the men who see me in it will think I have no free will, no personality and a third boob where my brain should be" are two very different things in my opinion. No doubt some women like to be seen as objects but that's only because they've been reading too much "Fifty shades of grey".

I agree. Most people want to look their best but most people do not want to be denied the opportunity to choose, to say no -unless as you say, they take that Fifty Shades rubbish as a model for a relationship. And a woman looking attractive, having made an effort to look sexy, does not mean that she's available to anyone. A woman has tastes, too, and not every man is going to be her type.

Women dress nicely and wear make-up even if there aren't any men around. For most people (men and women alike) when you look good you feel good.

I agree. Women don't dress up just to impress men. Many people want to look good in general. But looking good does not mean that a person gives up their right to say no, gives up their right to choose who they spend their time with. If I wear a nice dress, get my hair and make-up done for a special night out, that does not mean that I give up my right to turn down a guy that I have no interest in. That does not mean some guy has the right to harass me -that's objectification. Dressing sexily isn't objectification. Feeling and acting entitled to someone because they look sexy - that is objectification

I don't think there are any heterosexual men out there who are completely indifferent to how women view them either. We all like to impress potential romantic partners, it's part of courtship but it's not the same as objectification.

Yes, looking your best to impress others is not the same as objectification. The difference is that with objectification, the woman is not given a say in the matter, some arrogant creep feels entitled to sex or to a woman's attention or to see her nude pictures just because he thinks she looks good. Her feelings on the matter don't come into it. That's objectification. And I stand by what I said - I do not think that most women want to be treated like that. Most women would actually like a say in who they spend their time with, who they sleep with, who gets to see them intimately. That is why I stand by saying that most women want to be seen as sexual beings, not sex objects. Sexy, but not just a toy to entertain a man. Most women these days feel that they have a right to satisfaction in a relationship too. And dressing sexy does not change that.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Of course, people - men and women - should be careful not to expose themselves. However, that should not not mean it's a free for all when they do. Just like people should be careful to remember to lock their cars - but it's still a crime to steal something, even if the owner forgets to lock the car.
Would it be a mitigating factor for a burglar if the homeowner forgot to lock their front door? Didn't have an alarm, or forgot to set it? Would it earn the burglar a reduced sentence, because the homeowner wasn't careful? Then why on earth are there such mitigating factors in sex crimes?

By the way, let me say that I understand that this case was thrown out because the individual in question hadn't broken any laws. I'm speaking about sex-related crimes in general.

Well right, and while I want to believe there's not much room to say that a victim is to blame for taking inadequate precautions, in many other areas of life (that is, other than sex crimes, say), it really isn't uncommon or outrageous to label someone a fool for it. Just like traffic jams, rain, and stock market crashes, criminal acts are things people should probably learn to expect from time to time.

I think we get so caught up in arguing about where blame belongs that we ignore the reality that a lot of crimes can be prevented in the first place by doing exactly what you mentioned--preparing security measures for your property, providing for personal defense, and generally being mindful of risks. Failing to do so doesn't mitigate the guilt of a criminal, but it does peg you as naive.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I think there is something to condemn in society when society as a group seems to think that it's acceptable to violate the privacy of others. Clearly there's a market for these photos -both paparazzi and stolen. If there was no market for it, the paparazzi wouldn't be taking up-skirt shots, the hackers wouldn't be stealing.
And here's a question - why is there no demand for stolen nude pictures or paparazzi nude photos of male celebrities???

That is an interesting question... to what extent male celebrities are celebrated as sex objects I'm not certain. As a hetero male, I only really find Ryan Gosling, Henry Cavill, Matt Bomer, and OK I should probably stop.

Ultimately it may boil down to two things: First, our (American) society's squeamishness about male nudity in general, as expressed in television and film. For every shot of a man fully nude on screen in mainstream works, there are probably hours and hours (and hours) of footage of nude women. Why is that exactly? It's not even the disparity between the sexes itself that seems odd to me, it's the almost implausible dearth of men stripping down on film that's strange. We don't have much of an appetite for gentleman parts.

Second, and I haven't researched this (and don't plan to), so it's just a guess, but in the recent photo hacking situation, I'd bet that the majority of the women victimized have never appeared nude on screen or in photo shoots.

So putting those two factors together, it isn't only that there's demand for nude women and not much for nude men, nor that there's a market for nude images of female celebrities, but even worse, that there's a subculture for obtaining private photos of those female celebrities who specifically don't want their naked bodies out in public. It may be disturbing in those terms, but really I think even average people who know intellectually that it's wrong are likely to be curious, at the very least. Considering how widespread these recent images became, clearly it wasn't only scumbags who were viewing them.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Of course, people - men and women - should be careful not to expose themselves. However, that should not not mean it's a free for all when they do. Just like people should be careful to remember to lock their cars - but it's still a crime to steal something, even if the owner forgets to lock the car.

