There's a small TTRPG convention that's held annually not too far from the town I live in. While I enjoy attending whenever I don't have a scheduling conflict my wife refuses to go because the smell of body oder is everpresent and really makes the whole event less enjoyable. Like, just the air in the entire event space has a general smell of body oder and there's no specific decernable source of the smell
True, though the thought of an event organized by people with a stance running counter to what I consider common sense and basic decency is pretty repulsive to contemplate.
If you don't know who asmongold is, look him up, that's basically what you're dealing with.
Dude used the sun shining on a rat's corpse, the pungent smell of it baking in the sun, as an alarm clock, for years.
Thats not a joke or exaggeration, he himself explained it on a stream, had to be convinced this was bad.
Now, as an introvert, typically 'homebody' nerd type person myself, I do feel the need to point out that it is possible to be that way and ... keep your place clean, take care of hygiene, take care of your body.
But, there definitely are a ton of bedrotting goblins and basement dwellers who are unable to do this, thats a real thing.
If you've never heard of "The Final Fantasy House"... you have no idea how bad this can get.
Unfortunately, I do know who asmon is. Even more unfortunately, I also know about The Final Fantasy House debacle. It's entirely possible I spend too much time online.
Fredrik Knudsen did a video on it but TLDR is that a bunch of people lived in a fucked up abusive cult like situation and more or less festered for years back in the early 2000s. It's one of those situations where any shortening past a point doesn't get across how fucking bad it was.
It's not an easily summarized situation. If you really want to dive into the gory details, there's plenty of coverage on the entire thing to be found online.
Can we take a moment and point out how weird a double standard that actually is. If you wore the exact same bikini somewhere there isn't water, you'd be fucking arrested
They might try and arrest you but it'd be hard to make any charges stick, maybe if it was on private property and you were already asked to leave and refused first, but yeah it's weird and stupid
Undergarments tend to be a lot thinner and can be inherently more revealing due to sheerness or the way the fabric sits. Swimwear usually has an inner liner that greatly reduces the issue.
No they dont. Sexy ones do, sure. But no, they dont. They tend to do the job and be comfortable. Thats it. The real answer you are looking for is "consent".
I can see that interpretation, but I would point out that this person is talking about a narrow time in history and not necessarily all of human evolution or even all of human experience for that time. Further, sexual desire isn't exactly tied to reproduction - reproduction can be intentional or spontaneous. Love is an enduring human trait.
Second, I think it's more the implication that women given access to birth control and abortions only choose to have 0-3 kids on average, so we can perhaps extrapolate that many women in the past would've chosen the same but couldn't. Why? Well, no birth control and spousal rape was literally legal until the 90s. It's not that they never wanted ANY kids, it's that given choice, they have less kids on average overwhelmingly for decades across class, nationality, etc. Women are typically concerned about the pain and danger of pregnancy and child birth; having enough time for their kids; financial worries relating to birth and childrearing; and whether their kid will have a good future.
While I think conjugal rape and old concepts that made women feel like they had to have sex with their husband are surely for something, I feel that even if you had a society without birth control and where women were protected from conjugal rape and felt free not to have sex with their husband, you'd still have a much higher birth rate than today, simply because women like to have sex, have sexual needs, and many would willingly have sex, even when knowing that would lead to yet another pregnancy and the risk of death.
Also for labor, not denying this either.
And support in old age, I think that went into the calculations too.
? Women have long had methods of abortion via plants. I myself know of several. Further, condoms made from animal parts and nonpenetratice sex are a thing. Women have lesbian sex. Sexual pleasure and arousal isn't per se related to procreation - this is a typically Christian belief (that guilt trips people into sexual activity that produces babies) but not actually based in sexual reality.
If sexual arousal was strictly related to reproduction, then gay people would never be sexually aroused by each other as many gay couples can't procreate with each other. But yet they exist. Because sexual arousal, while driven by evolution, isn't related to reproduction unless that person has a kink for reproduction.
No, women do not have sex if they think it or pregnancy will kill them.
Women have long had methods of abortion via plants.
I suspect they are less effective or less safe than those offered by modern medicine.
condoms made from animal parts
I doubt the convenience or effectiveness was the same. Plus, I did say I was referrin to a society without birth control.
nonpenetratice sex are a thing
Yes, and I expect many women would be content with only that. But I've never had a partner who was content only or even mainly with that. They want the dick. So, I don't believe that would work well in avoidsing births for a lot of women.
Women have lesbian sex
Of course. But that's not a solution for the wide majority of women who are not into women.
Sexual pleasure and arousal isn't per se related to procreation
I never said it was.
No, women do not have sex if they think it or pregnancy will kill them.
Right, but we are talking about taking those in the past, not the present. So the women at the time were comparing how safe these abortifacients are versus pregnancy and childbirth and possible forced proximity to the father.
We've had condoms a long time. No, they were not as efficient.
No offense, but you probably attract and demand a certain kind of sex. Sex is extremely varied. A lot of women like dick, but I know of many women who like oral. Either way, whatever some women enjoy with sex doesn't mean they would engage in that if it risked their life and they could just be fingered or use a dildo (also a lot of ancient dildos). A lot of women are perfectly satisfied masturbating and not having a partner at all. The reason we invented modern methods is because people have been demanding its development.
And pulling out or finishing with oral after penetrative sex can be considered akin to birth control, while also not perfect, it's better than nothing especially in ancient times.
So when is this hypothetical society except in Christian nirvana sexual fantasy?
You've had sex with women in modern times with access to birth control, so lucky you, you get to have more penetrative sex. If it was going to kill her, like in ancient times, you'd probably both do other stuff if you cared about her. Or masturbate. People aren't entitled to sex.
The point is that lesbian sex is often nonpenetrative and those women in lesbian relationships report higher sexual satisfaction and more orgasms.
Back then, women would've known someone (friend, cousin, sister, aunt) who died in childbirth and would have taken it seriously as a risk. Just like we take driving seriously today because it carries a risk of harm, so we wear seatbelts and have airbags. We decided these were a good idea due to the history of carriages and cars, and gave up some freedom and comfort so we could increase health outcomes. Like with modern birth control.
Second, I think it's more the implication that women given access to birth control and abortions only choose to have 0-3 kids on average, so we can perhaps extrapolate that many women in the past would've chosen the same but couldn't. Why? Well, no birth control and spousal rape was literally legal until the 90s.
The second half of that is literally my point. Spousal rape was normal for most of modern human history, and the one time it isn't we drop below replacement rate. Now we don't have the controls to measure how much birth control played into that on its own, but it's at least possible that the human race relied on spousal rape to perpetuate itself
The populations are evening out, not disappearing.
But if the path to avoid extinction is rape, then I hope the next sapiens take better care of the Earth than us
Spousal rape still happens, most rape happens without consequence. It's that women have access to birth control that allows them to control how many kids they have.
The reason replacement level is down is because birth control (eg levongestrol) was invented and became in use in the 70s, with global advances in human rights and better financial equity in many places. Since then, the average person has gotten poorer and poorer, it's harder to afford a home, etc, because income inequality has increased and ownership has been stolen from us transaction by transaction.
Look again at my reasons listed for why women do and don't choose to have kids. One of them is financial reasons.
There's another reason that you don't seem to be accounting for: 50% of children born before the 20th century died before adulthood. Childhood survival rates have skyrocketed due to modern medicine, to the point where most children learn about death because of pets or old people, not their siblings dying young or mother dying in childbirth.
To be clear: I agree with the thrust of your argument and actually am a big fan of yours. I still have that epic comment about the US election you wrote 11 months ago saved. Just wanted to add another angle to the discussion
Hey, you're the guy who argued that consent isn't important the other day and then deleted your posts when you got pushback, remember that? You said coercion is fine
Who would not be looking? To dress like that and expect otherwise is sadistic IMO. She is beautiful and sexy AF.
IMO she has every right to dress however she wants. That is in no way consent to touch or invade her personal space, but it is an open invitation to take in and admire the art. That includes observing the art at a magnitude similar to the extraordinary nature of the state of dress.
In the 4chan post this came from, there are mp4 vids of people doing undercarriage shots and looking for wardrobe malfunctions. Perhaps those are staged and consensual; I am not here to judge if others do or do not consent to such behavior. I am odd in these types of emotions because I am more of an ideal outlier male; tall, broad shoulders, average+ looks. If I were a girl, I would be a slut that likes the attention; I am a slut that likes the attention... lol. I don't want some random person walking up and touching me in a cycling kit, but if you want to look at the bulge in my shorts, whatever, I don't care. I did not wear them for you. I wear them for a reason, but if I am in public and you look, it would be idiotic of me to get offended.
Anyways, it may be outlier behavior for someone that wants to be looked at, but that is a totally valid choice in life too. Being sadistic about dressing in an extraordinarily revealing way and then complaining about people looking, is just as bad as the malevolent deviant that believes any form of clothing or external context is consent from another person. Even full open and explicit nudity in any public or private context is not de facto or implied consent.
This is the first I'm hearing about tactical belts, so that's probably why. Women don't buy something traditionally masculine just because it's pink the way guys do with "tactical" whatnot
I have to wonder what is the implication or intention with the photo and the cosplay (thanks to the comment indicating where it comes from). I mean, no one chooses this display thinking they won't get attention, maybe she likes the attention, and good for her if she does. But the fact that she took the photo by the side of this sign... Is she implying that it helps that it's written? Enough for her to feel empowered to dress however she wants? Did she feel like she needed to take the photo by the consent sign to make a point that not enough people follow the guidelines?
I ask this because I would want to know if this is a sign (pun intended) that as a society we are going in the right direction, allowing her to dress in this outfit, or the contrary? It would be nice if the former would be the case.
That is beyond any kind of discussion about the appropriateness of it, in my opinion it is great if anyone is feeling safe enough to do this. Nudity needs to be normalized, nudity is not sexuality, but I digress and that's just my personal point of view.
I think it's as simple as that. She's wearing a very revealing outfit and is probably more affected by people being creepy about it. So because of her cosplay, there's extra reason for her to want to emphasize the sign.
You kind of implied it, yes. You mention that she wants you to read and abide by an anti-groping sign, but is standing there like she wants attention as though that is some sort of hypocritical stance for her to have.
Granted, it's hard to read "tone" from a written sentence, so if that wasn't your intent, of course I apologize. But it definitely read as though you were implying she was a hypocrite for daring to be dressed provocatively next to a sign that says "don't grope me, bro."
I have a lot of cosplayer friends and showing less skin doesn't really change things when creeps are involved. In this thread there are people comparing nerd conventions to strip clubs. Advocating for the isolation of women entirely.
It's a scary thing.
Half of the cosplayers are shows are men. A good chunk are under 18. Every show has dress code so anyone exposing too much wouldn't make it through the door. There are rules in place for everyone's comfort and just because you find someone attractive doesn't justify this behavior.
No one owes you a picture. If you ask they'll probably say yes, but they bought their ticket too and want to enjoy the show. Taking sneaky pics is frowned on because people have stalkers, strict jobs and don't want to end up on someone's spank bank (which was an actual problem in the early 2000s).
Costuming is an art and a skill. Capturing a character in its essence and being an award winning cosplayer is coveted. There are competitions all over the US and there is even one near me where the prize is 10k for the top competitor.
Dont let the creeps persuade you. The girl is showing a little leg and tummy and smiling having a good time. Thats someone's little sister and she probably loves that character and worked for months on that costume just to go to one of the biggest conventions in the world.
It definitely got pulled from social media and now is being misused in a debate that at its core was created by someone who thinks its okay to assault women.
