Jessica Nigri: Babe of the week #29 (July 2012)

[{ Emilia }]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

Nice job trying to deflect your own issues off on Shameless, who's not even in this thread to comment on this situation or to defend himself. Class move.

There's not a consistent history of men objectifying men en masse either on this board or in the outside world. There's not a consistent history of men being treated as second class citizens. There's not a consistent history of men living in fear of sexual assault and harassment to the degree women have. There's not a consistent history of threads exclusively about men's looks being started here. The two situations are not even remotely comparable.

Shameless is in the position of being able to be completely open and honest about who he is attracted to on this board in ways he and others might not be able to do elsewhere because of bigotry, violence, or the fear of rejection by friends or family. While he has sometimes been a little overzealous in expressing himself (and has been told to knock it off when that happens), I think that fact should buy him a little more leeway than the average straight man who doesn't face those restrictions gets for making lecherous remarks.

The mods have consistently addressed Shameless' remarks when they've crossed the line both publicly in the picture thread and elsewhere, privately via PM, and through infractions when necessary, just as we've done with straight posters making inappropriate remarks toward women who post pictures, as you should well know having been the subject of several such admonitions yourself, since we're calling people out by name here. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, Shameless has been much improved in his behavior as of late. Can you say the same with your recent Facebook debacle and subsequent posts in the Misc. picture thread which completely missed the point of why you were defriended in the first place? So, please don't make claims you can't back up.

The recent situation with Pop Boy is not really comparable either since from what I saw it was mutual flirting which never crossed the line into being inappropriate.

I totes disagree with your assertion that your comments are far less offensive than what Shameless says. On the contrary, Shameless' remarks are usually more positive and flirty rather than crass and demeaning like yours can be.

Also, like the others have said, if you ever substitute "totes" for "totally" again, I'm sending Toht to deal with you with his coat-hanger of doom.



Now... what shall we talk about?

*looks innocent*

[IndyJones]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

Shameless is in the position of being able to be completely open and honest about who he is attracted to on this board in ways he and others might not be able to do elsewhere because of bigotry, violence, or the fear of rejection by friends or family.

That bit is quite insightful.

As near as I can tell, I came out on this board before I did just about anywhere else. The anonymity provided me an ability to acknowledge my truth and experiment how my interactions with people would be different if they knew I was gay.

10 years later, and I'm no longer worried about those things. I still am gayer here than most in most other parts of my life though. Odd, that.

[captcalhoun]

fuck it.

[Gil T.Azell]

[Locutus of Bored]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

um, what recent comments in the picture post thread?

The one where you took the opportunity to verbally ogle a poster who was posting pics of her newborn nephew, so you didn't even have the pretense of the photos being about her when you were rude this time.

This was immediately following you getting defriended for making lecherous remarks on her Facebook page (which you chose to mention publicly in this thread for some reason), so you obviously didn't take the hint.

You also thought the solution was never to say anything about a woman again, instead of, you know, just not making crass remarks that reduce them to being purely a sex object.

#lastwordfromme.

#yeahiveheardthatbefore.

Too slow on the ninja edit, chief.

[RJDiogenes]

Scout101 wrote:

---

She dresses up in slutty versions of comic book/movie characters professionally. Pretty much it. If you make 100% of your career into being a sex object, discussion's only kinda gonna go one way...

Now here's a post that's sexist and insulting to Nigri. Odd that nobody noticed.

Scout101 wrote:

---

Which is what I just said, so not sure what you're arguing. When the women in the thread told RJ he was wrong, or to stuff it, he basically told you that you were wrong, he understood better, and be quiet, sweetie.

Not even close.

thestrangequark wrote:

---

This is very unfair. One, it assumes that people have more control over their feelings than they actually do, which is very out-dated. I don't "allow" my self esteem to suffer, just like I don't "allow" myself to bleed when I get cut, or bruise when I bang my knee. It happens, and then I cope. And two, saying "she shouldn't let it get to her," aside from being unfair to the woman, removes the focus from the behavior that should be being judged -- the sexism of the man.

I very much disagree with this. People do have control over their feelings, and should have control over their feelings-- that, as you say, is coping. What if a Black guy gets passed over for a job because he's Black? Yes, the idiot who didn't hire him is racist, but should that effect the guy's self esteem? What about the several guys on TrekBBS who occasionally post self-pity threads because they have been rejected by women? Should they have low self esteem? There's a guy on this board who once asked a woman out and was laughed at because he's crippled. Should be have low self esteem because she's a shallow fool? I would hope not. If I feel bad about myself when I get rejected, that means that I agree with the rejection. "I had that coming." No, people should definitely not let losers effect their feelings about themselves.

I can do that, but it won't be all that helpful as it's the whole attitude behind the thread is the problem.

It's interesting that you say that, because my other worthy opponents have been trying to convince me that it's not the thread that's the problem, but specific behaviors.

And, I can't believe I didn't mention this before, but to further my point that this is not happening in isolation, and directly affects behavior on other parts of the board, here's a specific example.