Bad analogy.
Better to compare an open window. Not illegal to turn and glance.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

And here's a question - why is there no demand for stolen nude pictures or paparazzi nude photos of male celebrities???

The paparazzi seem exclusively male. So...where are the female paparazzi? Maybe they should step up and take some pics of males celebs.

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Well right, and while I want to believe there's not much room to say that a victim is to blame for taking inadequate precautions, in many other areas of life (that is, other than sex crimes, say), it really isn't uncommon or outrageous to label someone a fool for it. Just like traffic jams, rain, and stock market crashes, criminal acts are things people should probably learn to expect from time to time.

I don't think you can compare any of the things mentioned above to sex crimes, though. Those things can happen to anyone, sex crimes on the other hand are a result of the inequalities between men and women and the idea that women should always be available to please men. That's not the same as theft for example or other crimes which are also caused by societal factors but not by structural inequality and sexism.

This is why what I said earlier about context applies even here. It's not enough to look at individual actions and say that the situation could have been prevented had the victim acted differently. I'm sure that in many cases it could have. But the bigger issue, the context still remains and it's not addressed by looking at each case individually. Even if all the women were to take precautions and for example never go out after dark- well, okay, but what about the fact that women are more likely to be asaulted and murdered by men they know than by strangers? There are underlying issues which the "victim-blaming" discourse ignores and these issues are always going to be there unless we deal with the gender inequality. It's sweeping the real problem under the rug if we only focus on individual actions (and I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm just trying to explain why sex crimes are not the same as leaving your house unlocked).

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I don't think you can compare any of the things mentioned above to sex crimes, though. Those things can happen to anyone, sex crimes on the other hand are a result of the inequalities between men and women and the idea that women should always be available to please men.

That's really only a valid argument if sex-crimes were only committed against women. It doesn't explain incidents of sexual violence committed against men which are grossly unreported.

And the idea that women should always be available to men is also perpetuated by women. The various sex-strikes are predicated on the belief that women have sex only to please men rather than for themselves.

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by Wab

That's really only a valid argument if sex-crimes were only committed against women. It doesn't explain incidents of sexual violence committed against men which are grossly unreported.

There are definitely sexual assaults against men as well, I'm not contesting that. However, women are still overrepresented among sex crimes victims and plenty of women choose not to report these crimes as well. But yes, I won't deny that society is moving towards objectifying men as well (male strip clubs, male prostitution, etc) but I don't think that means that sex crimes are the same as any other kind of crimes, and that the problem doesn't go deeper than individual actions.

And the idea that women should always be available to men is also perpetuated by women.

Oh definitely. There are plenty of women out there who objectify themselves, objectify other women, or engage in victim-blaming. Anyone can be sexist, it's a problem we have as a society not a problem that only men or only women have.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Wab

And the idea that women should always be available to men is also perpetuated by women.

We could have a discussion about whether this is always an individual choice, or it's what women have come to believe is expected both through cultural cues and dating/couple relationships. It's not always clear what motivates behavior, even to the people involved.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Well right, and while I want to believe there's not much room to say that a victim is to blame for taking inadequate precautions, in many other areas of life (that is, other than sex crimes, say), it really isn't uncommon or outrageous to label someone a fool for it. Just like traffic jams, rain, and stock market crashes, criminal acts are things people should probably learn to expect from time to time.

Label someone a fool, yes. Let the criminal off, blaming the victim, no. Nobody ever says a thief should have a reduced sentence because he stole from an unlocked car. Sex offenders do get reduced sentences, or more disturbing, public support, when there is some way to pass off blame on the victim.

I think we get so caught up in arguing about where blame belongs that we ignore the reality that a lot of crimes can be prevented in the first place by doing exactly what you mentioned--preparing security measures for your property, providing for personal defense, and generally being mindful of risks. Failing to do so doesn't mitigate the guilt of a criminal, but it does peg you as naive.

I agree, it certainly does not mitigate the guilt of a criminal. However, in sex crimes, the actions of the victim -wearing a short skirt, for example, is used to mitigate the assailant's guilt, to give him a reduced sentence, to say she was "asking for it". Because a short skirt, apparently, is open consent to any and all.
Whereas my opinion is that if someone is such a frothing at the mouth wild animal that they can't restrain themselves from assaulting a woman because they see a bit of thigh, then that person is not fit to be out in public.

That is an interesting question... to what extent male celebrities are celebrated as sex objects I'm not certain. As a hetero male, I only really find Ryan Gosling, Henry Cavill, Matt Bomer, and OK I should probably stop.

To the extent that no male celebrities had their nude photos stolen.