Don't side with the creeps. Little concessions by the average good person add up as validation to someone who has bad intentions.
Well, OP argued against consent and that he is fine with coercion the other day, then deleted it when confronted, so probably it is an agenda he is putting forth about consent and women
I'm upset that signs like this need to be posted. I've only been to one comicon and took shitloads of unconsented pictures, because I was suffering from hella anxiety and would never have worked up the nerve, and because if I asked everyone I'd have been asking all day. Roadhog+junkyard? Photo. Amazing Link costume? Photo. Green Ranger hanging out of a delorean? Hell yes Photo.
Nothing creepy though. I went out of my way to not point my camera at anyone dressed even remotely sexy, because I dont need the hassle. I also dont need the creepshots. I have the Internet. We have access to more porn than can possibly be consumed in a hundred lifetimes. Im not about to go stealing apples when I live in an orchard.
I think the message is a bit vague in context. It is not really about taking candid pics of people in situ. It is saying don't invade a person's space to stand right next to them for a selfie, or demand that they stop what they are doing to pose for your picture. That kind of picture is not your inferred right with some imaginary implied consent. This is the outlier intrusive behavior that must be addressed as odd. There are a lot of these types of entitled people in the world, but they are still a minority.
There are also narcissists that sadistically dress for attention and then believe they have a right to gatekeep who is allowed to look at them. Both groups are people with mental health disorders.
This sign is about lessening the negative emotional impacts others have on people that have gone to extreme and amazing efforts to participate in cosplay. It is about being respectful and appreciative of those people. It is about calling out the worst mental health disorders present at the event.
Photographing people candidly is not the point, but even in that circumstance. Taking unsolicited candid pictures of specific people is as uncouth as a person that talks about their legal rights in a social setting to entitle their behavior. Asking people to take their picture is just good manners.
I think the message is a bit vague in context. It is not really about taking candid pics of people in situ. It is saying don't invade a person's space to stand right next to them for a selfie, or demand that they stop what they are doing to pose for your picture.
It might be my autism, but this was completely lost on me and interpreted as "don't take any pictures with people in them without permission"
No. Not autism, just badly phrased as part of a confusing gray area of "When are you allowed to use your phone in public?" online discourse.
There's plenty of people who sincerely believe you don't have any kind of rights to photography of anyone at any place for any reason, without explicit consent. There's others who believe heckling and cat calling is perfectly normal acceptable behavior. And then there's a thousand lines in between.
Standing half naked in a garish "please pay attention to me" costume near a sign that says "Stop taking my picture without asking me first" is confusing to the point of feeling like rage bait.
Maybe it is my autism, but I was specifically addressing the nuances and motivations behind subsets of people. People taking pictures are not all equal. The line of delineation between those taking pictures of a crowd and those taking pictures of the total event are one such difference. No one would argue that taking a picture of the entire convention center floor necessitates asking everyone present in images for their consent, likewise with taking landscape or panoramic pictures of some subset or section of the floor. There will be people closer and further away in such images. This is candid/in-situ photography. Anyone with minimal fundamental logic skills can follow this delineation and arrive at the conclusion that such behavior is nominal. Obviously, this is not the behavior that the sign in the original post was addressing.
So what is the sign addressing. Well the information about touching infers that the sign is about invasive behavior directed at cosplayers. So logic dictates that the information about photography is also about allaying similar disruptive behavior.
What types of behavior related to photography are most invasive. Entitlement is the primary issue. Under the surface of cosplay, there is a deeper layer of subtle servitude that goes unaddressed in the context of broader sociology. In terms of cosplay at an event, the role of entertainer does not imply the inferred subservient class of entertainer and the entertained. The event is intended to be an egalitarian aggregate of entertainers. It is likely that most people are not self aware within this heavily abstracted context. Nonetheless, this class role of entertainers is real and underpins all of the social interactions. In societies like ancient Rome, entertainers were a recognized social class.
When anyone acts entitled with photography or demands a cosplayer's time or attention, they are effectively forcing the role of subservience.
When people talk about how humans or some animals display complex social behavior, this kind of subtle or unspoken complexity is what they are referring to. Even when the entitled person demanding time or attention is a fellow cosplayer, within the same unspoken social caste, they are still imposing a subtle form of hierarchy and subservience. All humans engage on these layers of interaction with various degrees of self awareness. You did it when you replied. I did it in my original comment, and I am doing it now, some in ways that I am aware, and in many ways I am not.
The actual invasive behaviors about photography and interaction that this sign intends to address are the demeaning and emotionally taxing interactions that are likely to have a short and long term negative impact on cosplayers. The sign is short and anecdotal. It cannot address the subtle nuances of sociology that most people cannot grasp. Concepts of social hierarchy, complexity, and castes are are beyond the comprehension of most entitled people that the sign is intended to allay.
If you demand a person's time and obsequiousness in this context, you are demanding subservience. The sign is stating the egalitarian nature of the gathering, and that no one is expected to acquiesce in subservience. It is stating you must be respectfully egalitarian in this subculture.
Sure. But that's missing the crux of the point, which is confusing given the context (a picture of a girl posing for a picture) and the caveats (posing/touching, not just snapping a picture of a crowd).
I read it closely and I agree. Men will take it as don't get near don't, move. Women will take it as any minor annoyance counts as SH. And both miss the nuance of it being that you can snap public areas, but no one owes you a touch or personal picture.
Just think of it like a convention as a museum of fanart; some self-supporting, some actively worn. You aren't normally allowed to touch the art, are you?
No its not the no touching part, I think I just dont like how she looks naked at first glance, but thats more a preference thing than anything. I'm sure its legal and all.
The sign specifically says to keep your hands to yourself. If you can't do that, then you're a fucking sexual predator. Anyone putting the blame on the woman needs their moral compass checked thoroughly.
That said, I most certainly would look, perhaps stare even. That's just the way my instincts work. I also see how people would try to chat her up. But this is definitely not an invitation to start touching her without consent.
Wait "consent before you take a picture of somebody"? You have to ask first before photographing someone else's cosplay in the US? I thought the laws in US allow taking pictures however you like, without consent required. I'm just curious about the legality in the US, in some European countries there is such a thing as "expectation of privacy".
Because "morality" is a mess (bible lol). Imho only ethics based on universal values and scientific understanding can yield good results. Anyway thanks to the replies I understand the convention to ask permission before taking pictures now. It might be obvious to you but it's not obvious if you never been to a convention.
In the U.S. you can generally be recorded any place you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy (like in your home). This is probably just a convention rule to keep perverts from taking creep-shots. You would probably be asked to leave for photographing cosplayers without permission, but I don't know of any law in any state that you would be breaking by photographing a person in a public space.
I'm not form the us but I see think the things here are:
You can photograph anyone in public places without consent. This is a private event
It might be just an etiquette thing. If you take a general photo and they are on it, you might not need consent. but if is specifically of them (specially half naked women), it's rude to say the least
A convention space, while a public space, has convention rules. These rules came out of necessity over the past 25 years of nycc and were not always there.
If you pan over a crowd, no one is going to ban you. These rules are there for specific people who make the space feel unsafe and it feels like a lot of them showed up in this thread angry.
If the space doesn't make it feel safe for cosplayers, cosplayers won't show up.
In Japan its even more strict. The US just politely asks. No one owes anyone anything and just by dressing up, you're not entitled to their picture in your phone.
Most people are fine with it.
Its the creeps who say things like I'm taking this for my spank bank or who try and angle an upskirt photo that are really the problem.
If youre smoking hot or have a really amazing cosplay or both, surely you'd get sick of people having their photo taken with you all day.
I mean, for several hours or so, great... but if you just want to hang out with your crew for a bit surely its ok to say "sorry I'm not doing photos right now."
I don't think anyone's ever been upset at being in the background , but there have been cases of people trying to get upskirts or taking creep shots. I think that's more what its about.
Even more than that, if you've put a significant amount of your time, energy, money and even identity into a creation, you want for the photos people take (and potentially share) of it to be ones where you have some degree of control over how it looks.
Maybe you cut a few corners on the side of a piece and only want to show it from the front, or maybe the makeup only really "works" if you're making the right expression, that kind of thing. It's a professional courtesy to allow cosplayers at a convention to choose how they pose, rather than unilaterally collect them without permission like a Pokemon.
Yeah I think that (besides creeps) is the best explanation. Cosplay is a form of art so the "creator" should have some artistic control over it. Otherwise I'd argue "well if you get up on a stage to shine, you're giving implicit consent". But one can't be constantly "on stage".
I understand with them, but you need to demand to take a picture of them too? Is that not the whole reason they are there in the public space with their outfit? To show it?
While I 100% agree with the sign, I don't think that cosplay is appropriate for walking the floor at comicon. Maybe I'm just becoming an old prude, but that girl is practically nude, and comicon is an all-ages event. I'm not saying she deserves to be harassed, and I'm not letting anyone off the hook for being a creep to her, but that kind of cosplay should be reserved for photo shoots or adults-only environments.
Double standard is part of it, but sexualization isn't just about how much skin is showing. This outfit shows about as much skin as the Conan cosplay, but is clearly more sexualized:
A Supergirl or Powergirl cosplay can also be revealing, and while you might find someone in that cosplay (or the Conan cosplay) sexual attractive, they're not as sexually suggestive as what this girl is wearing (which is essentially some belts held together with body tape, I presume). The line is blurry and dependent on context, but I would say this is over that line.
It appears that the NYC Comic Con guideline is "Skimpy costumes are permitted though concessions to accuracy are needed if skimpy to the point of negligible coverage i.e. less than typical swimwear."
It is, of course, up to the enforcer, but I would evaluate the Nonon cosplayer as "less than typical swimwear", and the Conan cosplayer to be about the same as typical swimwear. Some skin-colored underlayer would've made it more safe.
Why would someone with any age have a problem with nearly nude woman running around?
Go touch some Grass in the Park or Beach Sand in the summer or go to a public swimming pool.
Everyone is there everyone is there (nearly) nude.
Yeah but that's why context matters. Wearing a bikini at the beach is one thing, wearing it to a job interview is another. I know this line can be blurry with comic book characters since most of them wear fairly revealing outfits, but I would say wearing one of the hyper-sexualized outfits from the anime about high-school girls who get superpowers when their outfits get more sexually explicit is probably too sexual explicit for an all-ages event.
Fuck all the way off with this. There's nothing wrong with wanting to draw gazes, but that doesn't mean every way of doing that is appropriate for every situation. If you want to draw gazes at a dinner party you wear a low-cut black dress, not a mesh tank top and assless chaps.
She isnโt at a dinner party, sheโs at a convention.
What sheโs wearing is an accurate and well-done cosplay, and that is 100% appropriate attire for the setting. It would be the equivalent of a โlow cut black dressโ, you sexist asshole.
Edit: Which shouldnโt matter anyways, because cosplay is not consent. A woman should be able to walk around naked in public without getting sexually harassed, never mind while wearing what she likes. Clothes are never consent. No matter if you judge them โappropriateโ or not.
It's appropriate attire for the setting in your opinion. I think wearing a hyper-sexualized outfit from a hyper-sexualized anime in a situation where children will be present isn't appropriate. You're welcome to disagree, but don't try to high-road me because of it.
If you don't like it you're free to stay home with your kids, people take their kids to the beach and see similar and nobody bats an eye, get over it or get lost
I don't think children will be negatively impacted by nudity, but I think they will be negatively impacted by sexualized nudity (and there are a lot of studies that back that up). I wouldn't shield my child from a woman wearing a bikini or breastfeeding, but I also wouldn't bring him to a strip club or show him porn. I think dressing as one of the characters characters from High School Superpowered Sex Uniforms falls into the latter category.
