Poll: Young adults grow uneasier with LGBTQ

[Bob the Gunslinger]

He did more than wear a gimp suit. He approached people and got in their faces while rubbing his groin and making aggressive noises. If a man in a business suit did that, his victims would also be traumatized. Should we outlaw business suits?


And for the record, I am against publicly wearing most fetish gear outside of certain locations and events. But I felt compelled to point out that Loomer's article didn't demonstrate the point he(?) thought it did.

[Jub]

It's bad form to return to a debate you've left, for which I apologize, but this article presents a perfect example of the issue with Jub's thinking.

A woman says she is scared to go out after enduring a "terrifying" encounter with a man wearing a gimp suit in a dark village lane.

She was walking in Claverham, Somerset, when she saw "someone charging at me in a full black rubbery suit".

The man advanced towards her "grunting and breathing heavily" before fleeing the scene, she said.

Police said there had been a small number of reports of a man jumping out at people in the area.

Officers were called to the scene at about 23:30 BST on Thursday and used a helicopter and sniffer dog in an unsuccessful search for the man.

The victim, in her 20s, said the experience had "hugely affected" her, and she had chosen to speak to the BBC as she was concerned it may happen again.

"I would never forgive myself if this happened to someone else and I hadn't said anything," she said.
'Going to get attacked'

Describing the events that happened on her evening walk, she said she had her camera app open after spotting something on the side of the street.

"I was walking along with my torch and looked up to see someone charging at me in a full black rubbery suit and managed to take a picture," she said.

"He kept coming towards me and was touching his groin, grunting and breathing heavy.

"As I tried to take a step back he was right in front of my face and he put his leg forward. I was just trying to assess the situation in my head quickly."

"Everything was running through my head. I thought: 'This is it, I'm going to get attacked'.

"I was looking round thinking, oh my god."

The woman, who did not wish to be named, remembers pushing and screaming at the man, before he started running backwards to the main road.

An Avon and Somerset Police spokesperson said: "We're aware of concerns relating to a man acting suspiciously in the Claverham/Yatton area.

"While we're keeping an open mind about the motive for these incidents, it's clear the individual responsible is deliberately attempting to cause alarm to the men and women he's approaching.

"While no-one has been hurt during the incidents, we fully appreciate the distress these actions have caused victims."

Patrols in the area were being increased to reassure the public and identify the man responsible, the spokesperson added.

The victim has been left feeling "panicked... that there's someone watching... and I don't want to go out.

"It's not just a man jumping out at me going boo," she said.

"Every time I close my eyes I just see that face."

The man in the gimp suit was, if we use Jub's thinking, merely wearing what he wanted in a public area and touching himself, using the fact he was seen to others for a harmless sexual thrill. People had the choice to leave. If, however, we use sane thinking, it's a very different matter. We have a man, dressed in threatening sexual attire, touching himself while approaching people alone in public areas at night, causing them reasonable fear.

Now, Jub. Let me ask you. Do you think the man in the gimp suit did anything wrong, or should the woman he attacked simply be less prudish?

Prove that it went down the way the woman and the paper say it did.

There have been many examples of people outside of what society considers normal get reported as doing things they weren't actually doing by conservative members of the public. There was a recent example in Kelowna where a lesbian couple was topless at the beach being harrassed by a conservative woman and her adult son for having sex on the beach and yet when the cops showed up it was determined that the topless couple were doing nothing wrong. The UK, itself experiencing some anti-LGBT sentiment right now combined with the fact that they couldn't find this guy with dogs and a helicopter doesn't serve to make this a credible story.

Given that you apparently find this story credible, do you also believe that Trayvon Martin was doing something worthy of George Zimmerman shooting him?

[loomer]

We don't, but Jub decided to make the argument that total sexual freedom must be defended in response to the inappropriateness of wearing certain clothing in public.

I am curious as to whether public toplessness is more acceptable than wearing, say, a corset with a couple D-rings on it publicly.

Depending on the context, yes or no. Wearing a corset to a nude beach would be pretty weird, and going topless to a no-nudity space would be too.

He did more than wear a gimp suit. He approached people and got in their faces while rubbing his groin and making aggressive noises. If a man in a business suit did that, his victims would also be traumatized. Should we outlaw business suits?


And for the record, I am against publicly wearing most fetish gear outside of certain locations and events. But I felt compelled to point out that Loomer's article didn't demonstrate the point he(?) thought it did.

You're mistaking my point. I'm addressing Jub's actual, stated logic - that sex acts aren't, or shouldn't, be upsetting in public and it's acceptable to exploit non-consenting third parties for sexual purposes when it comes to exhibitionism etc, because people should just leave if they're offended. I have no objection to gimp suits in and of themselves - though it might perhaps be inappropriate to wear late at night on a public street while approaching members of public you don't know - but the combination of attire and conduct combining to create a very reasonable fear in the victims is the perfect illustration of the problem with Jub's logic. By his metric, the victims are at fault for being upset.

Prove that it went down the way the woman and the paper say it did.

There have been many examples of people outside of what society considers normal get reported as doing things they weren't actually doing by conservative members of the public. There was a recent example in Kelowna where a lesbian couple was topless at the beach being harrassed by a conservative woman and her adult son for having sex on the beach and yet when the cops showed up it was determined that the topless couple were doing nothing wrong. The UK, itself experiencing some anti-LGBT sentiment right now combined with the fact that they couldn't find this guy with dogs and a helicopter doesn't serve to make this a credible story.

Given that you apparently find this story credible, do you also believe that Trayvon Martin was doing something worthy of George Zimmerman shooting him?

