Yo People! Cosplay isn't Consent!

Depends on the context, like most things. Catcalling a shy quiet 10 year old girl who is receiving an aware at school assembly isn't really appropriate. One person catcalling another in a context where they know they are going to lift a persons self esteem? Hey why not right?

Well you use the magic word in could? You know what happens when you use the magic could right? There isn't really a yes or no answer. Could Michael Jackson destroy America tomorrow after time traveling from the future with an army of robot monkeys? Well he probably will not, in fact you could say its almost definitely sure he won't and be pretty accurate, but its almost impossible to rule out absolutely completely because thats sort of what the word could does.

Can I reword your question and see if you are okay with my rephrasing? Are you asking if its implied consent (a person didn't object to sex therefore they consented to sex) is okay to dismiss rape? That depends, yes or no. A person is putting themselves at risk (legally for one) by not getting direct consent as far as sex. Implied consent is trickier, even for couples who are married, since its reported at various sites that 1 in 7 married woman have raped by their husbands. That being said some people are simply better at reading other people than other people. Some men and woman can be more empathic and so can identify actual consent even if its not expressly given verbally and if the other person advances and isn't oblivious to signs that consent is not given. Then again some people, woman and men may feel entitled if a person is asleep or so drunk they can't stand or talk that consent is implied, again, you open yourself up to risk. Its even a risk as far as a potential partner lying as well, so probably not a bad idea to restrict sexual advances towards people one knows won't lie.

Goading means traditionally to provoke, urge or annoy, so its a bit hard to accidentally goad, unless my dictionary resources are all wrong, but I think I get what your saying. Your saying that some people may accidentally lead on others right? Thats true, but the thing is that is applicable to everything and isn't a mutually exclusive line of reasoning. Which basically makes it an excuse, since the perception of a person can be in as much error as a person and their dress sense. If a person is raised in an environment where they are taught that everyone who wears red is diseased and in severe pain and needs to be shot as mercy, the idea that people who wear red are accidentally goading the person who goes around shooting people who are diseased is fallacious. Its the person shooting or performing the shooting who understanding is at fault. I know your examples are extreme, but to put another way, a person is given the freedom and right to think, and so judging whether other people are "goading" "attention seeking" "attractive" "sexy" "chubby" "pretty" "cute" "not in canon with the character they are portraying" "skinny" slutty" may be varying levels of accurate or inaccurate, they may be shallow, they may be judgmental, they may be rude or harsh, but they are relatively non invasive thoughts, opinions, musings are usually pretty subjective. They therefore also do not violate a persons rights and liberties, as well as being an expression of ones rights and liberties to be able to think and in many ways express those beliefs and opinions. Actions however, especially inappropriate actions, invasive inappropriate actions whether well intentioned or not, whether as a joke or not, if not invited by consent do run the risk of violating a persons rights and liberties, and the annoying thing about some of the potential actions here is that many victims will sort of be stuck, because its probably not worth the effort as far as bringing the law into the situation, even if its a breach that could be punished by the law. Which in many ways can empower a guy or girl into slapping the ass of another person because they can be empowered by the idea that no one will actually be bothered enough or offended enough to make a "huge" deal about it. That or they may be empowered by ignorance and not realize that certain actions of that nature are against the law.

So the person actually thinking about touching and not getting caught, yeah they are the one who is invading and violating another persons personal space and rights and implied consent by virtue of dress or lack of won't fly because you aren't allowed to put your hands or touch anyone consciously or deliberately, even naked people!

Actually everyone takes a risk inherently by living and breathing. So you don't need to parallel an example as in people going into a wildlife reserve without protection, although I again appreciate the analogy. Are you aware that people rob homes? Are you aware that there are gangs? Are you aware that there are guns? If you aren't? You are aware now, as I am. Right now there is a possibility that a gang of up to 40 people with machine guns may come to your (or mine) home or job and try to rob you (or me) of everything. Are you taking every precaution to ensure that never happens by building a fortress and hiring 100 body guards, or are you counting on the fact that it shouldn't happen and probably shouldn't happen? In this case it probably won't happen. Point is being aware of risks shouldn't dictate how a person lives their life, hence why we have laws and rights and responsibilities. Saying that the victim could take more precautions is like telling all the people who get injured in car accidents every, victims of drunk drivers that they could have taken more precautions. Yeah, honestly they probably could have, they could have stayed home and not ever used a car ever,just like people could stay home and cosplay in their bedroom, but driving a car has benefits and rewards and cosplaying is fun and their are risks but there are laws as well, sexual harassment and drink driving is wrong and the ideal is to reduce and eliminate those things and in the mean time, still live life without letting the risks rule over people.

Absence of personal experience is not really evidence of absence, we know their are sexual predators out there, even if I too have not seen any at comic cons (I don't go to comic cons) and judgmental or ignorant opinions such as thinking people are "sluts" or attention seekers aren't so much a problem as invasive actions and joint behavior. I agree the movement has at least sparked conversation which is great. It reminds me of the Slut Marches and Parades which seemed pretty successful too! The funny thing about comic fans is that I think a lot of us hope that we can and traditionally preempt the mainstream by virtue of being so clever, patient, empathetic about people. I mean we spend all our time reading about heroes traditionally, and doing the right think, and protecting and helping people. Its that sort of intelligent optimism that should give us an edge on these sort of things. Public might take things a bit slow true.