Little children wouldn't know and understand and would just think "weird or funny costume"
But teenagers who know, know it already and thus it isn't a problem.
I looked up a plot summary and content rating reviews, the internet is occasionally useful like that lol. I'm right and you know it because you've clearly watched it before, you just don't want to admit it because it undermines your weird argument. Also it's weird that you're a fan of a show that you describe as a bunch of high schoolers in overly sexy outfits
I respectfully disagree. There is nothing to be ashamed about. The human lack of fur is no cause for shaming. It is nature. The sadistic shaming is the cause of bad behavior. The taboo bottles people and creates the tension that leads to uncontrolled release due to a lack of self exploration and growth. The dogma culture of Puritan masochistic emotional austerity is harmful. Humans are valid for being themselves without anyone else having a right to project their dogma onto anyone else. The Hippocratic aphorism "first do no harm" โ so live and let live in peace is all that matters. No harm is done by dressing in any fashion a person chooses, so no one has a right to interfere.
If your kids are mature enough to read the comics at the convention then they're mature enough to see people walking around dressed like the characters, right? Why overthink this?
Well, "comics," is a big medium, and what's appropriate will vary from comic to comic. I'm kinda having this problem at the moment; my toddler is obsessed with Superman, but since his age appropriateness can vary wildly, I have to be very selective with what media I let him see. I can basically show him the old Superfriends cartoon, some episodes of the 90s show, and the non-racist fliescher serials.
But either way, last time I was at Comicon (3 or 4 years ago), there were a ton of kids there, and last I check, anyone under 13 was free. It is, at least outwardly, a very pro-kid event. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that some cosplay might be too sexual for an environment where you expect to see children.
Well, that's true, but I also think it's unreasonable to expect people to think about what event they're going and dress appropriately. In the same way you might decide not to wear your super hilarious, "I'm not as think as you drunk I am," t-shirt while visiting your friend in rehab, I think it's not unreasonable to think about whether children will be present before you wear a very sexual outfit from a very sexual anime.
There are certainly shades of this, and it's not universal. If you're complaining that someone's Wonder Woman cosplay is too revealing, then comicon probably isn't for you. To me though, this is a lot more revealing and sexual than I would expect to see at comicon (and that I have seen when I've gone IRL).
The individual in the pic is presenting themselves sexually. That is the point of the pic - that a person sexualizing themselves isn't making themselves universally available.
By your metric, no one can ever sexualize themselves. No woman can say "I want to look sexy so I will wear this sexy dress." Which is clearly ridiculous
Can't cause I am generally sexually attracted to people who register as feminine in my caveman brain. But not just the woman, but the femboys and enbies too!
I haven't been in a number of years but dragoncon in Atlanta used to have a wide age variance if I remember. Not sure where you are located but maybe it has more of what you are looking for. (Granted things may have changed since I was there years ago)
Arousal is natural, your weird puritanical reaction to non-sexual behaviors and situations like people literally just standing there wearing a costume is not
And the puritans thought the same was equally clear about bare ankles, your arbitrary standard of which visible body parts are normal vs sexual is just as dumb as theirs was. The only things humans do that are inherently sexual are actual sexual behaviors. Clothing is not fucking, nudity is not fucking.
I'm not equating what she is wearing to "fucking", but you're talking as if it's clearly some "oh this just feels comfortable" cosplay and not intentionally sexualised. Sexual attraction arousal and flirting starts before "fucking".
Homo-sapiens have been on earth for about 250k years, and have been wearing clothes for only 100k years, after one of the severe ice ages that even affected Africa. We made nudity sexual.
I get that it might feel that way to you, but the puritans felt the same way about an exposed ankle and their standards for which exposed skin was sexual were just as arbitrary as yours. The only things humans do that are inherently sexual are actual sexual behaviors. If she were wearing a t shirt that showed an image of someone literally sucking a dick then you might have a point, or if she were posed in a way that was pantomiming a sexual act of some sort, but what she's wearing is just showing skin and she's just standing there. Skin isn't inherently sexual, people are partially or completely nude all the time with no sexual intent behind it, and nothing about her pose says she's trying to fuck.
She is strikingly cute and in a revealing outfit that "accents" her body in a way a bikini wouldn't. Consent is important but anyone with a libido could find her sexually attractive- this outfit being promiscuous- without being a complete weirdo about it. It's not porn but framing of this image and composure isn't what makes this an attention grabber. It's our monkey programmed brains. Very much a "you problem" and maybe some are upset of being reminded of that because no consent is being granted to them in their life. Oh well.
How is that a better idea than just asking people to show a basic level of human respect and courtesy? Are you really so thin-skinned, that you're put out by a sign asking people not to be creeps?
Because the people feeling others up in public are few, but the issue is presented like its the majority.
Sexism against men has been increasing so much, that people dont even question it now. They see something and just assume it must be true. Like men are responsible for 91% of all violent crime. Sounds awful right? I mean, 91%. Thats huge! But then you actually look at it, and that 91% is done by less than 1% of the male population. But for some reason, "men" need to do better. The implication being that this violence is done to women. Which it is... 10% of the time. Men are most likely to be the victims of violent crime at a whopping 81%. In fact, another common belief is that women cant walk the streets at night. They often say things like "If I was a man, Id go for a walk at night and not be afraid." Which is pretty fucking stupid when you look at the stats. In fact, as it currently stands, women are far safer walking alone at night than they are when they got home. Because 90% of the time, the violence they suffer is from men they live with. Fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands, boyfriends, etc.
You dont need to ask the general public not be creeps. Because the majority of people are not creeps. I used to get felt up by women all the time while working as a glass collector in an upmarket club. It wasnt even close to being the majority of the women, but it was some of them. Should there be signs telling ALL the woman to get their hands off the 18 year old picking up glasses? If youre the type of person who grabs at people, chances are, youre the type of person who doesnt care about being nice and not creepy. So why bother with the sign? Just so you can claim some moral superiority over a group of people that are perceived to be creeps? And thus, the reason for the pushback unveils itself. Its not about being against the message, its about being against the virtue signal and the constantly spread fiction that men are all creeps and women are all victims.
But there sure as fuck is in the comment section, isnt there? Because all the cave brained cunts in the world just automatically assume. The only thing Im telling about my self in that comment, is exactly what it said. The fact you disagree, is you telling on your self, you sexist piece of shit.
Never said "Men are the real victims" or had a pity party, and you saying it doesnt make it so. Maybe if you could read, and maybe if you were a fucking prick, youd see what I saying instead of trying to twist the truth so that you dont have to deal with the fact that youre a piece of shit cock womble, spewing sexist trash in the hope some girl sees you as "Not like the other guys".
Why does this bother you so much if the sign isn't about you?
No one said it was, you decided it was. The sign doesn't mention gender, and further it's about taking photos, not touching people.
I'm really sorry anyone felt entitled to put their hands on your body without your consent. That really sucks. They absolutely should put up signs reminding people to keep their hands to themselves at your old job.
I'm guessing the old bats thought they could get away with it because it was wink wink ok with the culture of the place. If people are being touched, the place should make it clear that's not tolerated and then act on it when you report it. The signs might not stop the pervs but maybe they would signal to the 18 year old that your boss would agree that that's never ok, and you should report it and there should be consequences.
Well luckily conventions kick out creeps and permanent ban repeat offenders. So I guess instead of punishing cosplayers, separating assholes is the real solution.
I'm dressed as a background character from the third episode of... uh... Excel Saga.
What is your problem with requiring convention patrons to respect others? Honestly, there shouldn't even have to be a rule for it, but any group of nerds is gonna have a That Guy.
But patrons do respect each other. The creeps get kicked out pretty quick.
Provided that you have evidence for their "creepy" behaviour right & not based on He said, She said right ?
In 1972, a man named Scott Shaw went to the World Science Fiction Convention dressed in a bathing suit and at least one full jar of chunky peanut butter. Bits of peanut butter kept falling off and people kept stepping on them. On 1970s hotel carpet. To this day, 53 years later, no matter which country hosts, Worldcon prohibits the use of peanut butter as any part of a costume. Rules exist for a reason.
The creeps get kicked out pretty quick.
Now they do. Because there are rules.
I can think of a convention off the top of my head where at least one creep wrote an entire treatise on groping women at cons. This creep was welcome and celebrated at conventions for decades, until he died in 1992 of AIDS he contracted from a blood transfusion. He was the guest of honor at Worldcon in 1955.
Rules exist for a reason. Sometimes That Guy is named Isaac Asimov and no one wants to tell him no.
Like, I could just wear a nondescript white shirt with black trousers and say I'm cosplaying as a character from Chainsawman. I could even wear a wife beater with a pair of jeans and say I'm TJ from GTA.
I went to see what you were saying and I thought it was funny when there was a comment next to another. One saying women need to be more modest, then the very next comment saying nice hot black ass. Which one would find possible irony but my first thought was can bots detect that a nude photo is of a person with a specific skin tone? I never really questioned how bots worked. Maybe it would have to just scan the sub name and the text of others to decide what to post
Some people can't behave in situations like this, no matter the gender. Plenty of reports from male cosplayers and character actors getting groped by women. Recent example: https://www.threads.com/@xo.treleigh/post/DNeF1iZuLDe (content is in the screenshots). Same shit behavior and attitude.
::: spoiler personal experience
My experience with inappropriate touching because of the costume I'm wearing has pretty much entirely been women. My costume wasn't sexual or revealing at all either - people just decided to it looked pleasing to touch and did so without asking. Including one person repeatedly passing behind me to touch my costume at my butt (and I don't think she was trying to sexually harass me: she was just really short)
Not saying its representative of the the wider behavior or even equivalent to similar behavior when done by men. Ultimately, I mostly just found it an interesting experience, but never felt threatened by any of the inappropriate behaviors, which makes a huge difference ime.
:::
Edit: Think about it. There's a reason that sign exists. There were very likely cases were cosplayers were touched or groped or whatever without their consent. How likely is it that it wasn't men groping women? Look at statistics instead of knee-jerkingly downvoting.
Cis male btw. If you feel attacked by this, you're part of the problem
I feel if you make an effort to look very specifically like one gender over the other, you have to be okay with people assuming that one until told otherwise.
Nonsense. A decent amount of women have approached me to touch my abs without asking explicitly.
It never made me feel uncomfortable because it wasn't threatening or by someone creepy, but yeah, if I were a woman and approached by someone significantly taller than me or creepy looking, then I would be. In any case, obviously everyone should keep their hands to themselves unless consent is given.
Why does gender even matter. Don't touch people that don't want it, why make this a guy/girl thing. You seem to have a hang up.
Also, women touch men all the time. I've had multiple women just squeeze my arm to feel my bicep under my sweater, and they think that's fine. Maybe women just don't want to touch you?
John Frakes famously stopped signing autographs at conventions in the 90s because two women were taking a picture with him and grabbed his crotch. Nobody here feels attacked by your lack of knowledge and experience on this topic.
I am not going to say I agree or disagree with every single 'take' in these articles/posts, nor can I vet every claimed / alleged act for any level of accuracy, but these are pretty comprehensive catalogues of insane levels of sexual harassment committed / alleged to have been committed by either entirely or almost entirely women, at a recent "dark romance" book convention.
