Some dudebros are doing a fundraiser for a camera attachment that makes it easy to take upskirt photos. Besides just the general disgustingness of the concept, they make one of the most remarkably oblivious marketing statements ever.
If you want to take sneaky pictures of people without them knowing, this is the way to do it. Just don’t be creepy about it.
I think, by definition, taking sneaky photos of others is creepy. And a marketing campaign full of photos of closeup shots of women’s legs and cleavage is an admission that the entire purpose of the device is creepy.
Just a thought that those kinds of ad campaigns might just contribute to this kind of feeling.
Thanks, dudebros. It makes me sad that my presence can make women feel oppressed, thanks to you.
Something has to be really fucked up in your head if you are excluding “taking sneaky pictures of people without them knowing” from the “creepy” category….
Do they think it’s only creepy if they’re caught?
Seems like the dudebros may have taken down the most egregiously creepy pictures from the project page. The cnet article points out that sneaky photography like this is illegal in some places. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/spy-cam-peek-i
How can this even be legal?
I reported the fundraiser for questionable content. Taking someone’s photo without their consent is not acceptable and being extra sneaky just makes it creepier.
You’re only creepy if you’re appearing furtive and sneaky. Looking like you’re being surreptitious when taking upskirt photographs is a sign of creepiness. Look forthright or even disinterested while taking crochshots and you won’t be creepy.¹
¹Paul Elam The Dudebros’ Handbook. Slymepit: MRA Press, 2013. p 1078.
(Specifically, taking up-skirt or down-blouse photos without consent.) Also, worth a read is Tauriq Moosa’s spin on it over at Indelible Stamp. https://proxy.freethought.online/indelible/2014/04/01/you-too-can-be-a-creep-with-this-handy-device/
Well, they can no longer finger through the women’s underwear pages of the Sears & Roebuck catalog, so some other avenue had to be found . . . . .
\snark\
Jesus christ. The product’s a clever one, and a device which changes the angle you take pictures at could be used for many legitimate activities. Despite the potential for misuse, if they’d marketed it on that basis I wouldn’t have an issue. The potential illegitimate uses for it probably wouldn’t have occurred to me. But their marketing campaign makes it perfctly clear that they have realised that that potential for misuse exists, and specifically targeted the kind of people who would misuse it. Creepy. Disgusting. Ugh.
Last month there was a big kerfuffle here in Boston [even Colbert covered this; snarkily] of a subway (the T) policeguy getting acquitted for taking upskirt photos; because the law defined it as only partially nude photos as illegal. Regardless of how creepy he was (and he #was/is#), the “lamestream media” kept asking, “Does his acquittal mean the law is saying creeps have the RIGHT to take creepy, upskirt photos, as long as she isn’t nude?” The rule with headlines that end in a question mark is; the answer is always “NO”. I’ll say this anyway: His acquittal just illustrates that the law was worded BADLY; Rewrite the law to forbid the surreptious upskirts that so offend everybody. — So, are these guys (of the OP) just trying to capitalize on the “oh so free” market in Boston, with all the news that upskirts are fair game?
@ 6 Al Dente
Oh gods….if i check, that is going to turn out to be completely real, isn´t it…?
So placing a camera in a changing room is a felony, but taking up skirt photos is legal (in most states). That’s just fucked up.
I. Just. Can’t. Take. Any. More! What the ever loving fuck is wrong with people? Why aren’t
menpeople raised to respectwomenpeople? I can see it in the other kids my kids play with at school or meet at the playground or when my kids come home and tell me they can’t drink out of a pink cup because it’s a “girl color”. Or the other day, this happened:My 4 year old to a couple of boys on the playground: “Let’s play family!”.
Other boys: “OK!”
Older other boy: “OK, I’ll be the dad!”
My 7 year old: “OK, I’ll be the mom!”
Other boy: “Then you’d be a girl!”
My 7 year old: “OK, we can be two dads who are married.”
Other boy: “Ewww, gross!”
It seems small, and probably that kid will grow up to only be a guy who quietly accepts sexism and will mostly get over the “eww” part (hopefully). But these kids were taught this. Not to want to play a girl part. That two dads is gross. And there are so many other insidious ways kids are taught this stuff that all contributes to eventual dudebroism, or just walking past the dudebroism. But even then, I don’t really get how it leads to so many
menmanchildren who don’t understand autonomy and consent. I mean, seriously, fuck. Fuck. Just FUCK!After a while some of the dudebros will end up taking upskirt photos of a sister of a boxer/karate expert/steroid-eating body builder and get the Darwin award.
birgerjohansson @14: Given that upskirt photography has been around for a few years now, I don’t think a gadget that makes it easier to take such pictures clandestinely makes it more likely that the creeps will be discovered and dealt with by violence.
Not to mention, in such cases, it’s extremely likely that the puncher, not the upskirter, will get in legal trouble.
Rhetorical question.
Legislators don’t think of everything and don’t think they need to think of everything. Germany’s latest cannibal was charged with “murder for satisfaction of the sex drive” because cannibalism isn’t a separately defined crime over here.
Alas, this selection pressure will be way too low to have a measurable effect.
What really leaves me speechless is that there is more porn on the net than any person could ever watch in a lifetime, so why are these guys acting like they live in the stolen-playboy-hidden-in-the-treehouse days?
Oh, and could someone please explain that cartoon to me?
@2 cswella:
Yes. For the “logic” behind such belief, we can listen to Noam Chomsky on why Bush was not tried for invading Iraq:
That’s the long and short of their logic: when we do it, it’s not a crime.
This is an interesting article, not just for its contents, but for the physiological effects it may have on your body.
The article itself might cause you mild feelings of anger and disgust. One link deeper, and you find an article talking frankly about the indiegogo project. This may make you sense rage and deep frustration. Clicking into the actual indiegogo campaign will induce nausea caused by anger, fear, and feelings of helplessness.
Persevere, reader! Clicking though to the author’s page will reveal this indiegogo: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-other-globe-hollow-earth, wherein the maker of the Peek-I needs forty thousand dollars to spread hallow-earth theory! Now you will feel a sense of shame that you are wasting too much time on the internet, and fresh motivation to interact with real people who you are sure are not living nightmares made manifest to walk this Earth.
“So why are these guys acting like they live in the stolen-playboy-hidden-in-the-treehouse days?”
I’d wager it’s the non-consensual nature of it. The women aren’t agreeing to be forced into porn, and that’s a thrill for creepers. And creepers like to claim they aren’t hurting anyone, so why is everyone upset? Then, they go for “well she asked for it wearing that”. It’s creepers all the way down.
As for the cartoon, a dudebro-free place would make me happy to. No “rape jokes”, no “ironic” racism, no “just kidding!” sexual boundary-pushing. Bliss!