Okay, it's a weird topic for a thread, but what I see is a comment about your universal appeal that sets up a joke about your shoe collection. This is followed, mostly, by polite compliments. You'll have to explain to me what is sexist or insulting and how it is connected to this thread (especially since the guy who started it is the one who had the hissy fit that set off this whole thing).

You're exact quote was:

I think you mean that I was contradicting myself about women having a hive mind by making an assumption about you and your friends. That's not the case. My whole point was that this type of conversation is universal to both men and women. It's an aspect of human nature, which I find harmless, but is apparently considered offensive in this current hypersensitive phase. Basically, there are two aspects to every person: Their humanity and their individuality. To classify behavior by gender is essentially sexist.

I don't know, I think having this discussion in the open is better. There are a lot of people reading this who might not have formed complete opinions and may learn a lot, and there may be guys here who didn't recognize their own behavior as sexist but who might now start to question it. As long as things remain civil, and I know that between you and me a debate would never devolve to anything less, then what good does it do anyone to keep it behind closed doors?

I'm just tired of going around in circles with the Watch and Ward Society. Ideology is impervious to discussion. But I would be happy to discuss specific examples with you here, in a new thread or by PM, as you like it.

[iguana_tonante]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

I very much disagree with this. People do have control over their feelings, and should have control over their feelings-- that, as you say, is coping. What if a Black guy gets passed over for a job because he's Black? Yes, the idiot who didn't hire him is racist, but should that effect the guy's self esteem? What about the several guys on TrekBBS who occasionally post self-pity threads because they have been rejected by women? Should they have low self esteem? There's a guy on this board who once asked a woman out and was laughed at because he's crippled. Should be have low self esteem because she's a shallow fool? I would hope not. If I feel bad about myself when I get rejected, that means that I agree with the rejection. "I had that coming." No, people should definitely not let losers effect their feelings about themselves.

I've come to the conclusion you have no idea how human beings work. Must be all that Romulan laughing.

[Robert Maxwell]

I'd just like to point out that up above, RJDiogenes in one breath insists that people need to learn to control their feelings, and also that people shouldn't feel obligated to control their "human nature."

lol.

[Locutus of Bored]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

I very much disagree with this. People do have control over their feelings, and should have control over their feelings-- that, as you say, is coping. What if a Black guy gets passed over for a job because he's Black? Yes, the idiot who didn't hire him is racist, but should that effect the guy's self esteem? What about the several guys on TrekBBS who occasionally post self-pity threads because they have been rejected by women? Should they have low self esteem? There's a guy on this board who once asked a woman out and was laughed at because he's crippled. Should be have low self esteem because she's a shallow fool? I would hope not. If I feel bad about myself when I get rejected, that means that I agree with the rejection. "I had that coming." No, people should definitely not let losers effect their feelings about themselves.

So, you've never been hurt by someone you care about or whose opinion you value saying something terrible about you that you know deep down isn't true, but it still bothers you because they feel that way about you? That sounds unrealistically emotionless and unresponsive for a human being.

This also sounds like an elaborate excuse for why you shouldn't care about what anyone else says as long as you personally don't believe it to be true. Which would explain a lot about your attitude on this subject, frankly.

[RJDiogenes]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

I've come to the conclusion you have no idea how human beings work. Must be all that Romulan laughing.

Another compelling argument! You should run for office.

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

I'd just like to point out that up above, RJDiogenes in one breath insists that people need to learn to control their feelings, and also that people shouldn't feel obligated to control their "human nature."

I never said any such thing.

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

So, you've never been hurt by someone you care about or whose opinion you value saying something terrible about you that you know deep down isn't true, but it still bothers you because they feel that way about you? That sounds unrealistically emotionless and unresponsive for a human being.

I never implied anything like that, either.

This also sounds like an elaborate excuse for why you shouldn't care about what anyone else says as long as you personally don't believe it to be true. Which would explain a lot about your attitude on this subject, frankly.

And, again, I never said I don't care what anyone else says. Clean sweep!

Given that none of you can manage anything besides mischaracterizations, character assassination, selective quotes and the occasional bumper sticker sloganeering, I'll have to assume at this point that it's deliberate and that you're fully aware that I'm right. Thank you.

[Locutus of Bored]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

Given that none of you can manage anything besides mischaracterizations, character assassination, selective quotes and the occasional bumper sticker sloganeering, I'll have to assume at this point that it's deliberate and that you're fully aware that I'm right. Thank you.

Actually, I was asking you a question and giving you the opportunity to explain in the first part. But it's good to see you're as humble as ever.

[RJDiogenes]

I never claimed to be humble, either. Though I am, when it's appropriate.

But pardon me for not answering. Yes, of course I have been hurt by someone I care about and so on. That's unavoidable. But, as tsq has already pointed out, one copes. You should not let things like that-- especially if it's some random jerk and not someone you care about-- effect your self esteem. Or do you disagree and believe that we should let the world beat us down to nothing?

[{ Emilia }]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

I never claimed to be humble, either. Though I am, when it's appropriate.