I will surely get crucified for pointing this out, but my experience indicates that there is a pervasive mentality among women specifically of certain fandoms that because they are women, they can't be the perpetrators of sexual harassment, only the victims, and then only specifically by men. Therefore they can do whatever they want to other women because we're all girls, so obviously it's "allowed."
This occasionally seems to get logically extended to the notion that women can harass men without consequences, either because only women can be the victims of sexual harassment or violence (see above), or that the men in question ought to just enjoy the attention and be grateful for how "lucky" they are.
All of the above is broadly analogous to one dude coming up to another dude and just grabbing his crotch. Everyone can imagine how that would play out, and thus it's self-evident to any outside observer that this kind of mentality is bullshit.
Have literally been sexually harassed by one who then pouted, giggled, and said "come on, you liked it."
Uh, nope, I didn't, but I guess consent is a concept that only applies one way in certain people's minds.
I don't know so much if its certain specific fandoms as it is just... generally being waaaaay too online / brainrotted / having very little real world social experience, and then that often coincides with just being neck deep in some particular fandom or set of fandoms.
I didn't see an argument anywhere, uh, what are you referring to?
Are you... dubious at the idea of women broadly having the capacity to be abusive, sexually harass people?
Because I can actually supply stats and make an argument there.
For starters, there is still a massive heteronormative stigma against the idea of men being able to be victims of, or report things like being sexually harassed or worse by women, because when you as a man do that, society broadly ignores or belittles you.
Its... part of how cishet male machismo / performative masculinity functions, it isn't only enforced by men on other men, its enforced by women on men as well.
See how we are still as a society broadly still just laughing at male prison rape, still broadly hesitant to condemn or care about 'older female authority figure takes advantage of younger male subordinate' type siuations as much as we broadly care about the reverse.
About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime and reported a related impact.
Over 61 million women and 53 million men have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
Yeah, I'm not gonna tell you this is a perfectly gender/sex neutral thing, men obviously have a higher propensity, on average, to do this kind of shit, but uh... 26% of of men being victims is nothing to sneeze at.
Thats roughly 34 million adult men in the US who report being either sexually assaulted/raped/harassed, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by mainly women, given that about 95% of US men identify as hetero, so I guess you can pare that down to about 32 1/3 million male victims of women.
... And, you've probably got some undercounting going on there, both due to the stigma, and due to a woman forcing a man to have sex not even being legally classed as a crime in much of the US.
So yeah, yeah, sexual abuse and harassment and stalking is always wrong, but this is not a thing that only men do, many women do it as well.
As a caveat to this and all the other example figures being thrown around: just because the victim is hetero, does not mean the perpetrator of harassment or assault is too. In a lot of cases it's the victim declining or rejecting the advances outright that only prompts the perp to be more forceful, man or woman.
True, this gets complicated in that way, I don't know off the top of my head a decent study that tries to actually quantify and assess that, as... usually when these wide scale surveys/studies are done, they don't ask for the sexual orientation of the partner, sometimes they don't even ask the victim what their orientation is.
But, there are studies specific to more like, 'sexual violence in the (whichever subsection of LGBTQ+) community'... but at least off the top of my head, I don't know of any that you could...
... basically, do the statistical correction/specification, to get that level of detail.
Yeah, I'm not gonna tell you this is a perfectly gender/sex neutral thing, men obviously have a higher propensity, on average, to do this kind of shit
Yes.
You're way off topic here. We're not talking about intimate partner violence, we're talking about making gross statements or inappropriately touching strangers at a Comic Con
Oh, you first critiqued me for a specific anecdote not being relevant at a societal level, and now you don't see how broad data at a societal level, on a very similar kind of activity, is relevant at all?
If you can't follow the logic here, the logic is:
You said an anecdote doesn't prove anything about society.
So I then argued that women broadly certainly have the capacity to commit sexual harassment, as evidenced by their capacity to do very similar things to their partners.
What I am arguing against is the idea that women can be "bad, but in different ways".
No, they can be bad in the exact same ways.
They can commit all kinds of IPV, and, they can disregard the bodily autonomy of others at conventions.
I dont know many animals that will willing suck another animals toes while another animal pours hot wax on the first animal while another animal sitting in the dark corner watches and pours hot wax on itself while patting another animal wrapped up in the tanned leather of another animal, as 2 other animals film it.
Did I get that right, you're saying that animals are horny year-round? Or are you saying that it's my starry-eyed Disney-glittered wishes that make me say that animals do a lot of fucked up sexual things?
I think he means ducks and otters raping each other to death is more a result of neurochemistry and behavior than a specific intention to fulfill sexual satisfaction.
Like a guy leaving tooth marks on a woman, pervert. Another animal biting to get a better hold, not so much.
Shit. Sorry! I meant to phrase the latter bit as aimed at the various morons gathered above, not you specifically. I really shouldn't scroll when I'm so damn tired I can't type cogently. ๐ซ
Essentially? Animals aren't "horny". That's a human construct. Nature DGAF about our hairless monkey noises and clever tools that we use to name things. Creatures do alllll sorts of "fucked up" things all the time, and have been for far longer than bones've existed. ๐ค๐
That said, this thread is radioactive AF, and I'm sorry for any confusion I contributed to. I do my best to be an advocate for the Platinum Rule, and the async mode of comms inherent to forums like ours isn't exactly helping foster understanding & community at the moment. ๐คฆ๐ผโโ๏ธ๐ซก
True, at least men donโt walk around essentially naked but yell "pervert omg Iโve been abused" as soon as someone expresses that they find them sexy.
While it really shouldn't have to be spelled out, I still appreciate that they did.
It does communicate the stance of the event organizers, which is not a given.
Yeah, sadly, it does need to be directly and explicitly stated, literally in giant bold letters, with an actual accompanying example mascot...
But it is better that something like this is present than it not being present.
These events also, sadly, require those notices that suggest you bath before attending, and to wear some kind of deodorant.
Oh yeah, thats... those kinds of signs, guidelines on flyers, con rules... that's been a thing for over a decade, maybe more like two?
Yeah, lots of dorks tend to not comprehend basic hygiene, that is absolutely a thing.
Probably also doesn't help that a lot of them get their biggest workout of the whole year by walking around a convention for a day.
There's a small TTRPG convention that's held annually not too far from the town I live in. While I enjoy attending whenever I don't have a scheduling conflict my wife refuses to go because the smell of body oder is everpresent and really makes the whole event less enjoyable. Like, just the air in the entire event space has a general smell of body oder and there's no specific decernable source of the smell
True, though the thought of an event organized by people with a stance running counter to what I consider common sense and basic decency is pretty repulsive to contemplate.
If you don't know who asmongold is, look him up, that's basically what you're dealing with.
Dude used the sun shining on a rat's corpse, the pungent smell of it baking in the sun, as an alarm clock, for years.
Thats not a joke or exaggeration, he himself explained it on a stream, had to be convinced this was bad.
Now, as an introvert, typically 'homebody' nerd type person myself, I do feel the need to point out that it is possible to be that way and ... keep your place clean, take care of hygiene, take care of your body.
But, there definitely are a ton of bedrotting goblins and basement dwellers who are unable to do this, thats a real thing.
If you've never heard of "The Final Fantasy House"... you have no idea how bad this can get.
I 100% believe that he changed the story into this for his streaming persona and the real situation was much worse.
Unfortunately, I do know who asmon is. Even more unfortunately, I also know about The Final Fantasy House debacle. It's entirely possible I spend too much time online.
What's the final fantasy house debacle?
Fredrik Knudsen did a video on it but TLDR is that a bunch of people lived in a fucked up abusive cult like situation and more or less festered for years back in the early 2000s. It's one of those situations where any shortening past a point doesn't get across how fucking bad it was.
It's not an easily summarized situation. If you really want to dive into the gory details, there's plenty of coverage on the entire thing to be found online.
The amount of horny that goes into a Comicon (regardless of gender and orientation) is through the roof, so I 100% get that sign.
And here's the thing, consent is sexy-- people can and very much do hook up at these things! Just don't be a fucking creep about it.
Something doesn't have to be sexy to be valuable. "Consent is sexy" is a useful slogan, but is not always true.
Jesus dude you don't need to overanalyze that...
I don't have to, but I do. It is both a blessing and a curse...
Being good in bed => the other person enjoys themselves.
If they don't consent, they're not enjoying themselves.
Thus "If they don't consent, you're always bad in bed."
No more revealing than a bikini, nobody normal bats an eye at this shit at the beach or a pool
Can we take a moment and point out how weird a double standard that actually is. If you wore the exact same bikini somewhere there isn't water, you'd be fucking arrested
Not outside of religious countries.
Well I'm American so unfortunately that applies to me
Ugh, I feel ya
They might try and arrest you but it'd be hard to make any charges stick, maybe if it was on private property and you were already asked to leave and refused first, but yeah it's weird and stupid
If its the same, then why do women not care about being seen in a two piece bikini, but freak out if you see them in bra and knickers?
Undergarments tend to be a lot thinner and can be inherently more revealing due to sheerness or the way the fabric sits. Swimwear usually has an inner liner that greatly reduces the issue.
No they dont. Sexy ones do, sure. But no, they dont. They tend to do the job and be comfortable. Thats it. The real answer you are looking for is "consent".
Reads like you are telling on yourselfโฆ
Most con goers aren't legally able to enter the strip club.
Makes it all much weirder
Are they legally able to walk onto a beach?
I think this is in reference to their age... they do ID you before entering a strip club, right? I would assume so if they also sell alcohol.
Yea. But convention space is not a strip club. The most revealing thing would be beach attire. Their argument is sexist and creepy.
If you're going into a convention space to sexualize women the way you would at a strip club you're there for the wrong reason.
The comparison shouldn't even be drawn and its crazy and creepy. Children can go to a con. People with his mindset shouldn't.
Good thing a con isn't a strip club then
People have bodies, what a shock.
The population is outright shrinking though, so this also implies the only reason the species exists is rape. Which is...concerning
I can see that interpretation, but I would point out that this person is talking about a narrow time in history and not necessarily all of human evolution or even all of human experience for that time. Further, sexual desire isn't exactly tied to reproduction - reproduction can be intentional or spontaneous. Love is an enduring human trait.
Second, I think it's more the implication that women given access to birth control and abortions only choose to have 0-3 kids on average, so we can perhaps extrapolate that many women in the past would've chosen the same but couldn't. Why? Well, no birth control and spousal rape was literally legal until the 90s. It's not that they never wanted ANY kids, it's that given choice, they have less kids on average overwhelmingly for decades across class, nationality, etc. Women are typically concerned about the pain and danger of pregnancy and child birth; having enough time for their kids; financial worries relating to birth and childrearing; and whether their kid will have a good future.
Still, I will avoid posting it again.
While I think conjugal rape and old concepts that made women feel like they had to have sex with their husband are surely for something, I feel that even if you had a society without birth control and where women were protected from conjugal rape and felt free not to have sex with their husband, you'd still have a much higher birth rate than today, simply because women like to have sex, have sexual needs, and many would willingly have sex, even when knowing that would lead to yet another pregnancy and the risk of death.
Also for labor, not denying this either.
And support in old age, I think that went into the calculations too.
? Women have long had methods of abortion via plants. I myself know of several. Further, condoms made from animal parts and nonpenetratice sex are a thing. Women have lesbian sex. Sexual pleasure and arousal isn't per se related to procreation - this is a typically Christian belief (that guilt trips people into sexual activity that produces babies) but not actually based in sexual reality.
If sexual arousal was strictly related to reproduction, then gay people would never be sexually aroused by each other as many gay couples can't procreate with each other. But yet they exist. Because sexual arousal, while driven by evolution, isn't related to reproduction unless that person has a kink for reproduction.