Jesus, talk about a reach. He actually has been found and arrested , alongside a second man after multiple reports. Now of course, we don't know the whole story, and you may be right, so let me offer the following:

Let us assume a hypothetical man has done what the paper has described. Would this hypothetical conduct be acceptable? Afterall, he hasn't forced anyone to be involved in his sexual conduct by your metric of forced (if masturbating in front of non-consenting people for the purpose of exhibitionism isn't forced people to participate, then I fail to see how this is) and they had the freedom to leave.

[Jub]

Jesus, talk about a reach. He actually has been found and arrested , alongside a second man after multiple reports.

This makes them guilty now?

Let us assume a hypothetical man has done what the paper has described. Would this hypothetical conduct be acceptable? Afterall, he hasn't forced anyone to be involved in his sexual conduct by your metric of forced (if masturbating in front of non-consenting people for the purpose of exhibitionism isn't forced people to participate, then I fail to see how this is) and they had the freedom to leave.

Did he touch anybody? None of the reports say he did.

Was he nude or showing any part of himself that would normally be covered in public? Not according to the article.

So the only thing we have is that he was apparently rubbing his crotch in a suggestive manner. This is crass but hardly any more harmful than scratching one's balls or picking at a wedgie in public.

Also, is this any more shocking than seeing that one old dude, leg up and proud of himself, in the men's locker room at the gym or pool? I mean a kid could see that and we must think of the children!

-----

As a slight tangent, but one related to the topic of fetishwear in public, should yoga pants that become near-transparent and show off one's underwear be considered in the same category as fetishwear? Should showing excessive bulge or camel-toe in public be considered indecent exposure? How about wearing a thin shirt that leaves one's nipples visible in an area where going topless is illegal for women?

[loomer]

Jesus, talk about a reach. He actually has been found and arrested , alongside a second man after multiple reports.

This makes them guilty now?

No, Jub, but it does suggest there's more to this than just 'she must be making it all up'. Now, it's still possible she's lying, but I tend to give the victims of sexual assault the benefit of the doubt.

Let us assume a hypothetical man has done what the paper has described. Would this hypothetical conduct be acceptable? Afterall, he hasn't forced anyone to be involved in his sexual conduct by your metric of forced (if masturbating in front of non-consenting people for the purpose of exhibitionism isn't forced people to participate, then I fail to see how this is) and they had the freedom to leave.

Did he touch anybody? None of the reports say he did.

Was he nude or showing any part of himself that would normally be covered in public? Not according to the article.

So the only thing we have is that he was apparently rubbing his crotch in a suggestive manner. This is crass but hardly any more harmful than scratching one's balls or picking at a wedgie in public.

So you see no distinction between running at someone, grunting and rubbing yourself in a manner that would provoke fear in a reasonable person, and simply scratching an itch? Jub, what's being described here is literally a sexual assault. It is completely reasonable for a lone person to feel fear when someone approaches them threateningly in an empty space.

Also, is this any more shocking than seeing that one old dude, leg up and proud of himself, in the men's locker room at the gym or pool? I mean a kid could see that and we must think of the children!

Are you completely incapable of comprehending different contexts?

As a slight tangent, but one related to the topic of fetishwear in public, should yoga pants that become near-transparent and show off one's underwear be considered in the same category as fetishwear? Should showing excessive bulge or camel-toe in public be considered indecent exposure? How about wearing a thin shirt that leaves one's nipples visible in an area where going topless is illegal for women?

If they're worn for a fetish, then yes, they're fetishwear. This is not a complex notion.

[Jub]

No, Jub, but it does suggest there's more to this than just 'she must be making it all up'. Now, it's still possible she's lying, but I tend to give the victims of sexual assault the benefit of the doubt.

You do understand that the UK has issues with false reports about things like this, right? Many of them are more to do with trans individuals but it bleeds over into other areas such as the broader LGBT and kink/fetish communities as well.

So you see no distinction between running at someone, grunting and rubbing yourself in a manner that would provoke fear in a reasonable person, and simply scratching an itch?

If I grunt suggestively while scratching an itch does that change anything? What if somebody pops a boner while doing the same?

Jub, what's being described here is literally a sexual assault. It is completely reasonable for a lone person to feel fear when someone approaches them threateningly in an empty space.

'Threatening' there's no indication that made any motion to touch her person, prevent her from leaving the area, or any pursuit more than getting close for their initial contact. I've been more 'threatened' by drunks and crackheads on the bus than this woman was and there are no news articles about that.

Are you completely incapable of comprehending different contexts?

I'm asking you to define exactly where the line is, preferably without falling back on existing laws as we all know that legality does not equate to morality.

As a slight tangent, but one related to the topic of fetishwear in public, should yoga pants that become near-transparent and show off one's underwear be considered in the same category as fetishwear? Should showing excessive bulge or camel-toe in public be considered indecent exposure? How about wearing a thin shirt that leaves one's nipples visible in an area where going topless is illegal for women?

If they're worn for a fetish, then yes, they're fetishwear. This is not a complex notion.

That doesn't answer my other two questions nor does it provide a clear or useful description of what fetishwear is without knowing the thoughts and proclivities of the person wearing it. Do you expect people to know the sexual ins and outs of people before declaring something fetishwear and thus, by your logic, unfit for public display?

What if somebody without a fetish for leather/bondage/BDSM wears a gimp suit or other such clothing associated with a particular fetish, is it then no longer fetishwear and thus fine for public display?

How about clothing that started and remains as fetishwear but which has also picked up other cultural meanings such as the studs and leather worn by some metal fans? Was Rob Halford sexually assaulting his audience when he wore his very gay and very sexualized leather daddy outfit on stage? Does the fact that, at the time, his audience wasn't aware of this change anything?