@scienceavenger #18
It feels nice to be in a space, once in a while, where most everyone treats you as a person.
audratallis:
Yep. It’s rape culture all the way down. It’s never the fault of a rapist; it’s never the fault of a creeper, it’s the woman’s fault, oh my yes! After all, if she’s not wearing a complete coverage sports bra, turtleneck, and baggy, unattractive slacks, well, what do you expect?
scienceavenger:
Really? Okay, time spent with no leers, no one trying to look down your shirt, no harassment, no rape jokes, no slut/b!tches jokes, no sexist assholery…yeah, that’s a happy time.
Massachusetts amended the law to ban the behavior right after the court ruling.
‘Upskirt’ ban in Massachusetts signed into law
Timid Atheist:
Outside of this context, I think it’s actually a pretty complex issue. I’d recommend the following article discussing the ethics of it – “The Stolen Image: Ethics of Consent in Candid Fine Art Photography “
birgerjohansson, #14:
Careful there: one day you might make casual gender-exclusive comments to someone with a karate expert for a sister.
qwints:
That’s not just applicable to nude/erotic photography. There are all sorts of laws photographers are subject to when it comes to photographing people, even those walking about in public. You can, however, get away with a lot if you aren’t planning to use a photo for commercial reasons. Even so, I’m surprised so many people don’t have a problem with creeper photography. Of course, it’s just taking advantage of women, who aren’t fully human anyway, so…
My friends keep telling me how wonderful and life changing MichFest is, for this very reason.
@Inaji, absolutely. I was responding to Timid Atheist saying that all photography without consent is unacceptable.
@21, 22, 23 Thanks for the help. I thought the person on the bench was a guy. Too little font and coffee…
Despite… their short hair, the happy person on the bench is in any case not a cisman. There’s a pair of boobs.
Heh, beat me to it. :-)
It’s ok for me to be a creep so long as I’m not a creep about it? Excellent!
It’s funny, I know a guy who is completely outraged that a woman might ever be nervous in his presence – he’s one of those people who thinks that women “provoke” rapes, and should take greater efforts to protect themselves, but goes all ranty whenever Schrödinger’s rapist crosses a person’s mind within his visual range – but I’m pretty sure he’d be in favour of this device. Freeze peach, after all. Because intentional pictures of another person’s body parts are your personal private peach, apparently.
Jackie @ #27 Except for their transphobia. Sigh. Damn it, can’t we have nice things?
There are a couple of women only spas around Seattle, and they are awesome.
Gadgets specifically designed and marketed to make creeper behaviour easier?
Stop the world – I want to get off.
No wonder many women just want a space away from us blokes. Heck, even as one of those privileged cis/het blokes, I just want a space away from blokes right now.
Seconded.
I can see at least one legitimate use. You can record police malfeasance without getting teased, beaten, arrested and shot and having the, SIM card mysteriously disappear from Evidence. But that’s not how they marketed it
Teased -> tasered. Damn auto correct
Wow – we are 37 comments in, and not a single idiot has yet turned up to scream ‘misandry’ and smear rhetorical fecal matter all over the thread. It has to be some kind of record.
Jesus Chalupa, what the fuck is wrong with people?
Inaji @ 23;
And don’t forget that if she is wearing a complete coverage sports bra, turtleneck, and baggy, unattractive slacks, then they will say that she is a frigid, man-hating shrew whose judgement should be under question and who generally needs a ‘good seeing to’.
In the alternative, they may even try to claim that by the very fact of wearing such covering clothing she is somehow being a ‘tease’ who conveys the degree to which she ‘wants it really’ by being so provocatively and self consciously ‘coy’.
The game is rigged to such a degree that, if you commit the crime of being a woman, it is always damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Gregory:
That’s a fact.
@ audratallis – Some consumers of this type of material probably have a paraphilic disorder. A device that helps them to feed their habit illegally is a very bad idea, since they may need is psychiatric help. The majority are probably more general creeps who don’t think/care about the effects of what they do.
I’d support a law that makes upskirt photos illegal only if the ‘victim’ can prove she’s never appeared in public in a bikini or thong.
I suspect that PZ and others will next be expressing horror at unwanted pictures of bare feet, bare arns, and probably bare noses as well. Then, logically, they’ll begin condemning photos of clothed feet and clothed arms.
But, hey, I doubt they’ll get their knickers in a knot over photos of fully clothed noses although that would follow from their ‘reasoning.’
Well, it had to happen eventually.
Jenny6883a aka MRA troll
And if she ain’t a virgin it waren’t rape.
Go back under your bridge little troll. And don’t worry about getting dirty. Even slime wouldn’t stick to you.
37
Gregory Greenwood
Well, we have the liberturd in the Thunderdome defending MRA’s and wants ‘no initiation of force’ to be the only law, which I’m sure taking a picture doesn’t qualify as initation.
==========
43
jenny6833a
Because consent is a foreign word that’s so hard to understand for you.
Ah, so if you’ve ever shown anything to anyone outside of your own house, then you should be legally obligated to show it to everyone, regardless of whether you actually want to show it to them or not? Righto, seems totally reasonable!
Hey! I was once naked in a field… for reasons… does that mean that I have to accept people sticking one of those splinter cell type cameras up my jean legs and taking pictures of my junk?
Just to make sure everyone understands : The comment about rape is not something I believe AT ALL. It’s the logical conclusion of this nasty person’s attitude
Consent once and you have consented for any potential future instance.
So Troll, if you and i were out drinking and we achieved the kind of silly drunkenness that makes you say “hey! hey! you know what would be hilarious? punch me in the arm as hard as you can!” and i do, and we both laugh merrily about such a display of human quality, that means that from then on i can punch you as hard as i like any time i want, forever….right?
jennynumbers:
I see you’re still an idiot. There’s such a thing as consent. On top of that, there are already legalities in place which a photographer must follow. Photographers are also usually involved in discussions of ethical issues regarding photography. You’d know that, if you ever bothered to read, rather than just stopping by to shit on the carpet.
People are not things, which is tacitly acknowledged by using stealth for these shots, yet said stealth will be used to treat [mostly] women as things who, by merely existing, have no say in regard to their bodies. Don’t know about you, Cupcake, but my body is not a plaything for anyone else unless I say so.
So because someone felt safe enough in one environment (public beach, fitness center pool, etc) means they consent for being exposed on the bus?
If you want to look at women who aren’t fully clothed, your answer is just a Google search away. It’s much simpler and more effective than creepy cameras.
So if you’ve ever had a colonoscopy that means I get to stick anything up your ass any time I feel like it? I’ll be careful to work around your head…
@52 Most of them know that, that’s just not what gets them off. They acquisition of photos without consent is what does. It’s a paraphilia, it’s not really thought out.
sugarfrosted:
For some, yes. For others, it’s just ‘a guy thing’ to do.
What most of these men want is not the image (what, photos of women’s vulvas are hard to come by?) but the feeling of domination.
Draw the analogy to rape: what rapists want is not the orgasm, or the “rub-and-tug” (many rapists could get that with ease), but the thrill of dominating another person.
The lack of consent is the point.