No, women do not have sex if they think it or pregnancy will kill them.
I suspect they are less effective or less safe than those offered by modern medicine.
I doubt the convenience or effectiveness was the same. Plus, I did say I was referrin to a society without birth control.
Yes, and I expect many women would be content with only that. But I've never had a partner who was content only or even mainly with that. They want the dick. So, I don't believe that would work well in avoidsing births for a lot of women.
Of course. But that's not a solution for the wide majority of women who are not into women.
I never said it was.
Of course not, not when it's a certainty.
Right, but we are talking about taking those in the past, not the present. So the women at the time were comparing how safe these abortifacients are versus pregnancy and childbirth and possible forced proximity to the father.
https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/admire-the-3000-year-old-condom-of-the-egyptian-pharaoh-tutankhamun-archaeologists-are-amazed
We've had condoms a long time. No, they were not as efficient.
No offense, but you probably attract and demand a certain kind of sex. Sex is extremely varied. A lot of women like dick, but I know of many women who like oral. Either way, whatever some women enjoy with sex doesn't mean they would engage in that if it risked their life and they could just be fingered or use a dildo (also a lot of ancient dildos). A lot of women are perfectly satisfied masturbating and not having a partner at all. The reason we invented modern methods is because people have been demanding its development.
And pulling out or finishing with oral after penetrative sex can be considered akin to birth control, while also not perfect, it's better than nothing especially in ancient times.
So when is this hypothetical society except in Christian nirvana sexual fantasy?
You've had sex with women in modern times with access to birth control, so lucky you, you get to have more penetrative sex. If it was going to kill her, like in ancient times, you'd probably both do other stuff if you cared about her. Or masturbate. People aren't entitled to sex.
The point is that lesbian sex is often nonpenetrative and those women in lesbian relationships report higher sexual satisfaction and more orgasms.
Back then, women would've known someone (friend, cousin, sister, aunt) who died in childbirth and would have taken it seriously as a risk. Just like we take driving seriously today because it carries a risk of harm, so we wear seatbelts and have airbags. We decided these were a good idea due to the history of carriages and cars, and gave up some freedom and comfort so we could increase health outcomes. Like with modern birth control.
Eg, 20th century postcard advocating for birth control and freedom of choice: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Victorian_Postcard_-_woman_hitting_stork_with_parasol.jpg
The second half of that is literally my point. Spousal rape was normal for most of modern human history, and the one time it isn't we drop below replacement rate. Now we don't have the controls to measure how much birth control played into that on its own, but it's at least possible that the human race relied on spousal rape to perpetuate itself
The populations are evening out, not disappearing. But if the path to avoid extinction is rape, then I hope the next sapiens take better care of the Earth than us
Spousal rape still happens, most rape happens without consequence. It's that women have access to birth control that allows them to control how many kids they have.
The reason replacement level is down is because birth control (eg levongestrol) was invented and became in use in the 70s, with global advances in human rights and better financial equity in many places. Since then, the average person has gotten poorer and poorer, it's harder to afford a home, etc, because income inequality has increased and ownership has been stolen from us transaction by transaction.
Look again at my reasons listed for why women do and don't choose to have kids. One of them is financial reasons.
There's another reason that you don't seem to be accounting for: 50% of children born before the 20th century died before adulthood. Childhood survival rates have skyrocketed due to modern medicine, to the point where most children learn about death because of pets or old people, not their siblings dying young or mother dying in childbirth.
To be clear: I agree with the thrust of your argument and actually am a big fan of yours. I still have that epic comment about the US election you wrote 11 months ago saved. Just wanted to add another angle to the discussion
Damn girl.....aren't you, like.....cold? Convention centers typically have the AC crankin'.
I guess itโs the only way for womenโs clothes to have pockets. This ought to become a thing
The inverse of traditional women's clothing, only pockets, nothing else
Only Pockets: fashion and followers.
Hey, you're the guy who argued that consent isn't important the other day and then deleted your posts when you got pushback, remember that? You said coercion is fine
federated stuff getting more popular, only a matter of time till population increase ruins everything like it has all other social media
Seems like they're posting rage bait.
cosplaying nonon jakuzure from kill la kill
Mmmm I can smell the sexual frustration and axe body spray in the comments.
I should have heeded your warning.
Who would not be looking? To dress like that and expect otherwise is sadistic IMO. She is beautiful and sexy AF.
IMO she has every right to dress however she wants. That is in no way consent to touch or invade her personal space, but it is an open invitation to take in and admire the art. That includes observing the art at a magnitude similar to the extraordinary nature of the state of dress.
In the 4chan post this came from, there are mp4 vids of people doing undercarriage shots and looking for wardrobe malfunctions. Perhaps those are staged and consensual; I am not here to judge if others do or do not consent to such behavior. I am odd in these types of emotions because I am more of an ideal outlier male; tall, broad shoulders, average+ looks. If I were a girl, I would be a slut that likes the attention; I am a slut that likes the attention... lol. I don't want some random person walking up and touching me in a cycling kit, but if you want to look at the bulge in my shorts, whatever, I don't care. I did not wear them for you. I wear them for a reason, but if I am in public and you look, it would be idiotic of me to get offended.
Anyways, it may be outlier behavior for someone that wants to be looked at, but that is a totally valid choice in life too. Being sadistic about dressing in an extraordinarily revealing way and then complaining about people looking, is just as bad as the malevolent deviant that believes any form of clothing or external context is consent from another person. Even full open and explicit nudity in any public or private context is not de facto or implied consent.
Pants and pockets. For men a combo, for women a choice.
Dresses dont have pockets either, I'm confused
Maybe I should have written leg coverings? You get the joke, right? She has lots of pockets but no pants or skirt.
I wonder why tactical belts like that are not a popular accessory. It emphasizes the hips, like those tutus that are sometimes in fashion.
This is the first I'm hearing about tactical belts, so that's probably why. Women don't buy something traditionally masculine just because it's pink the way guys do with "tactical" whatnot
What
I have to wonder what is the implication or intention with the photo and the cosplay (thanks to the comment indicating where it comes from). I mean, no one chooses this display thinking they won't get attention, maybe she likes the attention, and good for her if she does. But the fact that she took the photo by the side of this sign... Is she implying that it helps that it's written? Enough for her to feel empowered to dress however she wants? Did she feel like she needed to take the photo by the consent sign to make a point that not enough people follow the guidelines?
I ask this because I would want to know if this is a sign (pun intended) that as a society we are going in the right direction, allowing her to dress in this outfit, or the contrary? It would be nice if the former would be the case.
That is beyond any kind of discussion about the appropriateness of it, in my opinion it is great if anyone is feeling safe enough to do this. Nudity needs to be normalized, nudity is not sexuality, but I digress and that's just my personal point of view.
I think it's as simple as that. She's wearing a very revealing outfit and is probably more affected by people being creepy about it. So because of her cosplay, there's extra reason for her to want to emphasize the sign.
I feel like it shouldn't have to be said that wanting attention and * wanting to be groped* aren't the same fucking thing.
An invitation to look at her isn't an invitation to touch her.
You kind of implied it, yes. You mention that she wants you to read and abide by an anti-groping sign, but is standing there like she wants attention as though that is some sort of hypocritical stance for her to have.
Granted, it's hard to read "tone" from a written sentence, so if that wasn't your intent, of course I apologize. But it definitely read as though you were implying she was a hypocrite for daring to be dressed provocatively next to a sign that says "don't grope me, bro."
I have a lot of cosplayer friends and showing less skin doesn't really change things when creeps are involved. In this thread there are people comparing nerd conventions to strip clubs. Advocating for the isolation of women entirely.
It's a scary thing.
Half of the cosplayers are shows are men. A good chunk are under 18. Every show has dress code so anyone exposing too much wouldn't make it through the door. There are rules in place for everyone's comfort and just because you find someone attractive doesn't justify this behavior.
No one owes you a picture. If you ask they'll probably say yes, but they bought their ticket too and want to enjoy the show. Taking sneaky pics is frowned on because people have stalkers, strict jobs and don't want to end up on someone's spank bank (which was an actual problem in the early 2000s).
Costuming is an art and a skill. Capturing a character in its essence and being an award winning cosplayer is coveted. There are competitions all over the US and there is even one near me where the prize is 10k for the top competitor.
Dont let the creeps persuade you. The girl is showing a little leg and tummy and smiling having a good time. Thats someone's little sister and she probably loves that character and worked for months on that costume just to go to one of the biggest conventions in the world.
It definitely got pulled from social media and now is being misused in a debate that at its core was created by someone who thinks its okay to assault women.
Don't side with the creeps. Little concessions by the average good person add up as validation to someone who has bad intentions.
Well, OP argued against consent and that he is fine with coercion the other day, then deleted it when confronted, so probably it is an agenda he is putting forth about consent and women
I'm upset that signs like this need to be posted. I've only been to one comicon and took shitloads of unconsented pictures, because I was suffering from hella anxiety and would never have worked up the nerve, and because if I asked everyone I'd have been asking all day. Roadhog+junkyard? Photo. Amazing Link costume? Photo. Green Ranger hanging out of a delorean? Hell yes Photo.
Nothing creepy though. I went out of my way to not point my camera at anyone dressed even remotely sexy, because I dont need the hassle. I also dont need the creepshots. I have the Internet. We have access to more porn than can possibly be consumed in a hundred lifetimes. Im not about to go stealing apples when I live in an orchard.
K... But did you try to playfully spank, or aggressively assault any of those people? Because that's what we're getting at here.
Consent for photographs is important too, and is mentioned in the sign below the "hands off" part.
Congrats on completely missing the point
I see the word hands now. It was the "photo with or of" that drew my attention.
Sorry bud.
Hang your head in shame!
I think the message is a bit vague in context. It is not really about taking candid pics of people in situ. It is saying don't invade a person's space to stand right next to them for a selfie, or demand that they stop what they are doing to pose for your picture. That kind of picture is not your inferred right with some imaginary implied consent. This is the outlier intrusive behavior that must be addressed as odd. There are a lot of these types of entitled people in the world, but they are still a minority.
There are also narcissists that sadistically dress for attention and then believe they have a right to gatekeep who is allowed to look at them. Both groups are people with mental health disorders.
This sign is about lessening the negative emotional impacts others have on people that have gone to extreme and amazing efforts to participate in cosplay. It is about being respectful and appreciative of those people. It is about calling out the worst mental health disorders present at the event.
Photographing people candidly is not the point, but even in that circumstance. Taking unsolicited candid pictures of specific people is as uncouth as a person that talks about their legal rights in a social setting to entitle their behavior. Asking people to take their picture is just good manners.
It might be my autism, but this was completely lost on me and interpreted as "don't take any pictures with people in them without permission"
No. Not autism, just badly phrased as part of a confusing gray area of "When are you allowed to use your phone in public?" online discourse.
There's plenty of people who sincerely believe you don't have any kind of rights to photography of anyone at any place for any reason, without explicit consent. There's others who believe heckling and cat calling is perfectly normal acceptable behavior. And then there's a thousand lines in between.
Standing half naked in a garish "please pay attention to me" costume near a sign that says "Stop taking my picture without asking me first" is confusing to the point of feeling like rage bait.