Your definition of what is too sexual for public wear is about as vague as the 'know it when I see it' line when asked what divides pornography from art. Can you please define what constitutes clothing that you deem inappropriate in public in a way which doesn't require us to know the sexual proclivities of the person wearing said outfit?

[loomer]

No, Jub, but it does suggest there's more to this than just 'she must be making it all up'. Now, it's still possible she's lying, but I tend to give the victims of sexual assault the benefit of the doubt.

You do understand that the UK has issues with false reports about things like this, right? Many of them are more to do with trans individuals but it bleeds over into other areas such as the broader LGBT and kink/fetish communities as well.

Sure. And when those events happen, it's terrible, but it doesn't mean that you should write off every report of a sexual assault as a lie.

So you see no distinction between running at someone, grunting and rubbing yourself in a manner that would provoke fear in a reasonable person, and simply scratching an itch?

If I grunt suggestively while scratching an itch does that change anything? What if somebody pops a boner while doing the same?

Jub. Answer the question. Is there no distinction to you between charging at someone, in a sexually aggressive fashion while fondling yourself, and scratching an itch? If the answer is yes, please stay inside because you are a danger to others.

Jub, what's being described here is literally a sexual assault. It is completely reasonable for a lone person to feel fear when someone approaches them threateningly in an empty space.

'Threatening' there's no indication that made any motion to touch her person, prevent her from leaving the area, or any pursuit more than getting close for their initial contact. I've been more 'threatened' by drunks and crackheads on the bus than this woman was and there are no news articles about that.

Jub. You are aware people can feel reasonably threatened without being literally trapped, chased, or touched, right? If a man with a gun appears and points it at your face on the bus, are you not being threatened because you can simply get off the bus?

Are you completely incapable of comprehending different contexts?

I'm asking you to define exactly where the line is, preferably without falling back on existing laws as we all know that legality does not equate to morality.

The two are completely different contexts, you fuckwit, and that's why I ask. The line is that spaces in which nudity is expected are spaces in which public nudity is acceptable, while sexually menacing another person in the middle of the street is not.

As a slight tangent, but one related to the topic of fetishwear in public, should yoga pants that become near-transparent and show off one's underwear be considered in the same category as fetishwear? Should showing excessive bulge or camel-toe in public be considered indecent exposure? How about wearing a thin shirt that leaves one's nipples visible in an area where going topless is illegal for women?

If they're worn for a fetish, then yes, they're fetishwear. This is not a complex notion.

That doesn't answer my other two questions nor does it provide a clear or useful description of what fetishwear is without knowing the thoughts and proclivities of the person wearing it. Do you expect people to know the sexual ins and outs of people before declaring something fetishwear and thus, by your logic, unfit for public display?

What if somebody without a fetish for leather/bondage/BDSM wears a gimp suit or other such clothing associated with a particular fetish, is it then no longer fetishwear and thus fine for public display?

How about clothing that started and remains as fetishwear but which has also picked up other cultural meanings such as the studs and leather worn by some metal fans? Was Rob Halford sexually assaulting his audience when he wore his very gay and very sexualized leather daddy outfit on stage? Does the fact that, at the time, his audience wasn't aware of this change anything?

Your definition of what is too sexual for public wear is about as vague as the 'know it when I see it' line when asked what divides pornography from art. Can you please define what constitutes clothing that you deem inappropriate in public in a way which doesn't require us to know the sexual proclivities of the person wearing said outfit?

The reason I gave you a glib answer here, Jub, is that I'm far more concerned with the fact you are now literally defending sexual assault and have already extensively defined where the line is drawn. But let's go into it one more time:

First, you have nominated vastly different categories of clothing. Yoga pants are routinely worn for non-sexual purposes and thus are not coded as inherently sexual, even if they're overly tight. Their appropriateness will vary on whether they are worn in appropriate circumstances and whether there is a sexual purpose, because involving non-consenting third parties in sexual conduct like exhibitionism is inappropriate. They can be inappropriate without being sexual, or sexual without inappropriate, or sexual and inappropriate. This is true of all three initial examples.

For your second example, clothing is fetishwear in two ways. First, because it is worn directly for a fetish - in which case ordinary clothing can be transformed into fetishwear for exhibitionist purposes. Second, because it is coded as sexual. This coding exists, and navigating it is an integral part of our existence, albeit one you seem to have a real problem with. The context determines whether it is sexualized and thus the degree of appropiateness in its wear.

Rob Halford is a red herring, and you are a fucking idiot. People going to his show know to expect Rob Halford in leather, whether for sexual purposes or otherwise, and they also know - since it's a metal concert - that yes, there's going to be an edge to it. This is contextually distinct from wearing a gimp suit to sexually harass people in public, as you are either completely aware (and thus, intellectually dishonestly comparing), or so completely unaware that you are genuinely concerning.

Read the fucking context, Jub. It's that simple.

[Jub]

Sure. And when those events happen, it's terrible, but it doesn't mean that you should write off every report of a sexual assault as a lie.

It doesn't make that report credible either.

Jub. Answer the question. Is there no distinction to you between charging at someone, in a sexually aggressive fashion while fondling yourself, and scratching an itch? If the answer is yes, please stay inside because you are a danger to others.

Define charging.

Jub. You are aware people can feel reasonably threatened without being literally trapped, chased, or touched, right? If a man with a gun appears and points it at your face on the bus, are you not being threatened because you can simply get off the bus?

There's a difference between drawing a weapon, which only has one use, and touching only yourself.