The lack of consent is imbedded into the idea of finding these kinds of things attractive , unfortunately. As long as sex (and by extension women’s bodies, which are over-identified with sex) is a zero sum game where women lose when men win, this sort of thing is inevitable. Especially with how some communities of men determine their relative status with who “scores” higher, taking from women without their consent is often easier and may even be worth more points (like in creepers hot communities, where the lack of consent is the whole point).
It makes me so nervous around men I don’t know, and I hate that.
Audratallis @ #21, ndro @ #41 and sugarfrosted @#54 nailed why people who take these creepshots do it. The entire point is that there is no consent, that they’re doing something that the subject would not like without them knowing it, and getting away with it. Though I’d mention to sugarfrosted that they generally have it very well thought out, and I’ve had it explained to me in detail the hows and whys these shitty, shitty people have for doing it. The creepshot forums generally prohibit material that may be posed or consensual, for example. When I say I know this, I mean the ex who raped me repeatedly and stalked me did it. And is almost certainly still doing it. Plus, up until then, I was studying serial sexual offenses academically, and planning to do so as a career. The irony is not lost on me.
Relatedly, being a peeping tom is a strong predictor for future violent rapes and serial sexual homicide. I’d be interested in seeing how these creepshotters will correlate with this if an when the data is collected.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness @ 46;
It was too much to ask that the respuslive, misogynistic arsehats would take a day off, I suppose.
I spoke too soon @ 37; the foetid stench of the rhetorical excrement I mentioned is now wafting through the thread from jenny6833a’s every post.
Would you also support a law that makes mugging illegal only if the victim can prove he or she never voluntarily paid for anything?
What part of “consent” do you not understand, you dumb fuck?
Thanks everyone who jumped on jenny6883a’s
bullshit.
As a minor aside, I’m not sure Jenny is an MRA per se; I believe she may in fact be a militant naturist-type who I’ve seen picking fights on Ed’s blog, and takes the position essentially that she doesn’t have boundaries related to the display/observation of her own body and no one else should get to, either. I may be misremembering, however (and she may be an MRA as well), and apologies if so.
@ HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr
Yeah, when a person is willing to translate their fetish into the “real” world, for example, seeking out a situation that they are aware is truly non-consensual, it’s suggestive of mental illness. The guys running this would probably claim that they wouldn’t break the law themselves but the misogynist atmosphere they create provides cover for the genuinely sick.
nrdo: You know, I actually am severely mentally ill (partly because of what was done to me!). I’m also not a rapist. Making these things out to be a mental illness is really ableist as fuck, and morally exculpates people who are demonstrably dangerous people. This is a thing that happens because men are allowed to do this to women. (Yes, there are some women who do this, but the vast, vast majority is men.) It’s a thing that is mostly legally permitted, that people will defend on the basis of art and that the rest of us are just prudes, but it’s because the idea of sexually abusing women is a thing that is very, very popular, this just happens to be a very nichey and more honest version of that. Also, mentally ill people are a hell of a lot more likely to be sexually victimized *raises hand* than to be sexual victimizers.
nrdo:
A fetish is not equivalent to a mental illness. I’ll add that the majority of people who rape aren’t in the least bit mentally ill. Dumping a “oh, crazy!” label on all such people is a form of othering, and it isn’t helpful in the slightest.
64
nrdo
We refer to it as meatspace because calling it “real” diminishes the impact and importance of online activities/interactions.
No, it’s really not “suggestive”. People are plenty capable of being creepy pervs that don’t respect boundaries without being mentally ill. There’s no need for this nonsense from you. All it does is hurt mentally ill people, foster othering and “oh, those crazy strangers. Good thing only good people live around here!” bullshit.
@ #63 who says “As a minor aside, I’m not sure Jenny is an MRA per se; I believe she may in fact be a militant naturist-type who I’ve seen picking fights on Ed’s blog, and takes the position essentially that she doesn’t have boundaries related to the display/observation of her own body and no one else should get to, either. I may be misremembering, however (and she may be an MRA as well), and apologies if so.”
Hmmm. An MRA? Nope. Naturist? Yes. Militant naturist? Not particularly.
Picking fights? No such intent.
I don’t see how disagreeing with the mob of the moment, and perhaps trying to make a few of them rethink their irrational hangups, qualifies as picking fights. Hey, I think that FtB is intended to be a discussion, not an ass-kissing party for each and every off-the-wall opinion expressed by FtB bloggers.
No boundaries re observation of my body? That’s correct. Well, except that I’m a teeny-tiny bit shy about the blackened nail on my left big toe, although I don’t let it alter anything I do. You know, it’s logical mind over goofy hangups.
I suppose we all have a one or more totally goofy hangups. But they’re the problem of the owner of the hangups. The rest of us aren’t obligated to respect them.
Would y’all be so incensed if the sport of the week were taking sureptitious photos of female elbows?
Jenny:
we get it: you dont value consent (or perhaps you dont understand the concept). BUT OTHER PEOPLE DO, YOU FUCKING SNOTBUBBLE. Nonconsensual upskirt photos are a violation of privacy shit-for-brains.
You are not causing anyone to rethink anything. You have brought neither logic nor reason to your “argument”. Nor have you demonstrated an understanding of the ethical problems involved. Next time try giving some thought to your odious opinions before shitting them out here. I am sick of seeing comments by you.
Some ‘Sadist’ (and happy about it) said, “Audratallis @ #21, ndro @ #41 and sugarfrosted @#54 nailed why people who take these creepshots do it. The entire point is that there is no consent, that they’re doing something that the subject would not like without them knowing it, and getting away with it..”
Interesting perspective. Are we to ask the permission of Christians before taking photos of them doing whatever they’re doing? Can we not take photos of the Westborough Baptist Church’s picket lines without their permission? Can we not, without permission in advance, film what some poltitician says and does? That would be upsetting to most of them.
Can we not photograph a clothed (or unclothed) elbow without permission in advance?
What about feet? Are we to go ballistic over those who like to look at other people’s feet? Or ear lobes? Is a photo out of bounds?
“Relatedly, being a peeping tom is a strong predictor for future violent rapes and serial sexual homicide. I’d be interested in seeing how these creepshotters will correlate with this if an when the data is collected.”
Why does a peeper peep? Perhaps it’s to see that which is forbidden to see. If it weren’t forbidden, if it didn’t send the subject of the peeper into cosmic emotional shock (usually faked to some degree to conform to societal expectations), peepers wouldn’t be peepers and the so-called problem wouldn’t exist.
We’d all (well, most of us) regard those who go ape over photos of ear lobes as nuts. Maybe we create problems by setting aside crotches, even covered crotches, as somehow more special than elbows or ear lobes.
Hmmmmm.
jenny6833a
Are you able to make your point without stupid pseudo-rhetorical questions?
Actually, you are.
Stop trying to read minds, you clearly suck at it.
re #72 and #73
ROTFLM6833AO.
