|
I can think of a few reasons why a man might decide to look at porn in a public, crowded setting that are different from why a woman might want to - one big one being that women don't generally look at pornography expecting to discomfort or harass the people near them.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
"can you please put your porn away this is a public space" "heh welcome to the real world toots, where we dont have trigger warnings" *begins masturbating furiously*
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They very literally are in the BBC article, that's my point. The author says she only noticed because she was deliberately looking at his phone and nobody else would be able to see it, and he made no communication with her or anyone else, and he wasn't jacking off. I think the point is that there ISN't much personal space on a bus. It would be different if the guy was far in the back away from everyone, but usually people are packed into buses and if she was close enough to see it, then its close enough to not be private. From my standpoint, it sounds like you are blaming the woman for being offended. When 1) the action was questionable to begin with and 2) the action was easily seen by her, so its not like he is trying to hide it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Argentum posted:this may blow your tiny mind but women look at porn too, and it is common for this to happen in non-protestant (non-american) societies from my actual life experience. i've seen old ladies lookin at dicks and reading erotica plenty in public. there's a huge difference between holding up a tablet in your face showing off some anime titties (harassment) and just minding your own business on the bus (not harassment) that isn't always great though because what they're often ok with is just the objectification of women and not just liking that porn And reading is very, very different from watching, after all, isn't the book always better  Chelb posted:I can think of a few reasons why a man might decide to look at porn in a public, crowded setting that are different from why a woman might want to - one big one being that women don't generally look at pornography expecting to discomfort or harass the people near them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
One time a guy was reading a porn mag on the train and he held the centerfold up to me, made full eye contact, licked his finger and rubbed it on the model's crotch. Good thing that's not harassment! It was so rude of me to be invading that man's privacy by having my eyes open.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Good Feminist Tip: excise your eyeballs so you're never accidentally invading someone's personal space
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Newsflash, you can be a woman and a reactionary too, and a weirdo, women aren't a monolith hive mind, hope this helps~ there's a huge different between physically whipping your genitals out and beating off vs. looking at a picture on a smartphone which happens to make the person next to you angry or upset looking at anime titties on public transportation is certainly weird but I wouldn't say it's the mark of an objectively bad person, just somebody who's a little self-minded or has bad social skills. there ain't nothing wrong with being weird. i save my angry energy for people who actually endanger others, and there is no shortage of that in 2017. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Good Feminist Tip: don't expect basic decency from men in public settings because you will always be disappointed
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
I'm fairly strongly against sex offender registration for a lot of things, but if you're watching porn in public, you probably should end up on one. Jesus. It's worse than the people who watch porn at work. There's a time and a place for porn, but I would have hoped reasonable people could agree that it doesn't belong on a bus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
Argentum posted:there's a huge different between physically whipping your genitals out and beating off vs. looking at a picture on a smartphone which happens to make the person next to you angry or upset There is nothing wrong with being weird, but just because you are weird does not give you a pass to do whatever you want. I don't care about calling someone objectively bad and I think goons have a strange fixation on "objectivity" as a whole. But the action in this story is highly questionable, and I begrudge the person for feeling uncomfortable about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:goons have a strange fixation on "objectivity" as a whole "phallogocentrism" I whisper quietly to myself and no one else
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Argentum posted:there's a huge different between physically whipping your genitals out and beating off vs. looking at a picture on a smartphone which happens to make the person next to you angry or upset
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:go on, give us some more Well, there are definitely power dynamics involved. Men feel more comfortable and secure doing things like that because they so often get away with it; there's a power in breaking social standards or invading boundaries without consequence, and it's a power men often use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
hi i have social anxiety hope you don't mind watching dp on your commute
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Good Feminist Tip: if someone next to you on the bus or train is watching porn, don't bother them, because what are you, like, a prude or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:hi i have social anxiety hope you don't mind watching dp on your commute oh man i love daft p- oh. oh no 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Chelb posted:Well, there are definitely power dynamics involved. Men feel more comfortable and secure doing things like that because they so often get away with it; there's a power in breaking social standards or invading boundaries without consequence, and it's a power men often use. Chelb posted:oh man i love daft p-  or is it sad seeing LB pining after me and unable to get it across in words? If only he would tell me "hi ur prety" and charm me with his eloquent prose~