The two are completely different contexts, you fuckwit, and that's why I ask. The line is that spaces in which nudity is expected are spaces in which public nudity is acceptable, while sexually menacing another person in the middle of the street is not.

What makes that space any different than any other space? It's public, open to all ages, and could easily feature all possible sets of ages, genders, and genitals.

First, you have nominated vastly different categories of clothing. Yoga pants are routinely worn for non-sexual purposes and thus are not coded as inherently sexual, even if they're overly tight. Their appropriateness will vary on whether they are worn in appropriate circumstances and whether there is a sexual purpose, because involving non-consenting third parties in sexual conduct like exhibitionism is inappropriate. They can be inappropriate without being sexual, or sexual without inappropriate, or sexual and inappropriate. This is true of all three initial examples.

So you cannot draw a line between yoga pants being worn as a fetish, or even for a less intense thrill because they make you feel sexy, and those worn normal.

For your second example, clothing is fetishwear in two ways. First, because it is worn directly for a fetish - in which case ordinary clothing can be transformed into fetishwear for exhibitionist purposes. Second, because it is coded as sexual. This coding exists, and navigating it is an integral part of our existence, albeit one you seem to have a real problem with. The context determines whether it is sexualized and thus the degree of appropiateness in its wear.

Why should we give a fuck about what clothing is coded as sexual if it doesn't violate any local laws regarding which bits of you it covers? I'd argue that which bits it covers should also be irrelevant but obviously practicing that in real life would cause issues for anybody doing so.

Rob Halford is a red herring, and you are a fucking idiot. People going to his show know to expect Rob Halford in leather, whether for sexual purposes or otherwise, and they also know - since it's a metal concert - that yes, there's going to be an edge to it. This is contextually distinct from wearing a gimp suit to sexually harass people in public, as you are either completely aware (and thus, intellectually dishonestly comparing), or so completely unaware that you are genuinely concerning.

You started this by talking about the couple in fetishwear in a public space, would it be wrong of Rob to wear his stage outfit outside of a club or concert? How about for a public photo opp or album signing in a public space such as a record store in the middle of a busy mall?

You're doing a really shit job of defining things in a rigorous fashion.

You're also ignoring that often times things deemed scandalous are worn publically before they are deemed socially acceptable, examples of which include the bikini bathing suit for women and shorts without a shirt for men. By your standards, those never should have been worn because they were considered overtly sexual by a majority of the public. We could go back to the 1920's where women were being arrested for wearing one-piece bathing suits given your criteria I can only take it that you agree with the police in this case.

How about examples which offer more freedom to one sex or gender than the other? Do you follow the public consensus that women should be more modest and wear more clothing than men or do you say screw the public consensus and support women having as much bodily freedom as men?

So do you agree that there is some grey area where boundaries of what is considered shocking should be allowed in public spaces? If so, define the contexts in which you feel this is acceptable and how they differ from the ones you find unacceptable.

[loomer]

Sure. And when those events happen, it's terrible, but it doesn't mean that you should write off every report of a sexual assault as a lie.

It doesn't make that report credible either.

Certainly. The fact there were multiple reports from different people is, however, suggestive. I apply the same standard here I do to incidents where people allege hate crimes have been committed against them - I give them the benefit of the doubt, despite the very small number of times such incidents turn out to be hoaxes.

Jub. Answer the question. Is there no distinction to you between charging at someone, in a sexually aggressive fashion while fondling yourself, and scratching an itch? If the answer is yes, please stay inside because you are a danger to others.

Define charging.

Advancing in a fast, threatening manner. Answer the question.

Jub. You are aware people can feel reasonably threatened without being literally trapped, chased, or touched, right? If a man with a gun appears and points it at your face on the bus, are you not being threatened because you can simply get off the bus?

There's a difference between drawing a weapon, which only has one use, and touching only yourself.

And? How are you to know the man with the gun wishes to do you harm? Perhaps he simply wishes to feel the gun in his hand, as it makes him happy. You are, regardless of his motive, entitled to feel threatened by his brandishing a weapon in your face, correct?

Why, then, is a person not entitled to feel threatened when someone makes an unwanted and aggressive sexual advance towards them?

The two are completely different contexts, you fuckwit, and that's why I ask. The line is that spaces in which nudity is expected are spaces in which public nudity is acceptable, while sexually menacing another person in the middle of the street is not.

What makes that space any different than any other space? It's public, open to all ages, and could easily feature all possible sets of ages, genders, and genitals.

...because spaces have coding, Jub. This is not a complex issue - it is a fact of life we must all navigate daily. One is a space for general purpose traffic and association in which it is not expected there will be nudity, while the other is a place in which it is expected that there will be nudity as people shower, change, etc.

First, you have nominated vastly different categories of clothing. Yoga pants are routinely worn for non-sexual purposes and thus are not coded as inherently sexual, even if they're overly tight. Their appropriateness will vary on whether they are worn in appropriate circumstances and whether there is a sexual purpose, because involving non-consenting third parties in sexual conduct like exhibitionism is inappropriate. They can be inappropriate without being sexual, or sexual without inappropriate, or sexual and inappropriate. This is true of all three initial examples.

So you cannot draw a line between yoga pants being worn as a fetish, or even for a less intense thrill because they make you feel sexy, and those worn normal.

The line is drawn in the mind of the person wearing it. That you cannot recognize that the line exists makes it no less a line. I will happily concede it can be very difficult to tell - and, of course, that certain forms of exhibitionism are far less troubling from an ethical standpoint than others.