Maybe it is my autism, but I was specifically addressing the nuances and motivations behind subsets of people. People taking pictures are not all equal. The line of delineation between those taking pictures of a crowd and those taking pictures of the total event are one such difference. No one would argue that taking a picture of the entire convention center floor necessitates asking everyone present in images for their consent, likewise with taking landscape or panoramic pictures of some subset or section of the floor. There will be people closer and further away in such images. This is candid/in-situ photography. Anyone with minimal fundamental logic skills can follow this delineation and arrive at the conclusion that such behavior is nominal. Obviously, this is not the behavior that the sign in the original post was addressing.
So what is the sign addressing. Well the information about touching infers that the sign is about invasive behavior directed at cosplayers. So logic dictates that the information about photography is also about allaying similar disruptive behavior.
What types of behavior related to photography are most invasive. Entitlement is the primary issue. Under the surface of cosplay, there is a deeper layer of subtle servitude that goes unaddressed in the context of broader sociology. In terms of cosplay at an event, the role of entertainer does not imply the inferred subservient class of entertainer and the entertained. The event is intended to be an egalitarian aggregate of entertainers. It is likely that most people are not self aware within this heavily abstracted context. Nonetheless, this class role of entertainers is real and underpins all of the social interactions. In societies like ancient Rome, entertainers were a recognized social class.
When anyone acts entitled with photography or demands a cosplayer's time or attention, they are effectively forcing the role of subservience.
When people talk about how humans or some animals display complex social behavior, this kind of subtle or unspoken complexity is what they are referring to. Even when the entitled person demanding time or attention is a fellow cosplayer, within the same unspoken social caste, they are still imposing a subtle form of hierarchy and subservience. All humans engage on these layers of interaction with various degrees of self awareness. You did it when you replied. I did it in my original comment, and I am doing it now, some in ways that I am aware, and in many ways I am not.
The actual invasive behaviors about photography and interaction that this sign intends to address are the demeaning and emotionally taxing interactions that are likely to have a short and long term negative impact on cosplayers. The sign is short and anecdotal. It cannot address the subtle nuances of sociology that most people cannot grasp. Concepts of social hierarchy, complexity, and castes are are beyond the comprehension of most entitled people that the sign is intended to allay.
If you demand a person's time and obsequiousness in this context, you are demanding subservience. The sign is stating the egalitarian nature of the gathering, and that no one is expected to acquiesce in subservience. It is stating you must be respectfully egalitarian in this subculture.
This is about touching people, not taking pictures. I assume taking pictures of cosplayers is generally not a problem?
The sign says:
Oh weird, it's worded a bit weird. Usually all these events have a huge clause that it's a public space and your footage can be used and published.
Guess it only counts for corporations
Photos of an event with people in them are different than photos of a person.
It's not illegal to take pictures in public areas.
Sure. But that's missing the crux of the point, which is confusing given the context (a picture of a girl posing for a picture) and the caveats (posing/touching, not just snapping a picture of a crowd).
It's a mixed message.
I read it closely and I agree. Men will take it as don't get near don't, move. Women will take it as any minor annoyance counts as SH. And both miss the nuance of it being that you can snap public areas, but no one owes you a touch or personal picture.
That is a weird essentialist assumption.
Everything I stated was a fact, not one word in that sentence was a fact.
It's a bit of a gray area if they are indecent (pictures) and/or if the event is admission-only (which a lot are).
What I've learned from the comment section of this post: dont go anywhere or do things at all for any reason
Or do, but assume a lot of people don't understand decorum.
I still am struggling to accept a person dressed like that is giving advice on how to behave in public. Not sure what I'm stuck on though.
Just think of it like a convention as a museum of fanart; some self-supporting, some actively worn. You aren't normally allowed to touch the art, are you?
Really depends on the art. But - generally speaking - you're looking for permission before you do, which is the (muddled) point of the display.
No its not the no touching part, I think I just dont like how she looks naked at first glance, but thats more a preference thing than anything. I'm sure its legal and all.
I don't believe you.
The sign specifically says to keep your hands to yourself. If you can't do that, then you're a fucking sexual predator. Anyone putting the blame on the woman needs their moral compass checked thoroughly.
That said, I most certainly would look, perhaps stare even. That's just the way my instincts work. I also see how people would try to chat her up. But this is definitely not an invitation to start touching her without consent.
Wait "consent before you take a picture of somebody"? You have to ask first before photographing someone else's cosplay in the US? I thought the laws in US allow taking pictures however you like, without consent required. I'm just curious about the legality in the US, in some European countries there is such a thing as "expectation of privacy".
Obviously keep your hands off.
why are people once again confusing legality with morality
Because "morality" is a mess (bible lol). Imho only ethics based on universal values and scientific understanding can yield good results. Anyway thanks to the replies I understand the convention to ask permission before taking pictures now. It might be obvious to you but it's not obvious if you never been to a convention.
In the U.S. you can generally be recorded any place you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy (like in your home). This is probably just a convention rule to keep perverts from taking creep-shots. You would probably be asked to leave for photographing cosplayers without permission, but I don't know of any law in any state that you would be breaking by photographing a person in a public space.
They are just telling people how to have basic manners.
I'm not form the us but I see think the things here are:
A convention space, while a public space, has convention rules. These rules came out of necessity over the past 25 years of nycc and were not always there.
If you pan over a crowd, no one is going to ban you. These rules are there for specific people who make the space feel unsafe and it feels like a lot of them showed up in this thread angry.
If the space doesn't make it feel safe for cosplayers, cosplayers won't show up.
Legally, no. As part of the rules of the convention, yes.
In Japan its even more strict. The US just politely asks. No one owes anyone anything and just by dressing up, you're not entitled to their picture in your phone.
Most people are fine with it.
Its the creeps who say things like I'm taking this for my spank bank or who try and angle an upskirt photo that are really the problem.
If youre smoking hot or have a really amazing cosplay or both, surely you'd get sick of people having their photo taken with you all day.
I mean, for several hours or so, great... but if you just want to hang out with your crew for a bit surely its ok to say "sorry I'm not doing photos right now."
I don't think anyone's ever been upset at being in the background , but there have been cases of people trying to get upskirts or taking creep shots. I think that's more what its about.
Even more than that, if you've put a significant amount of your time, energy, money and even identity into a creation, you want for the photos people take (and potentially share) of it to be ones where you have some degree of control over how it looks.
Maybe you cut a few corners on the side of a piece and only want to show it from the front, or maybe the makeup only really "works" if you're making the right expression, that kind of thing. It's a professional courtesy to allow cosplayers at a convention to choose how they pose, rather than unilaterally collect them without permission like a Pokemon.
Yeah I think that (besides creeps) is the best explanation. Cosplay is a form of art so the "creator" should have some artistic control over it. Otherwise I'd argue "well if you get up on a stage to shine, you're giving implicit consent". But one can't be constantly "on stage".
Emily Faye? (chiakifoil)
https://spankbang.com/34w06/video/emily+faye+masturbating+outside (NSFW)
The fact that we have to teach common sense is a bit worrying.
Thought-provoking in any way.
I understand with them, but you need to demand to take a picture of them too? Is that not the whole reason they are there in the public space with their outfit? To show it?
While I 100% agree with the sign, I don't think that cosplay is appropriate for walking the floor at comicon. Maybe I'm just becoming an old prude, but that girl is practically nude, and comicon is an all-ages event. I'm not saying she deserves to be harassed, and I'm not letting anyone off the hook for being a creep to her, but that kind of cosplay should be reserved for photo shoots or adults-only environments.
Theres a double standard at play here though. The amount of skin exposure is comparable, yet one is unacceptable.
Double standard is part of it, but sexualization isn't just about how much skin is showing. This outfit shows about as much skin as the Conan cosplay, but is clearly more sexualized:
A Supergirl or Powergirl cosplay can also be revealing, and while you might find someone in that cosplay (or the Conan cosplay) sexual attractive, they're not as sexually suggestive as what this girl is wearing (which is essentially some belts held together with body tape, I presume). The line is blurry and dependent on context, but I would say this is over that line.
Neither is unacceptable depending on context.
Walking in a supermarket? Both unacceptable
Comic-con? Both are looking for attention. But no touching, you weirdos.
Can I opt into a society where both costumes at the supermarket are acceptable?
Those costumes are too cool to only wear a couple times per year.
It appears that the NYC Comic Con guideline is "Skimpy costumes are permitted though concessions to accuracy are needed if skimpy to the point of negligible coverage i.e. less than typical swimwear."
It is, of course, up to the enforcer, but I would evaluate the Nonon cosplayer as "less than typical swimwear", and the Conan cosplayer to be about the same as typical swimwear. Some skin-colored underlayer would've made it more safe.
I would feel uncomfortable, if that dude in his shorts approached me.
Did anyone say it was unacceptable? You think dollar store Conan here isnt being touched just as much as the girl in the OP?
Why would someone with any age have a problem with nearly nude woman running around? Go touch some Grass in the Park or Beach Sand in the summer or go to a public swimming pool. Everyone is there everyone is there (nearly) nude.
Yeah but that's why context matters. Wearing a bikini at the beach is one thing, wearing it to a job interview is another. I know this line can be blurry with comic book characters since most of them wear fairly revealing outfits, but I would say wearing one of the hyper-sexualized outfits from the anime about high-school girls who get superpowers when their outfits get more sexually explicit is probably too sexual explicit for an all-ages event.
Oh fuck all the way off. Let a woman dress however she wants. If a Luffy or Conan costume is okay, what this woman is wearing is okay too.
Sometimes women like drawing gazes. The point is it should always stop at gazes.
Fuck all the way off with this. There's nothing wrong with wanting to draw gazes, but that doesn't mean every way of doing that is appropriate for every situation. If you want to draw gazes at a dinner party you wear a low-cut black dress, not a mesh tank top and assless chaps.
Stop. Policing. Womenโs. Clothes.
She isnโt at a dinner party, sheโs at a convention.
What sheโs wearing is an accurate and well-done cosplay, and that is 100% appropriate attire for the setting. It would be the equivalent of a โlow cut black dressโ, you sexist asshole.
Edit: Which shouldnโt matter anyways, because cosplay is not consent. A woman should be able to walk around naked in public without getting sexually harassed, never mind while wearing what she likes. Clothes are never consent. No matter if you judge them โappropriateโ or not.
It's appropriate attire for the setting in your opinion. I think wearing a hyper-sexualized outfit from a hyper-sexualized anime in a situation where children will be present isn't appropriate. You're welcome to disagree, but don't try to high-road me because of it.
If you don't like it you're free to stay home with your kids, people take their kids to the beach and see similar and nobody bats an eye, get over it or get lost
How do you think children will be negatively impacted by nude woman?
I don't think children will be negatively impacted by nudity, but I think they will be negatively impacted by sexualized nudity (and there are a lot of studies that back that up). I wouldn't shield my child from a woman wearing a bikini or breastfeeding, but I also wouldn't bring him to a strip club or show him porn. I think dressing as one of the characters characters from High School Superpowered Sex Uniforms falls into the latter category.
Strip Club and porn have a sexual interaction, but here its just a woman running around like all the others in their costumes.
Yes, but an outfit can be inherently sexual. Fetish gear is inherently sexual, even if you're not doing something sexual in it.
Little children wouldn't know and understand and would just think "weird or funny costume" But teenagers who know, know it already and thus it isn't a problem.
This isn't fetish gear, you're just a creep
Nobody in kill la kill fucks, you're just a creep
LOL, you told me in another thread that you've never seen it.
