liz_marcs | OH JOHN RINGO NO!

With all the business about this kind of skeevy crap (not to mention the fact there's a massive case of failboat here), is it wrong that I'm perversely pleased that OH JOHN RINGO NO has become a catchphrase (

hradzka must be proud!)?

No, seriously. It's not everyday one is present at the birth of an Internet meme and has the commenting record to prove it.

What? Don't look at me like that.

Anyway, Unfunny Business on Journalfen is going a bit of a round-up on the business.

As for me, I only have one question:

Why is it that whenever someone (usually male) decides that it's time to get "sex positive," it's invariably the women who need to "get over their issues" so they can participate? Also, why is it that they're the ones who usually end up at the receiving end of whatever insane little "sex positive" experiment is being done?

Strange how that works, hunh?

Look, if a woman says the idea of such a "sex positive" experiment (read: giving men a free pass on treating female-type people like meat) is skeevy, it does not mean she's "got sexual issues," or "lacks a sense of humor," or is "anti-feminism."

What it means is that she reserves the right to do one or all of the following if you pull that shit on her:

1) Mace your ass

2) Rip your nuts off

3) Call the cops and press sexual assault charges

It also means that she (and I imagine quite a lot of men) don't like it when complete strangers grope any part of their anatomy, erogenous zone or not.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with some people that they don't get that?

That said, seeing OH JOHN RINGO NO plastered all over this tempest has had me giggling like a loon all day (much love to

the_red_shoes for using it first in reference to this).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That's a fair point, but the problem comes when we talk about unwanted sexual advances, how strong is too strong?

If a guy asks you out on a date, or meets you at a bar and invites you back to his casa for some lovemaking, and you're not interested, it's (I assume) an unwanted sexual advance. Unfortunately (and I don't mean this sarcastically) the right of free speech extends to idiots as well as sensible people. We can't guarantee usual social rules are followed at any time; rush hour trains are a prime example of places when women are often groped etc, purely because it's a situation in which the groper can probably stay covert.

It's a sad fact of life that we are all sometimes faced with unwanted sexual advances. However, to try and protect people from high-pressure situations is impossible in a world where free speech and the right to be heard exists. It is more empowering to tell women it's ok to say no than it is to try and shield them from ever having to do so, in my opinion.

For the gazillionth time (and I'm getting really, really sick and tired of correcting people on this point):

"Freedom of speech" does not, and never has, applied to private property — i.e., a bar and/or a con suite or, hell, this very LJ.

The First Amendment applies only to the U.S. Federal Government and it only constrains said Federal Government from squashing political speech as a matter of law. And even then, "freedom of speech" is not absolute (remember, we have libel and defamation laws, nor are you allowed to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater).

Therefore, your notion that somehow "freedom of speech" comes into play is...well...incredibly ignorant.

And, finally, harassing a woman at the bar is still harassment, and if you complain to the bartender and/or bouncer, there's a 50-50 chance you can get said harasser thrown out on his ass.

In addition, there's a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between bugging a woman sitting at the bar for a date and walking up to her and asking her if you can touch her tits. One will get you an irritated No. Another one will get you a broken bottle to the face.

See the difference?

Please allow me to fight yours. For a start, if you truly wish to argue a point with someone, as opposed to attcking them personally for disagreeing with you, it's customary not to be so agressively patronising.

Is asking for a date harassment? I assume you're single then.

Let's not forget the 'opt-in' clause of the project. If you weren't wearing a badge (i.e. had *not* opted in) then it was accepted that you were not to be asked.

So these individuals taking part had already given the people within this convention permission to ask the question. How exactly can a permitted question be considered inappropriate?

I anxiously await your reply.

Hate to break it to you: But actually arguing a "freedom of speech" angle is pretty fucking ignorant, because this issue has precisely zero to do with First Amendment rights. Just sayin' that if you're actually going to use that argument, at least know how to use it properly.

In addition, it is known that there were at least two women who were not wearing badges and who knew nothing about these buttons (and who would not have taken one if they did know) who were, in fact, approached and asked. (Please feel free to scan the messages below...I forget who told me.) So, right there? That is a massive failure on the part of the organizers to either 1) explain the rules or 2) enforce the rules (dontchya think)?

So, yeah, so much for "opt-in" portion of the plan.

The other issue (and this has been brought up, oh, approximately every time this subject has been discussed — please do keep up darling), is that if you REALLY want it to be "opt-in," set aside a freakin' private room (as opposed to a public space) where the rules are clearly posted and everyone who enters those rooms agrees to play by the rules (whatever those rules are). That way both men and women are actively opting in for this experiment and the people who don't want to deal with the experiment don't have to.

And if you've been paying in the least bit attention: No one is saying that you can't play your reindeer games to your heart's content. The only thing (and I do mean the only thing) people are pointing out is that if you really want active participation on both sides of the divide, then actually make both sides do something active (like entering a room) and do better policing.

In addition, you're also not thinking in anything resembling a practical manner: All it takes is one person to go to hotel security. One. And you'll have a mess on your hands. Because all it takes is for one of the active participants to get collared by hotel security. Active participant then explains about "the project." How fast do you think people who are involved in this project will get thrown out of the hotel? And how much do you want to bet the con will find itself in jeopardy (don't laugh, I've seen cons thrown out of hotels for lesser infractions)?

So before you start climbing the high horse because you wanna do what you wanna do and everyone else can go fuck themselves, you might want to, y'know, take other people into account.

So basically your problem is that these women shouldn't have been asked. Fair enough; (I'll ignore all the petty name calling and poor attempts at patronisation obviously designed to make me lose my temper :) ) my point in the whole *question* aspect of the debacle is that these women are all free to say no. You never did address my query as to how a *question* can be considered harrassment. And my 'free speech' angle was in order to demonstrate that *due* to free speech, a person may legally be asked lots of questions that make him/her feel uncomfortable.

I accept that these people might have been upset by people that didn't follow the rules correctly, but here's a newsflash: if a girl is incapable of saying no, or, 'get lost, creep!' then she shouldn't be outside of her house.

Granted, I would be furious if it transpired that after giving a 'no' answer these women were pressured into doing something they were uncomfortable with; that sucks and is totally bullshit, obviously.

You claim I'm 'not thinking in anything resembling a practical manner', in terms of organising such an event for myself and having a 'mess on my hands' when one person goes to hotel security. You have massively misunderstood me. I don't have the desire to organise such an event; I don't even care about the event itself that much. What I find odd is how some people are so *very* *very* angry about it. Quite a few on my f'list have expressed their discomfort at the notion of being asked this, and I totally understand them; because they weren't so absolutist and overdramatic in their reasoning.

I sympathise with someone finding it gross, although I'm sure every woman has been asked out by a guy who is gross, and found it easy to say no. It's a 5 second operation which you then turn your back on and move on. I mean, women are being daily raped in Darfur and you save up all your ire and bile for this?

So, y'know, before you climb up upon your beautiful, white, oh-so-high horse because you are frustrated and want to rip into someone who has a differing opinion and everyone else can go fuck themselves, you might want to, y'know, take other people into account.

OH JOHN RINGO NO!

no subject

Please, allow me to fight your ignorance...

Re: Please, allow me to fight your ignorance...

Re: Please, allow me to fight your ignorance...

Re: Please, allow me to fight your ignorance...