For your second example, clothing is fetishwear in two ways. First, because it is worn directly for a fetish - in which case ordinary clothing can be transformed into fetishwear for exhibitionist purposes. Second, because it is coded as sexual. This coding exists, and navigating it is an integral part of our existence, albeit one you seem to have a real problem with. The context determines whether it is sexualized and thus the degree of appropiateness in its wear.

Why should we give a fuck about what clothing is coded as sexual if it doesn't violate any local laws regarding which bits of you it covers? I'd argue that which bits it covers should also be irrelevant but obviously practicing that in real life would cause issues for anybody doing so.

Because you, of course, navigate and negotiate a society in which certain things are appropriate and inappropriate. For instance: It is inappropriate to wear a t-shirt featuring a photograph of a lynching, because this would cause reasonable offence to people. It is appropriate to wear a bikini at the beach. It is inappropriate to wear a g-string to a funeral. Why? Because other people exist and have feelings that should, where it is reasonable to do so, be respected.

Rob Halford is a red herring, and you are a fucking idiot. People going to his show know to expect Rob Halford in leather, whether for sexual purposes or otherwise, and they also know - since it's a metal concert - that yes, there's going to be an edge to it. This is contextually distinct from wearing a gimp suit to sexually harass people in public, as you are either completely aware (and thus, intellectually dishonestly comparing), or so completely unaware that you are genuinely concerning.

You started this by talking about the couple in fetishwear in a public space, would it be wrong of Rob to wear his stage outfit outside of a club or concert? How about for a public photo opp or album signing in a public space such as a record store in the middle of a busy mall?

Rob Halford appearing at a public event is a very different context, as is him wearing it in appropriate contexts. Again, you are either actively intellectually dishonest or genuinely deluded.

You're doing a really shit job of defining things in a rigorous fashion.

Certainly, because the appropiateness of clothing is necessarily a blurry matter. Your inability to recognize that we exist in coded spaces is deeply troubling.

You're also ignoring that often times things deemed scandalous are worn publically before they are deemed socially acceptable, examples of which include the bikini bathing suit for women and shorts without a shirt for men. By your standards, those never should have been worn because they were considered overtly sexual by a majority of the public. We could go back to the 1920's where women were being arrested for wearing one-piece bathing suits given your criteria I can only take it that you agree with the police in this case.

No, Jub, we can't. You are conflating my actual criteria - we should, where it is reasonable to do so, avoid causing offence to people without due cause - with a strawman of 'we must never do anything unacceptable'. If the existing criteria of acceptability are unjust then of course you can and should challenge them - but if they aren't, then yes, you shouldn't inhibit other people's freedom to exist without molestation.

How about examples which offer more freedom to one sex or gender than the other? Do you follow the public consensus that women should be more modest and wear more clothing than men or do you say screw the public consensus and support women having as much bodily freedom as men?

See above.

So do you agree that there is some grey area where boundaries of what is considered shocking should be allowed in public spaces? If so, define the contexts in which you feel this is acceptable and how they differ from the ones you find unacceptable.

Sure. Public spaces with an edge are different to those where the ordinary occupants will be reasonably offended. Public spaces where a protest is going on are different from those that aren't. Public spaces where sexuality is the norm are different from those that aren't. I don't feel a need to list literally every context where the boundaries are different, so let's leave it at this: Read. The. Context.

[Jub]

Certainly. The fact there were multiple reports from different people is, however, suggestive. I apply the same standard here I do to incidents where people allege hate crimes have been committed against them - I give them the benefit of the doubt, despite the very small number of times such incidents turn out to be hoaxes.

Where do you place the line of innocent until proven guilty and your own desire to believe traditionally wronged and ignored parties? What level of prejudice do you find acceptable in a case where there are multiple accusers but no physical evidence? How do you prevent malicious false accusations from becoming an issue with your system?

Advancing in a fast, threatening manner. Answer the question.

So a brisk walk, a jog, a full-on sprint? What makes the manner threatening the outfit, the alleged self-touching, the fact that it happened on a lone female at night? Context matters as you're so fond of saying so define precisely what you're asking here.

And? How are you to know the man with the gun wishes to do you harm? Perhaps he simply wishes to feel the gun in his hand, as it makes him happy. You are, regardless of his motive, entitled to feel threatened by his brandishing a weapon in your face, correct?

There is a difference between drawing a deadly weapon and making somebody feel uncomfortable with unwanted displays of sexuality. One is capable of causing far more harm than the other and you know it.

Why, then, is a person not entitled to feel threatened when someone makes an unwanted and aggressive sexual advance towards them?

You've yet to define aggressive as it pertains to complete lack of physical contact with another person and without any indication that they wished to so much as touch the other party. This is different than say pulling a gun or a knife out and brandishing it at somebody as there is no other use for those items in that context than making a physical threat.

To further pin down what you define as aggressive, would a large man walking briskly towards you in a dark alley, with a scowl on his face be considered aggressive? What if he startled you? What if he appeared to be following you?

...because spaces have coding, Jub. This is not a complex issue - it is a fact of life we must all navigate daily. One is a space for general purpose traffic and association in which it is not expected there will be nudity, while the other is a place in which it is expected that there will be nudity as people shower, change, etc.

So why does context matter in terms of the harm caused by nudity? Does expecting nudity lessen the harm it inflicts, if so by what quantity?

Would announcing loudly or posting posters beforehand also lessen the extent to which nudity causes harm or does such require a specific space to become less harmful?

You claim this is a straightforward issue but that only holds if you accept that the current standard is desirable and static neither of which I see as true.

The line is drawn in the mind of the person wearing it. That you cannot recognize that the line exists makes it no less a line. I will happily concede it can be very difficult to tell - and, of course, that certain forms of exhibitionism are far less troubling from an ethical standpoint than others.