Hey it was a pleasure talking to you, I have to go now, but will reply back when I can, you have a nice weekend yeah!

@lykopis: my friend, you are being confrontational. Wit often provides greater insult that fake swearing, you should try to be more "this is why your wrong" than "I'm angry that your wrong" if you really want to have this discussion

@akbogert: That was a very intelligent and well thought-out comment, and I pretty musch agree with everything you said there

I'm not entirely sure how much this is worth, but I gained some serious respect and I'm not talking about benefit of the doubt respect, I'm talking a bout personal hero respect) for you after reading what you ahve written

: I am saying that it is unreasonable to play-act as a sex object and be offended when the reception you get is more akin to the reception of a sex object than of a person.

Can we tone it down a bit with the non-swearing swearing please.

I F-ing hate this thread. When I started this thread I was trying to show people someone's art that I thought was pretty cool...... I never thought this was going to turn into a F-ing debate about if it's Ok to sexual harass someone! This is just stupid........ I'm walking away in frustration.

@pyrogram: Did you read my much longer and more intricate post? In which I made it quite clear that I'm not talking about touching?

@lykopis: I am saying that it is unreasonable to play-act as a sex object and be offended when the reception you get is more akin to the reception of a sex object than of a person. While the vast majority of reactions still fall outside the realm of acceptability or defensibility, I think some of what gets dismissed as harassment is simply the logical, natural response that the character & outfit designs were intended to generate in the first place.

@betatesthighlander1: @akbogert: Don't care. Still walking away...... If you need me I'll be at the off topic forums arguing why the standup bass is the sexiest musical instrument.......

What are these reactions which are considered logical and natural?

Seconded, I'd like to know too.

I'd've thought the only logical natural response to a cosplayer would be seeing someone and thinking,'Hey, that's a cool costume', and maybe going over to tell them that their costume is good, congratulate them on their hard work making it etc. Maybe go as far as asking for a picture with them, so you can show your friends how cool a costume somebody made, or so you can pose with them in a live action version of a famous comic scene or whatever.

I've never been to a convention, but this seems to make sense to me.

@shawnbaby: I hope by never you mean essentially never, becasue I will play the "unlikely except" game with you, and I am not known for beinga t a loss for hypotheticals

Okay. Then how about the part of what I said which you did NOT quote -- the very next sentence -- in which I made it clear that just because I think some of the objectification is understandable does not mean that "the vast majority" of reactions are defensible (including touching).

@lykopis: No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

@lykopis: Referring back to my original post: "I think it's fairly clear that profanely expressing your desire to manhandle someone is sexual harassment. But when it comes to the verbal stuff, there does seem to be a messy line, and that's even been brought up by a female in this very thread: that telling someone you find them attractive is not inherently harassment and shouldn't be treated as such."

I proceeded to point out why that's a very subjective line. Frankly, while the sign-wearer doesn't view "I'd bang you" as a compliment, other people would. I think it's best to avoid anything that direct but the point is that the more objectified the character you're cosplaying is, the more lenience should be expected when it comes to objectifying remarks. The sort of person who is easily offended for not being taken seriously/spoken to with the utmost respect should not roleplay as a character whose popularity is primarily based on being eyecandy and whose outfit approaches little more than pasties and a thong (and I saw some of that last weekend in Boston).

No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

@shawnbaby: I hope by never you mean essentially never, becasue I will play the "unlikely except" game with you, and I am not known for beinga t a loss for hypotheticals

@judasnixon: what about the triangle?

@lykopis: No one here is legitimately saying taht it's okay to rape someone, the debate is

*what constitutes a sex object

* what is reasonable precaution for a person to take?

* at what point does playful insenuation cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?

Quick unimportant question. What does everyone mean by "pasties"? It's just that here in the U.K., a pasty is a kind of food, like pastry filled with meats, vegetables etc, and I'm guessing that's not what you mean.

^Unless the cosplayer in question actually was dressed like this.^

*There is NO such thing as a sex object. I don't care if she's shaking her breast with noting, but nipple tassels she is a person and never an object.

*People shouldn't have to take precautions in a public setting with hundreds of people around. It isn't a dark alley these women "and men" are in plain site.

*The moment the victim feels uncomfortable or violated.

@pyrogram: You just quoted me AGAIN while omitting the part that would answer your own question: "While the vast majority of reactions still fall outside the realm of acceptability or defensibility." The point of a caveat is that it points out the exception to the rule. I am saying that a small portion of what people call unacceptable is, in my mind, not really unacceptable given the circumstances. Some of the innuendo/commenting is to be expected based on the nature of the character/costume. I am making excuses only for a fraction of the verbal response (and for the mindset which leads into it). Nothing else.