I looked up a plot summary and content rating reviews, the internet is occasionally useful like that lol. I'm right and you know it because you've clearly watched it before, you just don't want to admit it because it undermines your weird argument. Also it's weird that you're a fan of a show that you describe as a bunch of high schoolers in overly sexy outfits
I respectfully disagree. There is nothing to be ashamed about. The human lack of fur is no cause for shaming. It is nature. The sadistic shaming is the cause of bad behavior. The taboo bottles people and creates the tension that leads to uncontrolled release due to a lack of self exploration and growth. The dogma culture of Puritan masochistic emotional austerity is harmful. Humans are valid for being themselves without anyone else having a right to project their dogma onto anyone else. The Hippocratic aphorism "first do no harm" โ so live and let live in peace is all that matters. No harm is done by dressing in any fashion a person chooses, so no one has a right to interfere.
(Hardcore) Porn that shows kids an unreal act and can make people addicted is bad. But nude bodies IRL are good.
If your kids are mature enough to read the comics at the convention then they're mature enough to see people walking around dressed like the characters, right? Why overthink this?
Well, "comics," is a big medium, and what's appropriate will vary from comic to comic. I'm kinda having this problem at the moment; my toddler is obsessed with Superman, but since his age appropriateness can vary wildly, I have to be very selective with what media I let him see. I can basically show him the old Superfriends cartoon, some episodes of the 90s show, and the non-racist fliescher serials.
But either way, last time I was at Comicon (3 or 4 years ago), there were a ton of kids there, and last I check, anyone under 13 was free. It is, at least outwardly, a very pro-kid event. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that some cosplay might be too sexual for an environment where you expect to see children.
I don't think it's unreasonable to put the responsibility on parents to determine what's appropriate for their children to see.
Well, that's true, but I also think it's unreasonable to expect people to think about what event they're going and dress appropriately. In the same way you might decide not to wear your super hilarious, "I'm not as think as you drunk I am," t-shirt while visiting your friend in rehab, I think it's not unreasonable to think about whether children will be present before you wear a very sexual outfit from a very sexual anime.
There are certainly shades of this, and it's not universal. If you're complaining that someone's Wonder Woman cosplay is too revealing, then comicon probably isn't for you. To me though, this is a lot more revealing and sexual than I would expect to see at comicon (and that I have seen when I've gone IRL).
He uhh soo could you stop sexualizing female bodies? Kthxxbyee
Edit: calling it now, the people downvoting this are exactly the type of people that are the reason for the sign to exist. Yikes.
Hmmm
Yeah that's the point. Naked bodies aren't inherently sexual.
The individual in the pic is presenting themselves sexually. That is the point of the pic - that a person sexualizing themselves isn't making themselves universally available.
disagree, she isn't sexual. she's just standing there. you are the one who is sexualising her.
you will disagree and say that it's because of how sexual she is, but that is only in your eye.
By your metric, no one can ever sexualize themselves. No woman can say "I want to look sexy so I will wear this sexy dress." Which is clearly ridiculous
it's quite telling how consent is a hard concept for you to understand.
"don't rape people please"
"but what if someone wants sex? he checkmate"
She's literally just standing there, your arousal is your own problem
No, you are sexualizing a person who is literally just standing there and that's entirely a you problem
Not always, but they can be presented in a sexual manner
Can't cause I am generally sexually attracted to people who register as feminine in my caveman brain. But not just the woman, but the femboys and enbies too!
Not living up to your username at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2WVu6A-Fvw&t=40s
There are always older cosplayers at cons, and they are welcome. People love adorable older cosplayers.
I haven't been in a number of years but dragoncon in Atlanta used to have a wide age variance if I remember. Not sure where you are located but maybe it has more of what you are looking for. (Granted things may have changed since I was there years ago)
I need more pictures.. for.. cultural purpose
She's Emily Faye, so I'm pretty sure you can find literally any picture you'd ever want lol
I am supposed to recognize every women on the internet? Lol thanks for the name!
That is borderline porn
Nudity isnt inherently sexual, your arousal is entirely your problem
Arousal is actually natural, acting on your arousal though, that's another matter.
What differentiates humans from animals is the ability to resist our "instincts" and obey our brain, some missed that evolutionary step sadly
Arousal is natural, your weird puritanical reaction to non-sexual behaviors and situations like people literally just standing there wearing a costume is not
I mean the cosplayer can do whatever they want, no judgement from me, but it's clearly a costume that is made to be sexualised.
And the puritans thought the same was equally clear about bare ankles, your arbitrary standard of which visible body parts are normal vs sexual is just as dumb as theirs was. The only things humans do that are inherently sexual are actual sexual behaviors. Clothing is not fucking, nudity is not fucking.
I'm not equating what she is wearing to "fucking", but you're talking as if it's clearly some "oh this just feels comfortable" cosplay and not intentionally sexualised. Sexual attraction arousal and flirting starts before "fucking".
There is nothing inherently sexual about it, clothing isn't flirting, your arousal is your own problem
Homo-sapiens have been on earth for about 250k years, and have been wearing clothes for only 100k years, after one of the severe ice ages that even affected Africa. We made nudity sexual.
Yes, but this does not look like a non sexual display. This feels intentionally provocative.
I get that it might feel that way to you, but the puritans felt the same way about an exposed ankle and their standards for which exposed skin was sexual were just as arbitrary as yours. The only things humans do that are inherently sexual are actual sexual behaviors. If she were wearing a t shirt that showed an image of someone literally sucking a dick then you might have a point, or if she were posed in a way that was pantomiming a sexual act of some sort, but what she's wearing is just showing skin and she's just standing there. Skin isn't inherently sexual, people are partially or completely nude all the time with no sexual intent behind it, and nothing about her pose says she's trying to fuck.
Thatโs just nudity, not porn. Itโs odd to lecture someone on their conservative view of the human body while reflecting your own.
She is strikingly cute and in a revealing outfit that "accents" her body in a way a bikini wouldn't. Consent is important but anyone with a libido could find her sexually attractive- this outfit being promiscuous- without being a complete weirdo about it. It's not porn but framing of this image and composure isn't what makes this an attention grabber. It's our monkey programmed brains. Very much a "you problem" and maybe some are upset of being reminded of that because no consent is being granted to them in their life. Oh well.
I have a better idea, seperate the cosplayers into a cosplayer-only sections. There problem solved.
If there was a problem at all in the beginning.
How is that a better idea than just asking people to show a basic level of human respect and courtesy? Are you really so thin-skinned, that you're put out by a sign asking people not to be creeps?
Because the people feeling others up in public are few, but the issue is presented like its the majority.
Sexism against men has been increasing so much, that people dont even question it now. They see something and just assume it must be true. Like men are responsible for 91% of all violent crime. Sounds awful right? I mean, 91%. Thats huge! But then you actually look at it, and that 91% is done by less than 1% of the male population. But for some reason, "men" need to do better. The implication being that this violence is done to women. Which it is... 10% of the time. Men are most likely to be the victims of violent crime at a whopping 81%. In fact, another common belief is that women cant walk the streets at night. They often say things like "If I was a man, Id go for a walk at night and not be afraid." Which is pretty fucking stupid when you look at the stats. In fact, as it currently stands, women are far safer walking alone at night than they are when they got home. Because 90% of the time, the violence they suffer is from men they live with. Fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands, boyfriends, etc.
You dont need to ask the general public not be creeps. Because the majority of people are not creeps. I used to get felt up by women all the time while working as a glass collector in an upmarket club. It wasnt even close to being the majority of the women, but it was some of them. Should there be signs telling ALL the woman to get their hands off the 18 year old picking up glasses? If youre the type of person who grabs at people, chances are, youre the type of person who doesnt care about being nice and not creepy. So why bother with the sign? Just so you can claim some moral superiority over a group of people that are perceived to be creeps? And thus, the reason for the pushback unveils itself. Its not about being against the message, its about being against the virtue signal and the constantly spread fiction that men are all creeps and women are all victims.
There's no gendered language on the sign. You're telling on yourself.
To reassure cosplayers that creeps aren't tolerated.
But there sure as fuck is in the comment section, isnt there? Because all the cave brained cunts in the world just automatically assume. The only thing Im telling about my self in that comment, is exactly what it said. The fact you disagree, is you telling on your self, you sexist piece of shit.
Neither of the comments upthread from your "men are the real victims" pity party used gendered language either.
Never said "Men are the real victims" or had a pity party, and you saying it doesnt make it so. Maybe if you could read, and maybe if you were a fucking prick, youd see what I saying instead of trying to twist the truth so that you dont have to deal with the fact that youre a piece of shit cock womble, spewing sexist trash in the hope some girl sees you as "Not like the other guys".
Youre pathetic.
You're angry.
You're an angry incel.
Why does this bother you so much if the sign isn't about you?
No one said it was, you decided it was. The sign doesn't mention gender, and further it's about taking photos, not touching people.
I'm really sorry anyone felt entitled to put their hands on your body without your consent. That really sucks. They absolutely should put up signs reminding people to keep their hands to themselves at your old job. I'm guessing the old bats thought they could get away with it because it was wink wink ok with the culture of the place. If people are being touched, the place should make it clear that's not tolerated and then act on it when you report it. The signs might not stop the pervs but maybe they would signal to the 18 year old that your boss would agree that that's never ok, and you should report it and there should be consequences.
For the fucking reasons I said, you spoon eating cunt.
You just made up statistics what utter, LLM trash.
If by LLM, you mean UNODC among others, then sure. Whats it like being a raging sexist cunt?
Are you an LLM?
With this we can avoid the creeps in their entirety. Also define creepy.
Well luckily conventions kick out creeps and permanent ban repeat offenders. So I guess instead of punishing cosplayers, separating assholes is the real solution.
How is it punishing cosplayers ?? A safe-space for cosplayers is awesome
Segregation is not awesome.
Then we'd get people with super low effort ones just to exploit the loophole.
Elaboration needed.
I'm dressed as a background character from the third episode of... uh... Excel Saga.
What is your problem with requiring convention patrons to respect others? Honestly, there shouldn't even have to be a rule for it, but any group of nerds is gonna have a That Guy.
Stop being him.
But patrons do respect each other. The creeps get kicked out pretty quick. Provided that you have evidence for their "creepy" behaviour right & not based on He said, She said right ?
In 1972, a man named Scott Shaw went to the World Science Fiction Convention dressed in a bathing suit and at least one full jar of chunky peanut butter. Bits of peanut butter kept falling off and people kept stepping on them. On 1970s hotel carpet. To this day, 53 years later, no matter which country hosts, Worldcon prohibits the use of peanut butter as any part of a costume. Rules exist for a reason.
Now they do. Because there are rules.
I can think of a convention off the top of my head where at least one creep wrote an entire treatise on groping women at cons. This creep was welcome and celebrated at conventions for decades, until he died in 1992 of AIDS he contracted from a blood transfusion. He was the guest of honor at Worldcon in 1955.
Rules exist for a reason. Sometimes That Guy is named Isaac Asimov and no one wants to tell him no.
I'll look these citations up
Hey. I'm cosplaying a GTA NPC.
Good for you.
Like, I could just wear a nondescript white shirt with black trousers and say I'm cosplaying as a character from Chainsawman. I could even wear a wife beater with a pair of jeans and say I'm TJ from GTA.
Or you could be normal about women, instead of posting shit like this
You're allowed to dress in revealing clothes and not be harassed
Men have ab obligation to be decent even when aroused
This is a bot. Every single comment is in the same format!!!!!! :(
I went to see what you were saying and I thought it was funny when there was a comment next to another. One saying women need to be more modest, then the very next comment saying nice hot black ass. Which one would find possible irony but my first thought was can bots detect that a nude photo is of a person with a specific skin tone? I never really questioned how bots worked. Maybe it would have to just scan the sub name and the text of others to decide what to post
Modesty is for cowards
This is amazing that men have to be literally separated from women, because they are too animalistic to not harras them. Amazing world.
