Senate Let's talk about sexism.

Ender, it's strange you haven't chosen a legitimate criticism of beezel. Even if you didn't understand his original post, multiple others who write in more lucid fashion have confirmed the benign reading of his post. While several people expressed confusion, no one else has said they share your interpretation. I think that makes it pretty clear that, in his own unique way, he was trying to articulate why he disagreed with this ruling. Nowhere did he imply that the woman's underwear made the activity "OK."

There are 14,000 things to criticize. You needn't stoop to accuse him of saying the opposite of what he actually did.

 

Yeah, agreed.... I didn't get that he thought it was okay because of the underwear. I was addressing the wtf wording of his post. The guy needs to hire a translator.

 

Or just stop with the bizarre analogies. This one ranks alongside "fancy water."

 

I don't think I saw the fancy water thing.

 

The wonderful thing about this is that if you're confused about what the reference is, and how it could possibly make sense, you still understand exactly the same amount I do.

 

Oh I 100% had no idea what he was saying and just assumed based on past statements of women-hating that it was regressive. Like you said, he needs to translate posts before making them!

 

Beezel's post is so garbled I have literally no idea what point he's trying to make.

Is it to do with legal issues/securing a conviction under some kind of law? Is there some weird law in the States relating to nudists taking photos of each other that could somehow provide case law for the kind of situation in the article posted? Is it somehow illegal to photograph a nudist regardless of their state of dress?

Is it to do with morality? In which case what on earth kind of parallel exists between a bunch of people, by choice, going about their daily business without wearing clothes and non-consensual upskirt photography? Is he trying to say that nudists/naturists are perverts? Or that shoving cameras up people's skirts without asking for their permission is as healthy and morally 'ok' as a bunch of people choosing not to wear clothes? I'm baffled.

 

it's certainly garbled and a rather random analogy, if you can call it that, but i think it's pretty clear what he's attempting to say. someone purposely going to take pictures of nudists is obviously intending to commit an improper act (i.e. taking pictures of naked people) -- the fact that the nudists aren't actually nude when he gets there (leaving to one side why nudists would be congregating together in their clothes in the middle of winter in the first place...) means he obviously can't get his money shot. however his intention was still to go along and take happy snaps of all the 65 year old men with beer bellies and 70 year old women with breasts down to their waists, so that still makes it wrong. the failing in the example is that taking pictures of a random bunch of people in the forest who are fully clothed isn't quite the same, or shouldn't be, as taking a picture of underwear underneath a girl's skirt, whatever the initial intention, but yeah.

 

Nudism, pretty much by definition, is being nude by choice in public places... taking photos of nudists in public places seems no different to me than taking photos of clothed people in public places. Nudists take photos while on holiday in the same way that other people do? Documentaries about nudists involve filming people in the nude in the same way that documentaries about non-nudists involve filming people non-nude. Why is taking pictures of nude people choosing to be nude in public an improper act? It would be strange and impolite to take photos of total strangers without asking first whether they're clothed or not, but as long as it's in a public place and someone's nude by choice, I don't get the differentce? I know Americans have a really weird attitude to nudity, but it can't be *that* extreme?

 

what about the nudist picture taking law?

 

I think we can be fairly certain that things are very different where beezel lives.

I imagine beezel lives in a world like a Salvador Dali interpretation of Escher. Up is left and sideways is melting into a bucket.

 

Where pigs fly, cats are living with dogs!

 

They passed a bill to make it illegal

 

I hope the punishment is not too harsh. These guys are just using technology to see what we've all tried to see with our own eyes.

or is there someone here who hasn't looked up a girl's skirt?

 

ugh

 

i love it when the creeps are all "oh come on, you know you're all just as creepy as i am"

 

you're not a man, zapdos... i am. i know the truth. we've all done it.

 

oh, yeah, sorry. the sexism thread is where men talk. excuse me

 

you don't have to be silent because you're a woman. you should however be silent when you don't know what you are talking about.

 

yeah but you're not a man either, wannasee. at best you're a boy

 

As I man, I certainly notice if an attractive female is wearing a short skirt, sure, but no, I don't attempt to look up said skirt. That's just weird.

 

boys are better than girls