@lykopis@v_scarlotte_rose

A character who is designed to make people horny -- whose outfit is clearly designed not for practicality but for titillation -- will, if created effectively, cause most people to view the character not as a real, interesting, complete human being, but as someone whose existence is justified by how it makes you feel down below. Why any self-respecting woman wants to embody that, I don't know. I'll still personally give her the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be like me. You spend long enough thinking of a character as someone you'd love to "tap" if they were real, and then you see someone who did such a good job at recreating that character's look that she may as well be that "real" version, and you're bound to say something you wouldn't say to most people. I think it's outrageously naive to be surprised or infuriated by that.

So like I said earlier, greater lenience depending on how objectified the original character is. It's a subjective scale, but it's a scale, not a black and white issue. If you see it as such, cool. I don't. I won't. And while I obviously hate having to disagree with friends, I can't help it if we come to different conclusions when confronted with the question, as @betatesthighlander1 said: "at what point does playful insenuation [sic] cross the line into genuine hurtfulness?" No matter how accepting/lenient a person is, there are obviously people whose comments are just outright crossing lines. I'm merely seeking a more critical evaluation for where that line is, and reminding people that one person's limit may be different from someone else's. For cosplayers, this is a cautionary tale in trying to avoid doing cosplays which are going to draw the sorts of thinking and remarks you know you are not personally comfortable with handling. For non-cosplayers this is a cautionary tale in trying to avoid making anyone uncomfortable with your words, whether or not you secretly think they "are asking for it." If everyone were thoughtful and decent, this discussion wouldn't be happening at all, but since people aren't, I think taking precautions is something everyone should do.

To go back to my original post, I am simply saying that no matter how unfair or limiting it may be, please don't walk through Central Park alone at night. I agree that you should be able to. But the way the world is, it's probably not going to end well for you. So save yourself the headaches. People suck and do and say stupid things and even if you're careful you still have to put up with that. But when you have an opportunity to avoid an obvious pitfall, don't tempt fate. If you do, and things go badly, I'm not going to blame you, and I'll gladly stand beside you when fighting the abusers, but I'll still wish you hadn't done it.

@lykopis@v_scarlotte_rose

A character who is designed to make people horny -- whose outfit is clearly designed not for practicality but for titillation -- will, if created effectively, cause most people to view the character not as a real, interesting, complete human being, but as someone whose existence is justified by how it makes you feel down below. Why any self-respecting woman wants to embody that, I don't know. I'll still personally give her the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be like me. You spend long enough thinking of a character as someone you'd love to "tap" if they were real, and then you see someone who did such a good job at recreating that character's look that she may as well be that "real" version, and you're bound to say something you wouldn't say to most people. I think it's outrageously naive to be surprised or infuriated by that.

* If someone is at a sheck-out desk, checking out groceries, is your first thought " I need to keep this person's emotional state in mind, and try not to just presume that this person wants to check out my groceries" or "would you please check these out?"

* I don't think plain-sight sexual harassment at cons is really a big thing, and I'm kind of wondering why you have '"and men"' in quotations

* the problem is, everyone becomes uncomfortable at a different point, some people are made deeply uncomfortable when they see people dreesed in skimpy outfits, or when they have some flirt with them, or if anyone provides any evidence that would compromise their particular beliefs, any action anyone takes could violate or discomfort those around said person

If you can't leave the house without sexually harassing an attractive women in a revealing outfit...you shouldn't leave the house. Saying that it's her fault for dressing in a way that stimulated you is basically admitting that you are not in control of your own impulses. 'Nuff Said.

* If someone is at a sheck-out desk, checking out groceries, is your first thought " I need to keep this person's emotional state in mind, and try not to just presume that this person wants to check out my groceries" or "would you please check these out?"

* I don't think plain-sight sexual harassment at cons is really a big thing, and I'm kind of wondering why you have '"and men"' in quotations

* the problem is, everyone becomes uncomfortable at a different point, some people are made deeply uncomfortable when they see people dreesed in skimpy outfits, or when they have some flirt with them, or if anyone provides any evidence that would compromise their particular beliefs, any action anyone takes could violate or discomfort those around said person

@shawnbaby: its not someones fault for being pickpocketed, but there are precautions that can make pick-pocketing less likely, and if someone is willing to pick some else's pocket with no remorse, than it's gonna be hard to make those urges just disapear

@v_scarlotte_rose:

is it, as far as your concerned, appropriate for peopel to say to WW or PG cosplayer "you fill out that costume very well" or "I didn;t think there were women built like that in real life"?

at the conventions I attend, there are usually police standing by, but I've never seren a lady get any more than oggled at Dragon Con

@blood1991: you realize that WOnder WOman was designed with bondage imagery in mind?

@v_scarlotte_rose:

is it, as far as your concerned, appropriate for peopel to say to WW or PG cosplayer "you fill out that costume very well" or "I didn;t think there were women built like that in real life"?

at the conventions I attend, there are usually police standing by, but I've never seren a lady get any more than oggled at Dragon Con