But pardon me for not answering. Yes, of course I have been hurt by someone I care about and so on. That's unavoidable. But, as tsq has already pointed out, one copes. You should not let things like that-- especially if it's some random jerk and not someone you care about-- effect your self esteem. Or do you disagree and believe that we should let the world beat us down to nothing?

In other words: People who hurt others don't have to change their behaviour. Instead the victim should learn to cope.

[Locutus of Bored]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

But pardon me for not answering. Yes, of course I have been hurt by someone I care about and so on. That's unavoidable. But, as tsq has already pointed out, one copes. You should not let things like that-- especially if it's some random jerk and not someone you care about-- effect your self esteem. Or do you disagree and believe that we should let the world beat us down to nothing?

Well, sometimes there's a big difference between what you should do and what actually happens. People don't always operate 100% rationally, and even a stranger saying something malicious which you shouldn't give much weight to can sometimes get you down if it takes you by surprise, pushes an emotional button, or triggers a bad memory.

My interpretation of what she said is that sometimes you can't help if something hurts your feelings, but then you try to cope with it and move on. I wasn't getting the sense that she thinks it SHOULD damage your self-esteem, just that it can, and we should be mindful of not trying to hurt others as a result.

I don't want to speak for tsq, though, so I'll let her respond to that.

[thestrangequark]

^Why, what perfect timing!

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

I very much disagree with this. People do have control over their feelings, and should have control over their feelings-- that, as you say, is coping. What if a Black guy gets passed over for a job because he's Black? Yes, the idiot who didn't hire him is racist, but should that effect the guy's self esteem? What about the several guys on TrekBBS who occasionally post self-pity threads because they have been rejected by women? Should they have low self esteem? There's a guy on this board who once asked a woman out and was laughed at because he's crippled. Should be have low self esteem because she's a shallow fool? I would hope not. If I feel bad about myself when I get rejected, that means that I agree with the rejection. "I had that coming." No, people should definitely not let losers effect their feelings about themselves.

I'm sorry , RJ, but this is a classic blaming the victim attitude. No, our thoughts and feelings are not completely under our control. Any psychologist or neurologist will tell you that the idea that we have complete control (or could ever gain complete control) over either is an utter misperception of reality -- although a common one.

Frankly, I think applying this thinking to this scenario is absolutely cruel. It's really, horribly cruel.

I guess I'm just weak. I "let" my self esteem be damaged by the sexism I encountered in society and by my own illness, and ultimately developed anorexia as a teenager. I guess most other type 1 diabetic girls are also weak, because they "let" themselves develop eating disorders four times as often as non-diabetic girls! Here I thought this was a perfect example of behavioral psychology in action: condition, stimulus, reaction. But, no! We were just weak for "letting" ourselves be hurt! All those black guys who were hurt by racism were just weak too. I don't really know why they bothered to fight back against it if they weren't hurt by it, though, but...whatever! I guess the disabled guy is just weak too if he ever let the cruelty of assholes dig in. I must be really weak for "letting" the constant focus on my body by men on the street and men online make me sometimes feel bad enough about myself to want to stop eating again.

And all this time I thought I was strong for conquering that eating disorder and not even thinking about it most of the time, for not letting the comments dig in most of the time. I thought that this is what coping was...feeling the pain and then working hard to deal with it. When all this time I shouldn't have "let" myself feel anything in the first place!

Those guys in Misc who bitch and moan about not getting dates? Here I'd always felt sympathy for the pain they were going through and thought that their error lay in bitching and moaning rather than doing the hard work it takes to overcome the pain they've been caused. But I guess they just shouldn't have "let" themselves be hurt in the first place. Boy, that would make it easier on us, right? Then we wouldn't have to listen to them or anyone else complain about being hurt, and we could continue to behave in anyway we liked. After all, if they "let" themselves be hurt by our behavior, that's their problem, not ours! You guys could keep up this Babe thread! Because if women are "letting" themselves feel objectified and demeaned by it, well that's their problem. And creepers can post all the stalkery, nauseating comments under my pictures in the Picture Thread they liked, because if I "let" those comments bother me, well it's definitely not their fault!

It's interesting that you say that, because my other worthy opponents have been trying to convince me that it's not the thread that's the problem, but specific behaviors.

Not really interesting. We each have our own opinions, here.

Okay, it's a weird topic for a thread, but what I see is a comment about your universal appeal that sets up a joke about your shoe collection. This is followed, mostly, by polite compliments. You'll have to explain to me what is sexist or insulting and how it is connected to this thread (especially since the guy who started it is the one who had the hissy fit that set off this whole thing).

If you can't see what's wrong with this thread than maybe this debate is hopeless.

I think you mean that I was contradicting myself about women having a hive mind by making an assumption about you and your friends. That's not the case. My whole point was that this type of conversation is universal to both men and women. It's an aspect of human nature, which I find harmless, but is apparently considered offensive in this current hypersensitive phase. Basically, there are two aspects to every person: Their humanity and their individuality. To classify behavior by gender is essentially sexist.

And my point was that you are assuming it is, when that is not everyone's experience.[quote]

I'm just tired of going around in circles with the Watch and Ward Society. Ideology is impervious to discussion.

You can say that again.