Some people can't behave in situations like this, no matter the gender. Plenty of reports from male cosplayers and character actors getting groped by women. Recent example: https://www.threads.com/@xo.treleigh/post/DNeF1iZuLDe (content is in the screenshots). Same shit behavior and attitude.
::: spoiler personal experience My experience with inappropriate touching because of the costume I'm wearing has pretty much entirely been women. My costume wasn't sexual or revealing at all either - people just decided to it looked pleasing to touch and did so without asking. Including one person repeatedly passing behind me to touch my costume at my butt (and I don't think she was trying to sexually harass me: she was just really short)
Not saying its representative of the the wider behavior or even equivalent to similar behavior when done by men. Ultimately, I mostly just found it an interesting experience, but never felt threatened by any of the inappropriate behaviors, which makes a huge difference ime. :::
I wonder if they asked the folks in the background for consent with the photo...
You don't need that for groups of people.
Just become a stripper already
I'd tell you to be a piece of shit but it seems you're excelling at it already.
No, you.
People who go out dressed like this need to catch criminal charges.
K trump bot.
This is a public airport. This behaviour literally borders on pedophelia in my book.
Why is it pedophilia? I doubt she's a minor. I'd say it's maybe a little tasteless but certainly not illegal.
Complaining about how people dress at a fancy dress convention is prudish in my book.
This outfit is more Sexpo than Comic Con but Lemmy will always defend shit like this, and that is straight up retarded and very sus.
Men. Nothing more to say
Edit: Think about it. There's a reason that sign exists. There were very likely cases were cosplayers were touched or groped or whatever without their consent. How likely is it that it wasn't men groping women? Look at statistics instead of knee-jerkingly downvoting.
Cis male btw. If you feel attacked by this, you're part of the problem
Well you can never be sure these days but Iโd say the picture is showing a woman
I feel if you make an effort to look very specifically like one gender over the other, you have to be okay with people assuming that one until told otherwise.
Got me there
"If you downvoted my simplistic and harmful comment then YOURE the problem!"
Iโve been groped by women. Itโs not always only men.
Same. Once it was the kind of thing a man would go to jail for. I'm not saying it's the same, because the power dynamic makes it very different.
But I am saying that these fucking generalizations this douche commenter made are not helping anything.
I got groped in front of my date by a bunch of drunk 50 year old women at a Christmas party.
Same
Nonsense. A decent amount of women have approached me to touch my abs without asking explicitly.
It never made me feel uncomfortable because it wasn't threatening or by someone creepy, but yeah, if I were a woman and approached by someone significantly taller than me or creepy looking, then I would be. In any case, obviously everyone should keep their hands to themselves unless consent is given.
Thanks for sharing and sorry to hear that - must have been awful
I was 17 years old and at work when a woman called me eye candy and said โbut Iโll leave you alone, Iโm not that much of a cougarโ
I have had my arse smacked and grabbed, as have my brothers.
I have had women not understand that I was uncomfortable about the comments they were making about me, to me even when told.
I have had a woman say to me suggestively โIโm sure you could make some more upโ and wink when I told her that we didnโt have any cream.
Problematic behaviour isnโt something that is exclusive to one gender because women can be pretty fucking disgusting with their behaviour too.
I hear you. Thanks for sharing and I'm sorry to hear you were treated that way. I wasn't trying to discredit anyone's experiences with my comment
Yes you were. You are in damage-control mode
Why does gender even matter. Don't touch people that don't want it, why make this a guy/girl thing. You seem to have a hang up.
Also, women touch men all the time. I've had multiple women just squeeze my arm to feel my bicep under my sweater, and they think that's fine. Maybe women just don't want to touch you?
Proceeds to write a paragraph
> Nothing more to say
> [more things said]
Rule 0: Always upvote emojiguy
Do you honestly believe that men don't get groped by women?
It seems like you're part of a while other set of problems.
Yeah that person does
John Frakes famously stopped signing autographs at conventions in the 90s because two women were taking a picture with him and grabbed his crotch. Nobody here feels attacked by your lack of knowledge and experience on this topic.
It's simply because they consider men as sub-humans
Thirsty people who can't behave, more like.
Which seem to be 99% men, sure.
It's true. We're awful.
Women are just as bad, but in a different way.
No, turns out, in the exact same way:
https://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/2025/08/sinners-stardust-sexual-assault/
https://annalisereads.com/sinners-stardust-2025
https://peggyjaeger.com/2025/08/21/problematic-bookcons/
I am not going to say I agree or disagree with every single 'take' in these articles/posts, nor can I vet every claimed / alleged act for any level of accuracy, but these are pretty comprehensive catalogues of insane levels of sexual harassment committed / alleged to have been committed by either entirely or almost entirely women, at a recent "dark romance" book convention.
I will surely get crucified for pointing this out, but my experience indicates that there is a pervasive mentality among women specifically of certain fandoms that because they are women, they can't be the perpetrators of sexual harassment, only the victims, and then only specifically by men. Therefore they can do whatever they want to other women because we're all girls, so obviously it's "allowed."
This occasionally seems to get logically extended to the notion that women can harass men without consequences, either because only women can be the victims of sexual harassment or violence (see above), or that the men in question ought to just enjoy the attention and be grateful for how "lucky" they are.
All of the above is broadly analogous to one dude coming up to another dude and just grabbing his crotch. Everyone can imagine how that would play out, and thus it's self-evident to any outside observer that this kind of mentality is bullshit.
Oh I've known people like this in real life.
Have literally been sexually harassed by one who then pouted, giggled, and said "come on, you liked it."
Uh, nope, I didn't, but I guess consent is a concept that only applies one way in certain people's minds.
I don't know so much if its certain specific fandoms as it is just... generally being waaaaay too online / brainrotted / having very little real world social experience, and then that often coincides with just being neck deep in some particular fandom or set of fandoms.
Let's be honest, supplying a handful of case examples to the contrary does not refute an argument about society
I didn't see an argument anywhere, uh, what are you referring to?
Are you... dubious at the idea of women broadly having the capacity to be abusive, sexually harass people?
Because I can actually supply stats and make an argument there.
For starters, there is still a massive heteronormative stigma against the idea of men being able to be victims of, or report things like being sexually harassed or worse by women, because when you as a man do that, society broadly ignores or belittles you.
Its... part of how cishet male machismo / performative masculinity functions, it isn't only enforced by men on other men, its enforced by women on men as well.
See how we are still as a society broadly still just laughing at male prison rape, still broadly hesitant to condemn or care about 'older female authority figure takes advantage of younger male subordinate' type siuations as much as we broadly care about the reverse.
https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html
The actual paper they cite for those tidbits:
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/124646
Yeah, I'm not gonna tell you this is a perfectly gender/sex neutral thing, men obviously have a higher propensity, on average, to do this kind of shit, but uh... 26% of of men being victims is nothing to sneeze at.
Thats roughly 34 million adult men in the US who report being either sexually assaulted/raped/harassed, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by mainly women, given that about 95% of US men identify as hetero, so I guess you can pare that down to about 32 1/3 million male victims of women.
... And, you've probably got some undercounting going on there, both due to the stigma, and due to a woman forcing a man to have sex not even being legally classed as a crime in much of the US.
So yeah, yeah, sexual abuse and harassment and stalking is always wrong, but this is not a thing that only men do, many women do it as well.
As a caveat to this and all the other example figures being thrown around: just because the victim is hetero, does not mean the perpetrator of harassment or assault is too. In a lot of cases it's the victim declining or rejecting the advances outright that only prompts the perp to be more forceful, man or woman.
True, this gets complicated in that way, I don't know off the top of my head a decent study that tries to actually quantify and assess that, as... usually when these wide scale surveys/studies are done, they don't ask for the sexual orientation of the partner, sometimes they don't even ask the victim what their orientation is.
But, there are studies specific to more like, 'sexual violence in the (whichever subsection of LGBTQ+) community'... but at least off the top of my head, I don't know of any that you could...
... basically, do the statistical correction/specification, to get that level of detail.
If you know of any, I'd be glad to read them!
Yes.
You're way off topic here. We're not talking about intimate partner violence, we're talking about making gross statements or inappropriately touching strangers at a Comic Con
Oh, you first critiqued me for a specific anecdote not being relevant at a societal level, and now you don't see how broad data at a societal level, on a very similar kind of activity, is relevant at all?
If you can't follow the logic here, the logic is:
You said an anecdote doesn't prove anything about society.
So I then argued that women broadly certainly have the capacity to commit sexual harassment, as evidenced by their capacity to do very similar things to their partners.
What I am arguing against is the idea that women can be "bad, but in different ways".
No, they can be bad in the exact same ways.
They can commit all kinds of IPV, and, they can disregard the bodily autonomy of others at conventions.
Keep moving that goal post lol
Humans are perverts.
I imagine a timeline were humans weren't horny would be very much different.
It would also have a lot fewer humans in it I guess
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
If only.
"Horny" is more fitting IMO. Animals do a lot of fucked up sexual things, too, the main difference is that most of them aren't horny year-round.
I dont know many animals that will willing suck another animals toes while another animal pours hot wax on the first animal while another animal sitting in the dark corner watches and pours hot wax on itself while patting another animal wrapped up in the tanned leather of another animal, as 2 other animals film it.
Incorrect. The natural world DGAF about your ethics or feelings or genders or needs or starry-eyed Disney-glittered wishes.
Read a fucking book.Sorry, I'd meant to aim that at the fuckery going on further up the thread, not in reply to the comment directly above. ๐๐ผDid I get that right, you're saying that animals are horny year-round? Or are you saying that it's my starry-eyed Disney-glittered wishes that make me say that animals do a lot of fucked up sexual things?
I think he means ducks and otters raping each other to death is more a result of neurochemistry and behavior than a specific intention to fulfill sexual satisfaction.
Like a guy leaving tooth marks on a woman, pervert. Another animal biting to get a better hold, not so much.
Shit. Sorry! I meant to phrase the latter bit as aimed at the various morons gathered above, not you specifically. I really shouldn't scroll when I'm so damn tired I can't type cogently. ๐ซ
Essentially? Animals aren't "horny". That's a human construct. Nature DGAF about our hairless monkey noises and clever tools that we use to name things. Creatures do alllll sorts of "fucked up" things all the time, and have been for far longer than bones've existed. ๐ค๐
That said, this thread is radioactive AF, and I'm sorry for any confusion I contributed to. I do my best to be an advocate for the Platinum Rule, and the async mode of comms inherent to forums like ours isn't exactly helping foster understanding & community at the moment. ๐คฆ๐ผโโ๏ธ๐ซก
True, at least men donโt walk around essentially naked but yell "pervert omg Iโve been abused" as soon as someone expresses that they find them sexy.
Ah yes, the entirely original "did you see how she was dressed?" defense.
I wouldnโt exactly call the woman in the picture "dressed"
So if i go to the nudist beach i can grope and molest the people present? Or is it at least less bad?
Moving the goalposts
So she must be "asking for it", right?
You're disgusting.
I hope you donโt spend much time at beaches.
Have you not seen a middle aged male German tourist?
I'm all outta eyebleach... so it's happened at least once.
Who hurt you
Don't fake empathy, it diminishes yourself and is clearly seen through
Whoosh
I don't think this really qualifies, I'm aware it's rhetorical
Well, nobody who stared at my boobs ever did.