Do you ever try to make a case for your POV? Or do you just regurgitate ad-hominems like so many others here?
Why should a photo of a clothed (or unclothed) crotch be baaaaaaaaaad when a photo of a clothed (or unclothed) ear lobe is OK?
As for the consent non-arguement, look up the law on photos for non-commercial use taken in public places. Then look up the law re commercial use. If that’s too much for you, look at a newspapre or magazine. Do you really think that every photo taken in a public place is backed by an iron-clad photo relaese?
Then go back and answer my first question again.
Good grief!
jenny clearly doesn’t understand the difference between taking pictures of people clothed out in public and taking photos of areas that are private, clothed, and hidden. Her argument is the same as ripping a woman’s shirt, photographing her breasts and claiming “I did nothing wrong, they were out in public. Clearly she consented!”
Fucking dumbass.
So, because the media doesn’t bother getting consent, that means consent isn’t necessary?
So, that’ll be a “No.”, then.
Let’s try another approach:
Even granting that reaching a point where society does not have this hangup is desirable, why should the path to it be by forcing people who are already disrespected, marginalized, and subjected to repeated boundary violations of other sorts to suffer with a smile?
Did it ever occur to you that a society in which consent and self-actualization are centered and reinforced actually has the BEST chance of shedding inhibitions that (granted for the sake of argument) don’t actually exist for a good practical reason? What you’re doing here is like sticking a pot of water into a fire and insisting that maybe it’ll freeze.
If you were serious about promoting that, you would be fighting FOR the importance of consent. As far as I can tell, you like hurting and alienating people and putting yourself above them, and this is simply an elaborate rationalization for it. You’re useless. Go away.
Worse. SHE doesn’t grok that there’s a difference, and she doesn’t believe that anyone else has any right to have emotional states she doesn’t grok.
Jenny, do you honestly not get why what he did was wrong? Or are you pretending not to so you can score cheap points for your personal cause? I’m going to explain this to you, very carefully, like you’re six. And from Neptune.
Dr. Stollznow was raised in a very repressive, backwards place called Earth, where people, especially those with primarily-female bodies, are raised to think of their bodies as shameful. Naked flesh, especially certain primary and secondary sex indicators, is ritually unclean to us, and even though this blog is populated by a wonderful gaggle of bizarre societal rejects, we still struggle with many of our cultural taboos, including this learned body-shame.
When Radford publicized that photo of her, he knowingly broke a tacit, but very serious, contract between mates. Only a human’s mate is usually allowed to see them without their traditional coverings–to bare yourself to others is shameful, and depending on the context of the act can even demote you to one of the lowest social castes. In fact, as much as Dr. Stollznow may have been emotionally hurt by that act, her culturally ingrained distress is almost beside the point–because that was only secondary to Radford’s apparent goal.
He did this specifically to try and shame her–he used the photo as a tool to invoke the very prudishness you dislike so much against her, to imply that she is low caste and impure, and therefore untrustworthy. By this and other expedients, he has been trying very consistently to destroy her social standing and her emotional resolve. The point isn’t that her body is unclean–it’s that he’s trying to make her appear unclean to further his personal goals. Whether you would care if you were in her shoes or not is beside the point–she cares, he cares, and most everyone who will decide Dr. Stollznow’s fate probably cares. And he knows that–which is why he did this.
By the way, Jenny? Ever paid for something? Like, ever? Think about it. Money only has “value” because people “fake it for social reasons.” Money is as least as much a human invention as nudity taboos. If your thing is rejecting cultural inventions, aren’t you a hypocrite for using money?
Or for that matter, stopping at red lights. Why should you respect people’s “hangups” about what some silly color on some silly illuminated glass circle means? Maybe you can change some people’s minds and get them thinking!
…wait, she might actually do that. Forget I said anything.
“jenny clearly doesn’t understand the difference between taking pictures of people clothed out in public and taking photos of areas that are private, clothed, and hidden.”
I don’t understand the difference between taking pictures in public of clothed feet (earlobes, elbows, knees, etc) that are thus deliberately hidden and taking pictures of clothed crotches that are also deliberately hidden.
Instead of misstating what I’ve said, try responding to it.
I don’t think Tatsuya Ishida is the most credible source for information on anything. I doubt he has ever met the fabled dudebro, unless he considers himself one.
My words, which you quoted, clearly and explicitly apply to individuals as well as the media. Your comment was thus inane.
You know why. You are aware that these areas don’t have the same cultural significance or cultural baggage.
So… because the media and private individuals don’t bother getting consent, consent is unnecessary?
@ Azkyroth who says,
“Even granting that reaching a point where society does not have this hangup is desirable, why should the path to it be by forcing people who are already disrespected, marginalized, and subjected to repeated boundary violations of other sorts to suffer with a smile?”
My comments have applied equally to females and males. There’s no discernable difference between their equally irrational crotch-related hangups.
As a case in point, scroll back to the guy who was screaming about not wanting anyone to see his “junk.”
Your “point” is thus invalid, and amounts to nothing more than an attempt to change the subject.
Your understanding of the concept of consent as it applies to BOTH individuals as well as the media is inane.
Whether any particular hangup is or is not irrational is IRRELEVANT to this issue.
Your comments do apply equally to females and males, in that they don’t validly apply at all to either.
“And if you were rational like me, you’d have no problem with images of you being used as a social weapon against you! LOOK HOW ENLIGHTENED I AM!”
Tell us some more about how much better you are than us now that you’ve shed your irrational cultural programming and transcended into a being of pure logic. Did Kolinahr hurt?
Wrong. Try again.
They may be equal opportunity nonsense in an abstract sense, but the consequences for men and women of others in society acting on her agenda of simply disregarding boundaries are not equal.
jenny the fuckwit:
I see you do not understand what an ad hominem is. Neither of the comments you mention contains an ad hominem.
Then go off and cure your ignorance fool.
Snoof @89:
I see now.
Jenny is here to show their superiority over the rest of us mere mortals.
All right jenny, you did it. You sure showed us. Buh bye fuckwit.
I said, “I don’t understand the difference between taking pictures in public of clothed feet (earlobes, elbows, knees, etc) that are thus deliberately hidden and taking pictures of clothed crotches that are also deliberately hidden.”
Azkyroth responds, “You know why. You are aware that these areas don’t have the same cultural significance or cultural baggage.”
Our difference appears to come down to solving problems (me) versus propagating problems (you).
I’m certainly aware that our society has some totally irrational, totally counterproductive cultural hangups inherited from (and currently enforced by) Christains, Muslims, and fellow traveler atheists.
I want to solve the problems they create by eliminating the hangups.
You appear to want to keep both the hangups and the problems they biring upon us all.
I sometimes quote an old saying, from Shakespeare I think, that goes someting like, “Familiarity breeds acceptance.” That’s applicable on this topic too.
We all need to get over the counterproductive cultural norms, the assinine cultural baggage. It’s for our own individual good and for the good of the society as a whole.