So if yoga pants had originated in a sexual context that would change things for you? Why?

Because you, of course, navigate and negotiate a society in which certain things are appropriate and inappropriate. For instance: It is inappropriate to wear a t-shirt featuring a photograph of a lynching, because this would cause reasonable offence to people. It is appropriate to wear a bikini at the beach. It is inappropriate to wear a g-string to a funeral. Why? Because other people exist and have feelings that should, where it is reasonable to do so, be respected.

There were times when such wasn't appropriate and people were arrested for wearing bikinis

Rob Halford appearing at a public event is a very different context, as is him wearing it in appropriate contexts. Again, you are either actively intellectually dishonest or genuinely deluded.

It's still public and some easily scared child or sexual abuse survivor who doesn't follow metal could easily see it without warning, so what makes that different that Rob wearing his outfit to go buy milk? Hell, what if he went to the store after the signing, should he be forced to change ort does his being a public figure change things?

Certainly, because the appropiateness of clothing is necessarily a blurry matter. Your inability to recognize that we exist in coded spaces is deeply troubling.

So you admit that you can't define what you mean thus concede that there's no way to arbitrate which clothing is appropriate for which spaces outside of public outrage. Concession accepted.

No, Jub, we can't. You are conflating my actual criteria - we should, where it is reasonable to do so, avoid causing offence to people without due cause - with a strawman of 'we must never do anything unacceptable'. If the existing criteria of acceptability are unjust then of course you can and should challenge them - but if they aren't, then yes, you shouldn't inhibit other people's freedom to exist without molestation.

Define unjust? Does your definition change because of the times we live in and the social norms you grew up with? Why is swimwear that got women arrested different than more concealing clothing that you see as being coded as fetishwear? Define this.

See above.

You didn't define anything above. You in fact refuse to draw a line beyond this is acceptable because I know it's unacceptable.

Draw a firm line, define it, or fuck off.

Sure. Public spaces with an edge are different to those where the ordinary occupants will be reasonably offended. Public spaces where a protest is going on are different from those that aren't. Public spaces where sexuality is the norm are different from those that aren't. I don't feel a need to list literally every context where the boundaries are different, so let's leave it at this: Read. The. Context.

Define the context. Define the boundaries. You cannot argue vigorously that something is wrong without being able to define where boundary-pushing by acceptable ends and unacceptable begins. If you can only define things at the extremes you can, in point of fact, define nothing at all.

So for the last time, rigorously define your position or fuck off.

[loomer]

So a brisk walk, a jog, a full-on sprint? What makes the manner threatening the outfit, the alleged self-touching, the fact that it happened on a lone female at night? Context matters as you're so fond of saying so define precisely what you're asking here.

I will not be engaging with anything else until you answer the question. Do you or do you not see a distinction between scratching an itch in public and approaching a person in a deserted place in a sexually aggressive manner - you may define sexually aggressive however you wish for this purpose - while fondling yourself, in sexually coded clothing?

[Jub]

I will not be engaging with anything else until you answer the question. Do you or do you not see a distinction between scratching an itch in public and approaching a person in a deserted place in a sexually aggressive manner - you may define sexually aggressive however you wish for this purpose - while fondling yourself, in sexually coded clothing?

You've failed to answer many of my questions and came back to a thread which you abandoned in a petty attempt to get the last word in. Fuck you and your ultimatum.

I'm not going to waste any more time on somebody so vapid that they cannot and will not define the position which they claim to hold. So either define exactly where you draw the line on appropriate but boundary-pushing and what is unacceptably edgy, citing specific contexts, historical examples, laws at the time of your example, or fuck right off.

[loomer]

I will not be engaging with anything else until you answer the question. Do you or do you not see a distinction between scratching an itch in public and approaching a person in a deserted place in a sexually aggressive manner - you may define sexually aggressive however you wish for this purpose - while fondling yourself, in sexually coded clothing?

You've failed to answer many of my questions and came back to a thread which you abandoned in a petty attempt to get the last word in. Fuck you and your ultimatum.

I'm not going to waste any more time on somebody so vapid that they cannot and will not define the position which they claim to hold. So either define exactly where you draw the line on appropriate but boundary-pushing and what is unacceptably edgy, citing specific contexts, historical examples, laws at the time of your example, or fuck right off.

I see you edited in an ultimatum of your own. Jub, the reason I'm not going to engage further until you answer a question I've asked you repeatedly is that the answer to that question is critical to the rest. Either you can see a distinction, or you can't. If you genuinely cannot, then we are so far from a common understanding of what actions are and society is that further debate is impossible. I have repeatedly defined my positions - that you find the definitions too abstract and the answer of 'it depends on the contextual coding of the spaces you are in' somehow mystifying is not really my problem, though I will illuminate them if you answer the question.

[Jub]

I see you edited in an ultimatum of your own. Jub, the reason I'm not going to engage further until you answer a question I've asked you repeatedly is that the answer to that question is critical to the rest.

I didn't leave a debate and then come back like a worthless scumbag. You did so either debate on my terms or once again fuck off and concede and this time don't try to snipe the last word days later like the coward you are.

As are my questions. Also, I've already answered the question in our conversation prior to you storming out of the thread like a child.

Surely I needn't define my position any further if you don't need to define yours any further.

I have repeatedly defined my positions - that you find the definitions too abstract and the answer of 'it depends on the contextual coding of the spaces you are in' somehow mystifying is not really my problem, though I will illuminate them if you answer the question.

You have not defined shit. As I said before your definition is akin to the 'know it when I see it' definition of pornography, so uselessly broad that it can, and was, be used to define things based on the personal bias of a small committee people.