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless it's a different article, yes... But the Daily Mail isn't obscene by any regular standard (unfortunately.) It's tempting to sympathize with private porn guy because, dirty videos or not, we all want/expect a measure of privacy when it comes to phones and stuff out in public. The catch is that privacy is almost entirely a social construct; it's people deliberately not seeing what is out in the open because it's not any of their business. Respecting that contract means not subjecting the public to broadly objectionable material when they're doing you the courtesy of pretending they can't see what you're doing. Private porn guy doesn't have to be tugging it to still be acting in an anti-social way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Buses should have public library rules, if you're looking at porn you're banned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
I would postulate that the defense for watching/looking at porn in public (somehow constructing a private window for viewing) is baseless and/incorrect because the act of it being viewed in public automatically makes it harassing to others. And by this I mean, the very act of watching it publicly becomes part of the arousal. Arguing that it's defensible in any form because the view takes steps to be discrete ignores that the viewer is using the public setting itself as part of is pleasure. How could they not be? No matter where you fall on the subject you must acknowledge that the public setting is vastly different than a private one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
People should not watch pornography in public but it is nothing to get angry about. Just close your eyes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I would postulate that the defense for watching/looking at porn in public (somehow constructing a private window for viewing) is baseless and/incorrect because the act of it being viewed in public automatically makes it harassing to others. I have to ask for a clarification here, just to sort out exactly what everyone's view on this is: Are you all talking about the viewing of pornography in public (which for the purposes of this discussion is exemplified in a worst case example of viewing pornographic images on your phone in public and nothing else) as a socially unacceptable behaviour? Or are you considering this an actual literal crime, as in this behaviour is a public sexual display (obscenity law) or is some sort of other illegal harassment? Because to me it appears as if you are blurring the lines between the two, which is counterproductive to a reasonable discussion: These are two very different things, and rely on very different kinds of reasons and arguments. Which one is it? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
failing forward posted:Who mentions that before even going on a date with you at least once? I did once talk about Fortunes of Feminism as an OKC opener (it was listed on her profile), though I segued into talking about her bicycle. The conversation went pretty well, and we probably would have gone on a date but our summer travel schedules didn't line up. I got about as far as the end of the introduction of Fortunes of Feminism. It felt like the kind of work trying a little too hard to aspire to fit the mould of French postmodernist jargon. That in itself probably speaks to the challenges Nancy Fraser faced in academia, having to work twice as hard to prove herself in a world dominated by ridiculously pretentious men. But still, I couldn't finish it. (The deciding moment was reading a critique of a Nancy Fraser article by some WoC feminist academics.) Next on my reading list is probably some Marion Woodman, which is Jungian psychology/spiritualism mixed with feminism, and definitely not for everyone, but kinda in line with where I'm at right now. (I hope this isn't too centring of my male experience, but hopefully there's some interesting reading in there at least.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I have to ask for a clarification here, just to sort out exactly what everyone's view on this is: I wouldn't claim to know what the legalities are in this situation. I am specifically referring to the subject that has been the point of contention in the previous posts, which have centered around a reticle about a person viewing porn in a public setting yet took steps to keep it private.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I did once talk about Fortunes of Feminism as an OKC opener (it was listed on her profile), though I segued into talking about her bicycle. The conversation went pretty well, and we probably would have gone on a date but our summer travel schedules didn't line up. I really enjoyed the article, thanks for sharing. I think that's precisely the sort of issue we're facing right now, such as with the women's march on Washington, where we are seeing certain white feminists refusing to cede ground to more POC women in leadership roles, and feeling threatened at having their racism called out. On the other hand, I'm glad to see this critique and to see people speak out against these racial issues. Fascinating stuff!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I wouldn't claim to know what the legalities are in this situation. I am specifically referring to the subject that has been the point of contention in the previous posts, which have centered around a reticle about a person viewing porn in a public setting yet took steps to keep it private. That's fine, and I wasn't really referring to you specifically. I'm not going to accuse you of claiming this is illegal behaviour, either. I'm more interested in what definition or standard of "harassment" people are operating with here. One of my problems is that it seems a somewhat inaccurate term and I don't think it helps the conversation referring to it as "harassment". That carries connotations of illegality, and is usually a concerted and directed effort towards an individual or a group of individuals. It carries with it implications of criminal intent, as in the person did it for reasons specifically to harass, knowingly and wilfully. It assumes a level of malice I'm not comfortable assuming, when it might just be simple ignorance or disregard (or mental illness) that motivated the person to do so. Then there's of course the problem of privacy, but that's already commented on so I won't get into that right now. Seeing as I'm speaking up, I might as well put my two cents in: I think public viewing of pornography in any setting other than one with a reasonable expectation of privacy is antisocial to begin with, though not necessarily anti-women. There's a weird dissonance between our increasingly liberalized societies (I myself live in one of the most feminist countries in the world on par with Iceland with a female PM and very strict anti-discrimination laws) and the relationship with public nudity in general. I feel like the topic of it in a social context is heavily influenced by a great number of factors, not limited to local culture, ideology, personal experience and opinions, and I find it hard to discuss it outside of my own perspective as a member of my own society. Seeing as how a number of people itt find public viewing of porn harassing, maybe it's also a worthwhile discussion to have how society is supposed to deal with socially unacceptable behaviour that isn't in the framwork of law (which is where you normally influence public behaviour). Or whether it should be illegal, if that's how you feel about it. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