If we women want to ween men from nutcase ideas, our first step must be to get rid of our own. It worked when we stared showing our ankles and then (WOW!) our calves. The men got over the enormatity of the change.
It worked in Europe when women refused to wear tops on the beach. The men got over the enormatity of the change. And, believe me, as I was there, the woman-on-woman peer pressure to join in was intense for the first ten yerars or so. Then, with the man-problem solved, the pressure disappeared.
The same thing happened when France, for example, started designating lots of “naturist” beaches. Now, they’re totally accepted and heavily populated. There are equal numbers of men and women (and on weekdays, far more women than men, often with kids in tow) and misbehavior is virtually unknown.
The men got over their obsesion with that thing down there, and those things up there, just as they had with ankles and calves, because the women got over their protective obsessions first.
It’s about time that American women took the lead in changing the cultural mores here. As usual, we’re way behind.
And yes, yes, I’m sensitive to the rights of those women who would never show that patch of hair down there. That’s up to them.
But I have no sympathy at all for those women who go banannas over a photo of that same body area when it’s fully covered with panties and most often, in the real world, reniforced with a maxi-pad.
And, to quote someone or other, perhaps it’s been me all along,
FAMILIARITY BREEDS ACCEPTANCE
:-)
Because permitting individual women to choose to not wear certain items of clothing in particular contexts is exactly the same as deciding that from now on all womens’ bodies are there to be used by any passers-by however they like!
(Also, are you suggesting that thanks to the magic of “not wearing clothes at the beach”, harassment is no longer a problem in France? ‘Cause that’s going to come as a huge surprise to some of my French friends.)
And they should do so by acting in ways that can make them feel uncomfortable and objectified, whether they want to or not! Choice: It’s not for you!
I know, right? How dare all those women get upset about being reminded that huge numbers of people think their bodies are public property!
Familiarity with harassment does indeed breed acceptance of harassment.
Saying that’s what you want doesn’t mean your approach is going to achieve that. Getting people to respect others’ boundaries will do a metric fuckton more to help people shed their hangups than just sitting there superciliously wondering aloud why people don’t just drop these irrational hangups already.
@jenny6833a, 68
So you’re fine with this:
?
It’s ok if you’re not. It is, after all, merely a goofy hangup, surely? Your hangups are your problem. The rest of us aren’t obligated to respect them. Maybe you should rethink your irrational hangups? If you’d let people root around in there, they wouldn’t care anymore and there’d be no problem, obviously.
Yes, you are and if you purposefully force yourself against an individual´s hangups, you are a fucking arsehole.
I don´t care if you find my hangups to be irrational and absurd…they are not yours to VIOLATE.
You say you want to make changes…but your means to this end are completely fucking wrong.
Also, the fact that something may be irrational is no justification for you to dismiss it. My fear of dogs is irrational, but you don´t get to force your dog upon me…people with germophobia can be very irrational about it, but if you purposefully make a point of sneezing on them, guess what you are?
You think not respecting other people´s irrational hangups makes you enlightened and free, but it only makes you antisocial. By the way, if we eliminate the individual as the entity that decides for themselves were the boundaries are, where are the limits? I mean, we have irrational societal hangups about feces (medical reasons not included, of course) so if i sterilize mine, can i use them in a snow fight?
The limits towards what you can do with someone else must necessarily rest solely on what that individual wants them to be, no matter how irrational you think those limits are and even if we agree that they are. If you do something i´m not ok with, you are only making it much worse by insisting that i shouldn´t be bothered by it.
@Gregory Greenwood #39
Mate, you went and jinxed it. Now jenny6833a is here, showing everyone that they’re so stupid they cannot distinguish between feet and secondary sexual organs.
No, clearly you’re not sensitive to anyone’s rights.
Oh geez, did I just ad hominimem again?
@jenny
I agree that society in general is prudish and that nakedness and sex are viewed with a sort of irrational disgust. If you want to wander round in public nude and allow people to photograph you in that state, that’s great. I for one would fully support you. But there is a huge difference between photographing someone who has consented to it and someone who has not. Do you truly not understand that? You can challenge society’s irrational prudishness without supporting creepy people who take upskirt photos. Our issue here isn’t nakedness, it’s consent.
Well, the problem isn’t harassment, you see, it’s the very concept of boundaries. Totally incompatible with freedom, you know.
This is some rape-enabling bullshit right here.
Hey Jenny, since our society has a totally irrational hangup against eating insects, should some progressive, freedom-loving maverick slip cockroaches and caterpillars in your food or feed them to you while you sleep, without your knowledge or consent? Or even force you to eat them and then when you complain tell you that you are being an irrational idiot with no rational basis for your hangups. Hey, it might actually make you realise there is nothing wrong about eating insects and set you free from your prison.
jenny6833a @ 86:
1) So, is it that you’re ignorant of the gender-based power inequality in society?
If so, you’re not well-educated enough to have an opinion, go read.
2) Or is it that you’re fully aware of it, but pretend you’re ignorant?
If so, you’re being neither clever nor honest, go away.
3) Or is it that you’re arguing that women valuing bodily privacy is irrational?
If so, you’re being a condescending ass, go away.
(And if you’re arguing that this issue applies equally to men and women, see 1 and/or 2, above.)
All of comments 78 through 80.
Oh no. You’re not trying to solve anything. You want to just abolish the hangups, with no regard whatsoever for collateral damage or other unintended consequences. Your intent is pure, so the outcome must be pure, too, right?
It wouldn’t be.
You forgot the power gradient.
Oh, suddenly you do discern a difference…?
@ JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
Sorry for the confusion; by “real” I meant it in the psychological sense: outside of the context of consensual behavior. Behaviors like online harassment are most definitely “real” in this sense whereas behaviors like staged voyeurism and consensual sexual role play are “not real”.
The majority of these pervs aren’t mentally ill, but the translation of a fetish into a genuinely non-consensual situation is clearly a part of the current DSM-V definition of a paraphilic disorder. It’s extremely difficult to define a mental condition because those lumped in suffer so much from the stigma and abuse, and neurotypical people do engage in the offensive behaviors (misogyny, rape culture) but unfortunately, these things exist.
Look, it really comes down to whether women can feel comfortable in the society in which they live and what they need to ensure that comfort. Personally, I think we ought to try to create a society where women feel safe and comfortable without having to wear a burqua.
Your rights end at your nose. Don’t be a creep.
@nrdo
Given that you acknowledge the above, I’m not sure why you find it necessary to automatically drag mental illness into it. You can both be mentally ill without being a horrible person and do horrible things to other people without being mentally ill. Neither entails the other. Apart from that, armchair psychoanalysis is shitty under any circumstances. Knock it off.
Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened @ 100;
I know – it’s downright uncanny. Back @ 39 I wrote;
And then @ 68 jenny6833a writes;
And later @ 95;
I expected people to turn up to try to prude-shame women and attempt to make out that being bothered by creep-shots makes you somehow unreasonable or oversensitive (it is standard misogynist fare, afterall), but I had no idea that anyone would turn up and so closely mirror my description of sexist arsehattery.