[loomer]

I see you edited in an ultimatum of your own. Jub, the reason I'm not going to engage further until you answer a question I've asked you repeatedly is that the answer to that question is critical to the rest.

As are my questions. Also, I've already answered the question in our conversation prior to you storming out of the thread like a child.

Surely I needn't define my position any further if you don't need to define yours any further.

I have repeatedly defined my positions - that you find the definitions too abstract and the answer of 'it depends on the contextual coding of the spaces you are in' somehow mystifying is not really my problem, though I will illuminate them if you answer the question.

You have not defined shit. As I said before your definition is akin to the 'know it when I see it' definition of pornography, so uselessly broad that it can, and was, be used to define things based on the personal bias of a small committee people.

At what point did you answer the following question: Do you or do you not see a distinction between scratching an itch in public and approaching a person in a deserted place in a sexually aggressive manner - you may define sexually aggressive however you wish for this purpose - while fondling yourself, in sexually coded clothing?

[Jub]

At what point did you answer the following question: Do you or do you not see a distinction between scratching an itch in public and approaching a person in a deserted place in a sexually aggressive manner - you may define sexually aggressive however you wish for this purpose - while fondling yourself, in sexually coded clothing?

Somewhere in between our talk of shitting in a library and masturbating on a bus I'd say.

Or is your memory so poor you forgot that already?

[loomer]

At what point did you answer the following question: Do you or do you not see a distinction between scratching an itch in public and approaching a person in a deserted place in a sexually aggressive manner - you may define sexually aggressive however you wish for this purpose - while fondling yourself, in sexually coded clothing?

Somewhere in between our talk of shitting in a library and masturbating on a bus I'd say.

Or is your memory so poor you forgot that already?

You haven't answered it, Jub. You answered that sexual acts shouldn't be seen as taboo and people should do as they like - a fair, if flawed, position. But you haven't answered the question I am asking: Do you, or do you not, see a distinction between intentionally causing someone distress with an unwanted, sexually aggressive advance and the act of just scratching your balls?

[Jub]

You haven't answered it, Jub. You answered that sexual acts shouldn't be seen as taboo and people should do as they like - a fair, if flawed, position. But you haven't answered the question I am asking: Do you, or do you not, see a distinction between intentionally causing someone distress with an unwanted, sexually aggressive advance and the act of just scratching your balls?

My position is, and it should be clear enough without further clarification on my behalf, that an action cannot be aggressive unless it is likely to cause physical harm. Thus a raised fist is aggressive, a pointed gun is aggressive, merely coming towards somebody while touching one's self cannot be aggressive in the same way. Aggression requires violence or the strongly implied threat of violence and your example contains no such threat.

[loomer]

You haven't answered it, Jub. You answered that sexual acts shouldn't be seen as taboo and people should do as they like - a fair, if flawed, position. But you haven't answered the question I am asking: Do you, or do you not, see a distinction between intentionally causing someone distress with an unwanted, sexually aggressive advance and the act of just scratching your balls?

My position is, and it should be clear enough without further clarification on my behalf, that an action cannot be aggressive unless it is likely to cause physical harm. Thus a raised fist is aggressive, a pointed gun is aggressive, merely coming towards somebody while touching one's self cannot be aggressive in the same way. Aggression requires violence or the strongly implied threat of violence and your example contains no such threat.

Is a person not entitled to feel threatened by the risk of sexual violence?

[Jub]

Is a person not entitled to feel threatened by the risk of sexual violence?

I would argue that something cannot be sexual violence without there being an aspect of physical violence to it. Given that this man never touched the women even when she was close to him I'd argue that he did no violence and never intended to do any violence. In other words, he did violence, in the same way, wearing a shirt featuring a picture of graphic violence does, in that he did no violence.

[loomer]

Is a person not entitled to feel threatened by the risk of sexual violence?

I would argue that something cannot be sexual violence without there being an aspect of physical violence to it. Given that this man never touched the women even when she was close to him I'd argue that he did no violence and never intended to do any violence. In other words, he did violence, in the same way, wearing a shirt featuring a picture of graphic violence does, in that he did no violence.

And this is why I wanted you to answer this specific question. Jub, your ideas of what a threat is, what actions are, and how society is structured is so divergent from mine that we don't actually have a common language. What you describe as not a threat is, in fact, highly threatening to many people in the current context. Your modality of being excludes the genuine fear and trauma that many people have experienced and lacks the ability to comprehend emotional and social violence, both of which are integral to any reasonable understanding of sexual ethics. I came back with this specific case because I hoped it might tease something other than this outcome out from your position, but that's failed. So, you can probably tell me to fuck off now because I once again have to bow out.

[Jub]

And this is why I wanted you to answer this specific question. Jub, your ideas of what a threat is, what actions are, and how society is structured is so divergent from mine that we don't actually have a common language. What you describe as not a threat is, in fact, highly threatening to many people in the current context. Your modality of being excludes the genuine fear and trauma that many people have experienced and lacks the ability to comprehend emotional and social violence, both of which are integral to any reasonable understanding of sexual ethics. I came back with this specific case because I hoped it might tease something other than this outcome out from your position, but that's failed. So, you can probably tell me to fuck off now because I once again have to bow out.

Before you go, let's take your thought experiment one step further:

Replace the man with a perfectly lifelike hologram incapable of physical interaction.

Is this hologram capable of violence, physical or otherwise?

Would a man carrying a body length and width TV screen displaying a man touching himself capable of causing sexual violence?

A robot carrying the same TV screen along a preprogrammed route with programming to speed up when it detects a human with some set proximity?

