From 4chan
You must log in or register to comment.
Damn girl…aren’t you, like…cold? Convention centers typically have the AC crankin’.
I guess it’s the only way for women’s 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.
Mmmm I can smell the sexual frustration and axe body spray in the comments.
I should have heeded your warning.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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…
I mean, one could be forgiven if they thought they were at a strip club. But still, groping strippers without consent is a no no as well.
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”.
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
Unrelated Image for fun, Blessed Are the Meek
People have bodies, what a shock.
Unrelated Image for fun, Blessed Are the Meek
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.
Unrelated Image for fun, Blessed Are the Meek
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
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
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.
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
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.
Unrelated Image for fun, Blessed Are the Meek
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.
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.
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
Unrelated Image for fun, Blessed Are the Meek
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.
the sun shining on a rat’s corpse, the pungent smell of it baking in the sun, as an alarm clock, for years
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.
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’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.
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.
This is about touching people, not taking pictures. I assume taking pictures of cosplayers is generally not a problem?
The sign says:
If you would like to take a picture with or of another NYCC Fan, always ask first and respect that person’s right to say no.
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).
The fact that we have to teach common sense is a bit worrying.
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?
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.
cosplaying nonon jakuzure from kill la kill
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.
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
Unrelated Image for fun, Blessed Are the Meek
IDK, I kinda took it like she’s standing there to get attention but wants you to read the sign too.
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.
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.
Did I say it was?
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.”
Nope… Cosplayers want people to look at them. She knows that she’s going to get attention, and so she’s standing next to that sign so that you read the sign too.
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.
Emily Faye? (chiakifoil)