It would almost be spooky, if such bigotry were not so distressingly ubiquitous that you can’t turn around without stepping in yet another steaming pile of it.
@ Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm
The issues are not entirely unrelated; I think the proportion of perpetrators of this kind of “photography” who do have signs of mental illness is a valid scientific issue, but I do acknowledge that it’s a bit out of scope of general critique of sexist culture.
@ Gregory Greenwood
What’s particularly irritating is the fact that women are simultaneously told not to have “hangups” while being punished for displays of sexuality, like that Physician who was fired in Ohio in the news a few weeks ago. Any man complaining about hangups should first direct their griping to the other men.
@nrdo, 112
I think the problem is that, rather than pointing out that there may be mental illnesses that might account for some of that kind of behaviour, your choice of words implied that it was safe to assume mental illness in anyone behaving that way… which isn’t true and paints people who suffer from them as likely creeps, which isn’t true and is hurtful, hence the criticisms.
@ Athywren
I very clearly wrote that the majority of those engaging in this are not ill back in comments 41 and 108; the problem is that nobody reads what anyone says originally around here; we skim until we find something offensive and then jump right to the reply box (I’m guilty of this myself too on occasion).
The intersection of psychiatry and, for lack of a better term, morality is actually really interesting but, as “Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm” pointed out, off topic for this thread
@nrdo
Nobody is saying there can’t be mental illness involved. We’re saying that there’s no reason to assume it. We’re not even talking about specific individuals here, let alone specific individuals of whom we have reason to suspect mental illness by virtue of having ever even met these hypothetical individuals, let alone being qualified to speculate about the state of their mental health.
When someone says ” hypothetical dudebros taking creepy upskirt photos” and your immediate response is “mental illness,” you’re getting dangerously close to implying that one entails the other. Remember, we’re not even referencing specific individuals here; just a generic group of people with a particular…erm…hobby, to phrase it diplomatically.
It’s also not helped by the fact that you’re still insisting on having it be acknowledged that mental illness could be at work in at least some percentage of these situations. To what end? What point are you hoping to make? You may have noticed that, regardless of your intent, this thread has become largely about explaining to you why your immediate leap to mental illness can cause splash damage instead of what this thread ought to be about, which is consent and boundaries. Is whatever point you thought you were making worth derailing the conversation people were trying to have?
I hate references to personal authority, but I have been impacted by mental illness in my personal life and I also happen to work in psychiatric research. I’m very aware of the pain (and in sometimes loss of life through suicide) caused by the poor public understanding of it.
@ Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm
My point was that social acceptance of rape-culture and slut-shaming provides cover for sick people. It may even escalate them to sexual violence, although the science on that isn’t fully established AFAIK.
114
nrdo
Go fuck yourself. I read every comment. Yes, including yours. Stand by my comments regarding your 64. You were vague (who was “they”? Presumably all creepers like this since that’s what we are talking about) and your wording (“suggests”) was fucking shit. More than one person saw that. Try owning what you say instead of blaming us for “skimming looking for something offensive”.
@116 nrdo
Do you have a black friend too? Please just stop.
@ JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
My language in comment 64 was the least precise but it still includes the phrase ” . . . the misogynist atmosphere they create provides cover for the genuinely sick.” which communicates the distinction you are now lecturing about. Are you sure you’re not partially feeding this tempest in a teapot?
nrdo
Stop digging.
On the topic of communicating clearly… what I meant to say is that implies that it’s safe to assume that someone with a mental illness would behave that way. At the risk of looking like I’m aiming for a gotcha, and I promise I’m not, you weren’t clear that that isn’t the case.
The thing is, mental illnesses could have a hand in practically anything. Personally, I enjoy building model planes. It could be said that OCD has a hand in many people’s building of models, and it may well be true. That doesn’t mean that someone with OCD builds planes, nor does it mean that I do for reasons beyond being a raging nerd who enjoys getting sticky fingers and slowly poisoning zirself with paint-water, but both are implied when you mention it casually, even if you do make efforts to be clear.
nrdo: seriously, fucking stop. I’d be willing to bet that I know a fuckload more than you about both mental illness and also serial sexual offenses, both academically, and having been impacted seriously by both. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, for dragging in “they must be teh crazy!” especially in response to me. If you feel you have to armchair diagnose sexual predators, please write your theories down, on a small piece of paper, in either pencil or ballpoint pen. Sit for a moment, enjoying your total smarty smartness. Then flush the paper down the fucking toilet because that is where it belongs.
@ chigau
What would you prefer I say? “yeah dudebros who victimize women are bad” ??? true, but not particularly interesting or substantive as the basis of a lively discussion. I hope that anybody engaging about my points takes in the spirit of friendly debate and I certainly try to do that myself.
@ Athywren
Thanks, well, reiterating for the sake of clarity, I absolutely concur 100% that mental illness does not imply or entail criminality. Allow me to “take offense” for a moment though, and mention that people misuse OCD a lot. The ‘C’ – compulsive – is a key characteristic of the disorder and the majority of people who obsess over details don’t actually suffer from compulsions the way genuine sufferers do.
@nrdo 123
This is a conversation about real harm caused to real people by shit like this. Take your philosowanking and your spirit of friendly debate somewhere else. Seriously. You acknowledged above that your comments were, at best, off topic. So the answer to your question “what would you prefer I say,” is something on topic. If that leaves you with nothing more cogent than “yeah dudebros who victimize women are bad,” maybe that’s your cue to just read on this topic.
@ HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr
I don’t pretend to know how this issue has affected you personally but I hope you are aware that I didn’t intend to respond to you personally or absolve the moral culpability of anyone who victimizes another person. I don’t think anyone here in their right mind would disagree.
125
nrdo
…….so rape apologists are crazy too now? I’m going to second Seven’s #124.
Except that there is the “pure-O” OCD which entail just the obsessions and intrusive thoughts and is also a thing. JFC. Please also write out your “offense” on a small piece of paper for flushing.
nrdo: No, I know you did not respond just to me personally. Because survivors with mental illnesses don’t fucking exist to you. Just perpetrators. And also, apparently apologists who are not “in their right mind”.
Stop fucking digging. Stop talking about things you know absolutely nothing about. Just. Fucking. Stop.
nrdo
Since you are still driving your backhoe
tell us which mental illness the “sick people” have that will “escalate them to sexual violence” due to rape culture.
@ JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness, chigau
Wow, I’m genuinely astonished. I actually thought about how to make that my message in post 125 as respectful and conciliatory as possible. (And I do respect HappiestSadist’s opinion) You’re not just misconstruing my language; you’re not even on the same planet.
I second all of this. I’m astonished how some people talk about “mental illness” in the singular as if everyone who’s not “normal” is in the exact same monolithic state of mind.
No, JAL is not misreading a damn thing. You are saying things that are factually wrong, hurtful, and perpetrator-enabling. Consider that we have a point.