Where do you draw the line between shocking and unwanted and violence, and can one share an idea so radical that the mere sharing of said idea should be classed as violence?

[loomer]

And this is why I wanted you to answer this specific question. Jub, your ideas of what a threat is, what actions are, and how society is structured is so divergent from mine that we don't actually have a common language. What you describe as not a threat is, in fact, highly threatening to many people in the current context. Your modality of being excludes the genuine fear and trauma that many people have experienced and lacks the ability to comprehend emotional and social violence, both of which are integral to any reasonable understanding of sexual ethics. I came back with this specific case because I hoped it might tease something other than this outcome out from your position, but that's failed. So, you can probably tell me to fuck off now because I once again have to bow out.

Before you go, let's take your thought experiment one step further:

Replace the man with a perfectly lifelike hologram incapable of physical interaction.

Is this hologram capable of violence, physical or otherwise?

The hologram does not possess capacity, so no. But the experienced fear remains real, Jub. People's trauma remains real. Do you deny that emotional violence exists and that an experience of perceived danger can be traumatic?

Would a man carrying a body length and width TV screen displaying a man touching himself capable of causing sexual violence?

If unexpected and unwanted? Absolutely.

A robot carrying the same TV screen along a preprogrammed route with programming to speed up when it detects a human with some set proximity?

Robots, like holograms, lack capacity. Do you deny however that such an experience could be legitimately frightening?

Where do you draw the line between shocking and unwanted and violence, and can one share an idea so radical that the mere sharing of said idea should be classed as violence?

The line is, again, contextual - which you will no doubt say is unsatisfactory, so let me venture the following: If your intent through this shocking and unwanted display is to cause fear and trauma, then it constitutes an act of emotional violence, and depending on the extent, even if your intention isn't, it may constitute violence.

[Jub]

The hologram does not possess capacity, so no. But the experienced fear remains real, Jub. People's trauma remains real. Do you deny that emotional violence exists and that an experience of perceived danger can be traumatic?

I deny that anybody should experience lasting trauma from an event that was merely perceived as dangerous. If they do experience such there must already be a deep flaw within their psyche to cause such an extreme reaction. Should we base all of our rules around their effects on fundamentally damaged people?

Robots, like holograms, lack capacity. Do you deny however that such an experience could be legitimately frightening?

Starling, yes. Frightening, no.

I don't feel that a reasonable and rational human being should fear a robot carrying a TV regardless of what that TV displays.

The line is, again, contextual - which you will no doubt say is unsatisfactory, so let me venture the following: If your intent through this shocking and unwanted display is to cause fear and trauma, then it constitutes an act of emotional violence, and depending on the extent, even if your intention isn't, it may constitute violence.

So once again you're unable to clearly define this and would be forced to rely on a necessarily biased subjective view. That's a useless definition as it will, by necessity, change from observer to observer, as such it's pretty worthless as any kind of standard. It's like going back to using the length of one's foot to measure distances rather than using a defined unit like the foot or meter. You wouldn't do that, so why settle for such a fuzzy and mutable moral view?

[loomer]

The hologram does not possess capacity, so no. But the experienced fear remains real, Jub. People's trauma remains real. Do you deny that emotional violence exists and that an experience of perceived danger can be traumatic?

I deny that anybody should experience lasting trauma from an event that was merely perceived as dangerous. If they do experience such there must already be a deep flaw within their psyche to cause such an extreme reaction. Should we base all of our rules around their effects on fundamentally damaged people?

You seem to be under the misconception that humans are supermen capable of shrugging off real traumatic events. Events perceived as dangerous can and regularly do cause lasting trauma, and that trauma is no less real than trauma caused by physical injury or threats. Consider: A person who witnesses a rape which they cannot prevent, but who is in no physical danger themselves, and develops PTSD from the experience. Is there a 'deep flaw within their psyche' that is responsible?

Similarly, a person witnesses a horrific car crash, but were in no physical danger themselves, and develops PTSD from the experience. Is there a 'deep flaw within their psyche' that is responsible?

A person is held at gunpoint, but the gun is not loaded and it was all a prank. They develop PTSD from the experience, even though they were in fact in no physical danger. Is there a 'deep flaw within their psyche' that is responsible?

Robots, like holograms, lack capacity. Do you deny however that such an experience could be legitimately frightening?

Starling, yes. Frightening, no.

I don't feel that a reasonable and rational human being should fear a robot carrying a TV regardless of what that TV displays.[/quote]

So you wouldn't be frightened by a machine pursuing you, not knowing why or for how long it will chase? If so, you are highly irregular.

The line is, again, contextual - which you will no doubt say is unsatisfactory, so let me venture the following: If your intent through this shocking and unwanted display is to cause fear and trauma, then it constitutes an act of emotional violence, and depending on the extent, even if your intention isn't, it may constitute violence.

So once again you're unable to clearly define this and would be forced to rely on a necessarily biased subjective view. That's a useless definition as it will, by necessity, change from observer to observer, as such it's pretty worthless as any kind of standard. It's like going back to using the length of one's foot to measure distances rather than using a defined unit like the foot or meter. You wouldn't do that, so why settle for such a fuzzy and mutable moral view?

These are issues that cannot be rigidly quantified because they are inherently subjective and individual. Nonetheless, I gave you what I consider to be a suitably clear line: If your intent is to cause fear and trauma, you have crossed the line between merely provocative content and emotional violence. Cases where no intent is present are, as always, blurrier. The presence of intent however clearly transforms it from merely shocking into deliberate emotional violence. It is a clear dividing line - a clear definition.