We need white feminism as in a critical analysis of white femininity, not white feminism as something which centers, privileges, and invisiblizes whiteness in feminist discourse. White femininity is subject to its own rules, demands, and burdens, and if we don't look at white femininity as white femininity (as opposed to an imagined neutral/generic femininity which has not and never will exist) then we'll never be able to to move past the conceptual hurdles of liberal feminism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:That's fine, and I wasn't really referring to you specifically. I'm not going to accuse you of claiming this is illegal behaviour, either. I'm more interested in what definition or standard of "harassment" people are operating with here. Harassment is a much broader term and doesn't always fit under illegal behavior persay. Someone who constantly gives you notes after you tell them to stop is harassing you. Catcalling is harassment. As for the law, I would imagine for the US at least, watching porn in public and causing a disturbance would fit under disturbing the peace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Regarding legality: As the BBC article notes, in the UK it could fall under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act. That does depend on the material being "publically displayed" though, which seems dubious in this case (the reporter states that the man was slanting the phone away from her - e.g. deliberately attempting to conceal it). Nice piece of fish doesn't seem to be talking about legalities so much as the definition of harassment that people are informally using, specifically if it requires an element of intent. For example, if it's possible to harass somebody without being aware of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Has there ever been a feminism thread in SA without randos popping in to list their porn watching habits?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Has there ever been a feminism thread in SA without randos popping in to list their porn watching habits? No and I wish they would stop. Nah guys it's not harassment or weird to watch porn in a cramped space with a 13 year old girl. Let me tell you why you ladies are too repressed... If you want to talk to about porn in general, make a porn thread. If you want to talk about how porn effects the sexual expectations of women, or the industry's effects on the women who work there, you can do that here. Again, this thread is about women and feminism. Talk about that. Keep it on topic, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
hit button posted:Regarding legality: As the BBC article notes, in the UK it could fall under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act. That does depend on the material being "publically displayed" though, which seems dubious in this case (the reporter states that the man was slanting the phone away from her - e.g. deliberately attempting to conceal it). Surely it's classed as exhibiting sexual acts in a public space, regardless of how the phone is being slanted. If you want to watch porn, do it in private where you can ensure the consent of all participants. A public space does not allow you to do such a thing. You have no control over who enters, or what they see and hear, and whether or not they consent to the exhibition of sexual acts on their daily commute. I can't believe how long this nonsense about slanting phones and turning the volume down is going to be harped on - it does not in any way render the viewing as something that is not the exhibition of a sexual act in a public space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Chelb posted:Well, there are definitely power dynamics involved. Men feel more comfortable and secure doing things like that because they so often get away with it; there's a power in breaking social standards or invading boundaries without consequence, and it's a power men often use. I think watching porn in public is a bit like flashing for some guys; they like the fact that girls go "Ew, put it away!" when they see it. It turns them on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
The legal observations were just meant to be an answer to deceitful penguin's original question:Deceitful Penguin posted:Is it seriously legal to watch porn on public transport in Britain? All of which has no bearing on whether watching porn on a bus is antisocial behavior which deserves public shaming (it is, and it does).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
edit: nevermind
GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is low leakage porn experience like reading text or using some sort of enclosure like headset with no audio "acceptable" (if not desireable) in people's minds? The best option is to not view porn in public. It's not the least bit burdensome to be expected to wait until your not in a public place before being titillated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is low leakage porn experience like reading text or using some sort of enclosure like headset with no audio "acceptable" (if not desireable) in people's minds? Most guys that use porn on public transport, the fact that others are unwillingly watching is the point, not an accident. So this would make it pointless for them. They actively angle the screen so that women near them can't help but catch a glance unless they literally stare at the floor. As for text porn, who would know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
edit:nevermind
GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Oh you just deleted your post, so I'll delete this response too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Oh you just deleted your post, so I'll delete this response too. Yeah I somehow missed KM's post that the conversation should end on my first read-through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:28
|
|