@ David Marjanović
I find it ironic in the extreme that I’m being lectured about mental illness being monolithic when I myself suffer from a (thankfully mild) diagnosed condition. I would also point out that you completely misread my statement, which was that rape culture (i.e. “normal” people acting badly) may escalate, or disinhibit certain psychiatric conditions.
Oh, by “some people” I don’t mean you alone; I’d just have said that.
No, you miswrote it: instead of “certain psychiatric conditions“, you wrote “mental illness”. I can only read what you write, not what you mean.
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
+ 1
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
Not that that would help.
However, most people who are sexual predators are not mentally ill! And we all live in a rape culture, so. That you immediately leap to talk about a very, very small minority of offenders is pretty suspicious in a very ableist way. And you are treating mental illness like a monolith in that you’re talking about vague connections that mental illness (WHICH ONE?) would have.
As I said, the guys who do this are just regular guys, they just really, really like non-consent. An that is a fucking lot scarier than “~ooooOOOOOoooo, the crazies are among us!~”
The first time you wrote “a paraphilic disorder”; the second you just wrote “sick people”.
What you don’t seem to have noticed how stigmatized it still is in many places to have any mental illness. It’s really easy to trigger people this way.
To classify them as regular guys is scary. That’s what nrdo wants to get away from – which would have mixed consequences if successful.
@133 nrdo
Whoops…the “Oh, for fuck’s…” is me responding to the first statement by nrdo
130
nrdo
So, what, we’re a hivemind here? It’s not just me and “crazy” is exactly what is meant by “not in your right mind”. You really couldn’t say “I don’t think any good person…”? How is that hard to come up with? Or not including that sentence at all since it doesn’t really add much anyways.
Everyone soaks up from culture how mental illness baaaaaaad and used as an insult, including people with mental illnesses. *raises hand* It’s a hard thing to quit, which takes a long time. All it takes is effort, knowledge and understanding.
But all you want to do is dig, dig, dig. Try owning up to it instead of waving your mental illness around as a get out of jail free card. It doesn’t work that way.
nrdo, you are wrong. Step back, shut the fuck up, and think about what people are telling you for a bit before you open your yap again.
*Hands out free grog, swill, and popcornz to those arguing with nrdo*
Nrdo, as a 30+year skeptic, anytime somebody tries to claim they are the expert without supplying the proper evidence they are, whatever they say is dismissed without evidence. While I haven’t be following this argument in detail, on thing I noticed was a lack of citations by YOU to back up your arguments from “authority”. Failure to provide third party evidence is prima facie evidence you are probably bullshitting us. Cricket, decide on what your real argument is, and if it is we must believe anything you say without you providing links to academic third party evidence, the only response is “shut the fuck up”.
@ JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
Well, the uncharitable inference that I could draw from this discussion is that the environment of a comment thread has prompted you and a couple of other posters to harangue and belittle an actual sufferer of a psychiatric illness for insensitivity that was simply not in the plain meaning of what was written. The first impression I get is that you don’t care about anything other than being seen as the defender of a disparaged group.
But I’m trying to assume not the first but the most reasonable interpretation of your position and see that you are making a valid point about qualifying connections drawn with mental illness with the disclaimer that most voyeurs are not mentally ill nor does mental illness remove morally culpability for their actions.
nrdo: You know, I’m also a survivor of (multiple) psychiatric illnesses, including one that resulted from being with a predator like the kind this thread is about. Your bullshit triggered me. (As did some other shit in this thread.) I had a night full of nightmares and started the day with a flashback. And you don’t know shit about the many others who are telling you to back the fuck down.
Still no third party evidence. NRDO –> hushfile due to terminal trolling….
nrdo
You are not new here.
Have you failed to notice that Pharyngula is right-full of people with actual diagnosed psychiatric problems?
Some of them are our most articulate and powerful commenters.
nrdo
You say that like it is a bad thing. And coupled with your attempt to defend yourself from claims that you are disparaging said group by claiming membership of it…..ugh.
@ Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
As far as I can tell, there is essentially no dispute between us over points of fact, so I’m not sure what scientific citations are necessary. I’m not claiming that my academic experience, which is in the bioinformatics/statistics side of things, gives me any special insight aside from familiarity with the types of illnesses and the terminology and assessments used to study them. In the case of paraphilias, the DSM-V is probably overly broad:
” . . . have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or
death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal
consent. ”
@ anteprepro
Of course you don’t know whether my claims, or anyone else’s, are true. But this is simple a debate over perception. It’s about people saying that, effectively, you can’t even mention mental illness in connection with anything.
@ HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr
In all seriousness, I apologize and hope you feel better. In the end, who is right or wrong isn’t really important compared to the responsibility to help people heal.
Only in your unevidenced mind…. Hushfile due to terminal stupidity…
Your unevidenced delusional perception versus our real world.. You lose every time…which is why nobody believes a word you say….
Nrdo, evidence can be found at Google Scholar. But then, I don’t think you have anything other than your unevidenced bullshit……
Actually who is right is important, because fewer people will be hurt by stupid bullshit memes, and rape culture.
I do appreciate the good wishes, but ableism, internalized or not, is not a solution to anything.
Nrdo, “fetish” is not “paraphilia”. Nrdo, negative sexual behaviors are not necessarily indicative of a mental/sexual disorder. Nrdo, “normal” people rape and involve themselves in these kind of sexually invasive behaviors. Nrdo, your being mentally ill yourself does not mean you are magically incapable of adding to the stigmas regarding mental illness. Nrdo, you are wrong.
@148 nrdo
No. It fucking isn’t about that. And the fact that you think it is about that is just more evidence, as if we needed any, that you are out of your depth in this conversation.
It seems to have gotten to the point where people like anteprepro are arguing against a completely made-up “rape apologist” straw man.
nrdo, you don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about, let alone what anyone else is talking about.
@ Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm
At this point I’m just curious about how much verbal abuse you’re willing to heap on someone who spends most of their time trying to understand and help people with mental illness (clinical depression; I’m not a clinician but I do my job to the best of my abilities).
Welp, nrdo, I’ve tried, as have others, to take the approach of very diplomatically explaining to you how your words were hurtful. Multiple times. It has clearly made no impression upon you as evidenced by your feeble attempt above to paraphrase what this is about. You are now willing to keep dragging this out to defend your word choice rather than just say “hey sorry folks, I’ll drop the subject now” at the point where you fucking admitted you were, at best off topic.
You’ve accused people of blindly grasping at things to get offended over, you’ve invoked your own mental illness several times as evidence that you can’t possibly have said anything hurtful, and you’ve shat out even more ableism in the process (“in their right mind” where “decent” or “good” or any number of other words would have worked without connecting mental illness with being an asshole).
So, you tell me. What will it take to get you to stop digging this whole you’re in? Is it going to take you reaching the antipode of your position or can you just accept that something you’ve said has hurt some people for reasons you don’t quite grok and FUCKING STOP?
@ Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm
You know, years ago, when I experienced a flare of my condition (OCD, not that it matters), I refused to see a doctor because of the stigma associated with it and irreparably damaged some aspects of my family life as a result. It’s too bad I didn’t have you to tell me that I “shat out even more ableism in the process” Yup, you couldn’t possibly be misconstruing my words as hurtful. You somehow know that I’m hell bent on increasing the stigma around mental illness.
So, respectfully:
– It’s you (and anteprepro) who are out of your depth on the issue of mental illness. Your concern about stigma would be admirable if you weren’t quite so quick to turn around and bash and curse at a possible sufferer if they don’t precisely agree with you.
– You may have personal reasons for objecting to my language so I don’t assume any malice on your part, just an unfortunate lack of self-reflection.
– I know that people who have been sexually abused can have much worse repercussions than I can imagine. Even the most careful discussion can trigger anxiety so I very sincerely apologize for any of my statements that had this effect.
I explicitly quoted what you said that was ableist, and why. Your dishonest effort to make it seem like I’m assuming facts not in evidence is noted. I’m still not clear why you think that being diagnosed with mental illness renders you either immune to doing or saying ableist things or exempt from having them pointed out to you.
Nobody has said you’re “hell bent” on anything. We’re trying to explain to you, futilely apparently, that there was an implication in your words which you hadn’t anticipated that could be hurtful and, in fact, was hurtful as evidenced by several people telling you they were hurt by it. But hey, silly them, right? Because clearly, since you didn’t mean to be hurtful, they’re just manufacturing hurt in their eagerness to take offense at something. Because intent is magic, right?
@ HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr
I just wanted to quickly respond to you because you know what you’re talking about and I appreciate learning something new. In the case of your comment about “pure O” OCD (post 127), it’s true that some people report obsessions without compulsions, but it’s relatively rare and the articles I’ve seen suggest that in many cases, a compulsive aspect is present but involves small mental or physical tics that don’t inhibit the person’s functioning. I think it’s safe to say that in our current best evidence, compulsions are a primary characteristic of the disorder.
nrdo, what the fuck are you talking about? One, I didn’t mention rape apologetics. Two, I have a psychology degree you fucking putz .
nrdo, you keep on digging, screaming that no, you aren’t in a hole. You are. Stop fucking digging already.
@nrdo,
Just out of curiosity, do you understand why people, usually people like us, object when someone says that someone or something they don’t like, or think is foolish, is gay?
Does it make it less of a problem if that person is gay themselves, or does it merely suggest that they’ve internalised negative attitudes about themselves?
Does it make it less of a problem if the target of their comment is actually gay?
When I was younger, and maybe still now (I am way uncool and don’t know these things anymore) there was a drug (or possibly class of drug (see “way uncool”)) called Poppers, which were apparently very popular with the local gay community.
Now, if I were to say that some consumers of Poppers are probably gay… that would technically be a true statement, and it may well be an important thing to bring up in some particular situations, like if you’re trying to build a drugs awareness talk to present to an LGBTQ group, but to simply bring it up in what is a fairly casual conversation is not necessarily a good thing – especially not if you’re not being extremely precise. Statements like that tend to lose details in people’s minds, and “some consumers of Poppers are probably gay” can easily become “consumers of Poppers are gay,” which flips around pretty easily to “gay people use Poppers,” which leads fairly logically into “gay people are drug addicts.” Surely you see how that’s a problem?
What you might not be aware of, is that even providing accurate information can contribute to poor public understanding, especially if it’s provided in the wrong time and place in the wrong manner. You might also not be aware that using phrases like “in their right mind” to signify possessing a moral compass or the ability consider the implications of a statement or action, or “not even on the same planet” to signify malice or assert irrationality adds to the pain.
So… does it make it less of a problem if you suffer from a mental illness yourself, or does it merely suggest that you’ve internalised negative attitudes about yourself?
I do believe that some people on these blogs are more aggressive than necessary when addressing issues like these (but then, I have the benefit of not being personally effected by many of them, so that’s easy for me to say) but they’re not overreacting to what you said. Whether your intent was malicious or not, whether you’ve experienced mental illnesses yourself or not, what you said, the way you said it, in the context you said it, contributes to negative attitudes about mental illnesses.
@nrdo – food for thought: There was a shooting recently at Fort Hood, a military base near-ish the city I live in. The shooter killed a few people, wounded many more, and then killed himself. For a few days, people were talking about “mental illness” as a factor in the shooting. What was he being treated for? Depression and anxiety. The military said yesterday that those conditions did not, in fact, play a role in the shooting, and the precipitating event was an argument. (Fun timing: NPR ran a piece that played up the mental illness angle immediately after a news segment quoting the guy who dismissed it. This is what happens when you have a combination of pre-recorded pieces and live updates.)
I have depression and anxiety. It was bad enough last year that I was unable to work for several months and had to leave a job I really liked. I’m pretty certain that there’s no way it would ever have led to me shooting people. When something shocking or terrible happens, it’s very easy for people to jump to mental illness as a possible cause (because how could anyone sane do such a thing?) even when the mental illnesses in question very likely have nothing to do with it (depression makes people less likely to do anything.)
That is the context in which you made your comments. That is what people are reacting to. (And for the record, a few years ago a friend of mine with bipolar disorder called me out for using words like ‘manic’ and ‘crazy’ to describe a salesperson’s behavior. I apologized, changed the words in the post I’d written, and have worked not to use them that way since. My own diagnoses were completely irrelevant to the situation.)
@ Athywren, burgundy
I appreciate the feedback, and yes, I am aware of the problem of language contributing to stigma, the ecological fallacy and several other issues relating to prejudice and language. I see the case for “right mind” and “crazy” being retired. I almost never use “crazy” or “gay” for that reason. Anyway, I don’t think it’s fruitful to continue though. It’s too difficult to communicate context and I don’t want to find myself lecturing an actual victim of illness or abuse, or calling them a “f-ing putz” like I was.
nrdo
1. Welcome to Pharyngula.
2. How else am I supposed to respond to someone who dismisses me by putting words in my mouth and pretending I don’t know something that I demonstrably do?
3. Your concern is noted.
nrdo @ #162: Please, tell me more about my own fucking condition. I love it when some dipshit who clearly knows fuck-all about psychology moves from defending sexual predators to explaining my own life to me. If you actually gave a shit about the pain you’re causing survivors including me, you’d back the fuck off instead of spewing half-assed armchair psych all over the place.
“I know that people who have been sexually abused can have much worse repercussions than I can imagine. Even the most careful discussion can trigger anxiety so I very sincerely apologize for any of my statements that had this effect.”
As much as I love being told that my response to blatant bullshit is because I am a delicate porcelain doll because of what was done to me, please stop. I was triggered by you and some other fools here, yes, but I’d be just as angry at your factual wrongness if I hadn’t had the… close experiences I have, and just had the academic learning.