Ultimately it may boil down to two things: First, our (American) society's squeamishness about male nudity in general, as expressed in television and film. For every shot of a man fully nude on screen in mainstream works, there are probably hours and hours (and hours) of footage of nude women. Why is that exactly? It's not even the disparity between the sexes itself that seems odd to me, it's the almost implausible dearth of men stripping down on film that's strange. We don't have much of an appetite for gentleman parts.

Who is "we"? I think that seems to be taking the straight man's perspective as representative of society in general. What about straight women? Gay men? Bisexuals?

Considering how widespread these recent images became, clearly it wasn't only scumbags who were viewing them.

Or, perhaps people need to broaden their definition of scumbags in this context. It's not just the creepy guy lurking around in the trenchcoat or the fortysomething guy living in his mother's basement. I think people need to be aware that those who commit sex crimes are not just one narrow category. They are also people who have jobs, friends, families. They might have a pint after work with their friends, they support sports teams, they walk their dog. They live normal lives in other aspects. IMO, this narrow definition of who views these photos reflects the narrow definition of who commits sex crimes. Which means that people will refuse to believe victims when the accused is someone who seems "normal".

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Bad analogy.
Better to compare an open window. Not illegal to turn and glance.

Taking a photo is not turning and glancing. I will stick with my analogy -the person who leaves the car open is foolish, but that doesn't mean that you can steal whatever you want without facing consequences.

Originally Posted by Sereena

I don't think you can compare any of the things mentioned above to sex crimes, though. Those things can happen to anyone, sex crimes on the other hand are a result of the inequalities between men and women and the idea that women should always be available to please men. That's not the same as theft for example or other crimes which are also caused by societal factors but not by structural inequality and sexism.

I agree that one cannot compare sex crimes and other crimes. My initial comparison was in the reaction, in the treatment of the victim. My comparison, maybe poorly worded, was about the victim-blaming that goes on and is used to excuse sex offenders. Something that is not used to excuse other types of offenders.

Even if all the women were to take precautions and for example never go out after dark- well, okay, but what about the fact that women are more likely to be asaulted and murdered by men they know than by strangers?

That's also a big problem, because people don't like to admit that people they know, people who live normal lives, have friends, families,relationships, hobbies etc, can be sex offenders. Which leads to victim blaming or an insistence that the victim is lying.

Originally Posted by Wab

And the idea that women should always be available to men is also perpetuated by women. The various sex-strikes are predicated on the belief that women have sex only to please men rather than for themselves.

I agree that there are women who think that other women should be available to men -the "give him a chance" types. Some women crave male approval. Some women put male happiness above female happiness, even put male happiness above female rights. Is that something that comes from society? It's a vicious circle.
However, it cannot be ignored that there are also men who seem to see women as objects for their pleasure. Sex offenders. Men who go on killing sprees because women turned them down.

Originally Posted by Sereena

Oh definitely. There are plenty of women out there who objectify themselves, objectify other women, or engage in victim-blaming. Anyone can be sexist, it's a problem we have as a society not a problem that only men or only women have.

Sometimes I wonder if women engage in victim-blaming partly to feel more safe themselves. If a woman can kid herself that another woman was raped because she was drunk or flirting or wearing a short skirt, and not because the rapist was a disgusting individual with zero respect for the victim's rights, then she can delude herself that she is completely safe as long as she takes certain precautions.

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

It's not always clear what motivates behavior, even to the people involved.

How true. Sigh.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

To the extent that no male celebrities had their nude photos stolen.

Because that would be a joke that was long old.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Who is "we"? I think that seems to be taking the straight man's perspective as representative of society in general. What about straight women? Gay men? Bisexuals?

In the media, the gay doesn't sell well here if at all.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Or, perhaps people need to broaden their definition of scumbags in this context.
It's not just the creepy guy lurking around in the trenchcoat or the fortysomething guy living in his mother's basement. I think people need to be aware that those who commit sex crimes are not just one narrow category.

If you want to believe that a person viewing a nude picture of celebrity is a "scumbag" you're certainly entitled to it. But never ever equate it as a sex crime. Because you then turn the true sex crimes (i.e Rape, Sexual assault) into a joke. The real deal has nothing to do with simply viewing a picture of a grown nude woman.
You're conflating this particular issue with genuine felonies, and you are so wrong for doing it.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Taking a photo is not turning and glancing. I will stick with my analogy -the person who leaves the car open is foolish, but that doesn't mean that you can steal whatever you want without facing consequences.

But you're not stealing anything. And your analogy doesn't convince the "other side" of the argument. It doesn't hold water. What's being stolen according to the law? Case thrown out.

[Alastor]

And that was the end of this thread.

If any of you wonders why, consider this:

Originally Posted by Melaszka

Righty. This is the last chance to discuss the issue of feminism on CoS. If this thread rapidly descends into the squabblefest of mass bickering and rule-ignoring of the previous version, it will vanish into the ether, never to be replaced.

*lock*