|
13 Aug 02 - 10:11 AM (#764379) Subject: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Pretty damn disgusted OK--so the Joe Clones have no problem deleting "offensive" threads which target individual members. So what standard is being followed regarding these proliferating threads discussing female genitalia with no relation to folk and blues music? Now, before everyone comes flying at me, let me say I'm not a prude, and I don't favor censorship. I do favor honest, open and MATURE discussion of the sexual aspects of folk and blues music, of which there is plenty. But much of the sexual content of the music is pretty dark and violent too. All the more reason to have some reasonable standards for discussion here, I would think. But I tell you what, I am damn fed up with logging in here only to see yet another titillating sex thread. My unsolicitied opinion on the recent proliferation of these threads, is there are adult sites you can go to talk about these subjects. Is it really necessary to discuss it here?
|
|
13 Aug 02 - 10:19 AM (#764383) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Peg I agree.
|
|
13 Aug 02 - 10:26 AM (#764384) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: RichM Think of it as material for potential songs---proto-songs if you will.
As at any Internet site, you are your own best censor.
|
|
13 Aug 02 - 10:45 AM (#764396) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Midchuck I have no problem with an open forum, where non-members have equal ability to post with members. It results in a lot of crap being posted, but it makes things more interesting. But the idea of a guest claiming the right to be the censor of the forum, makes no damn sense at all. It's like me being invited to dinner at someone else's house - or, more accurately, walking in uninvited because the door was unlocked - and starting to chew out the owners because the pictures on the walls were in bad taste. Give me a f***ing break, for S***'s sake! Peter. (Who only shaves his face, and neglects that on weekends.) |
|
13 Aug 02 - 10:50 AM (#764398) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Big Mick There are very few times that I agree with you on what should or shouldn't be here on The Mudcat. That the offending thread should be deleted is one of these things. It offends me, and I won't post to it. Knowing the history of the person who started it, I am sure it was meant to be a tongue in cheek commentary on other threads, but it offends me nonetheless. Mick |
|
13 Aug 02 - 10:56 AM (#764406) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca I don't know which thread you're referring to. My guess it that it is one of the ones starting with the "BS". IF it is, then one of the best ways so you do NOT see these is to take the recommendation given months ago. Use as your URL: http://www.mudcat.org/threadsnot.cfm?Title=BS&Age=4 This gives you all the messages without the infamous BS back as far as 4 days. Since I started using it, Mudcat is so much more fun to use. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 11:22 AM (#764430) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Jack the Sailor Dear Petty Dam disgusted, Where is this porn????? Hubba hubba!!!! Geeeeeeeeeeezzzzz Lighten up willya?????
|
|
13 Aug 02 - 11:25 AM (#764437) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Mrrzy Yeah, I seem to be missing it too. I like the going into an unlocked dinner party analogy, too! My Mom did that once, kind of... we were visiting friends in Paris and when we got to their floor, we couldn't recall their apt.#, so Mom knocked on one door and I knocked on the other. Before our friends came out of the door I knocked on, someone had opened the other and Mom just walked in and started introducing herself... I started laughing so hard I couldn't help get her out, I just said something like She's Loose! to the friends who had to go in and fetch her. It was hysterical. But she didn't complain about the decor, at least! |
|
13 Aug 02 - 12:15 PM (#764471) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: artbrooks Troll alert |
|
13 Aug 02 - 12:45 PM (#764489) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Bill D dear Guest... I 'sort of' agree with you....I could explain the sociological phenomenon involved, but I type slowly, and it would talk a LONG time to do it justice....let it suffice to say that Mudcat has become a 'community', rather than just a music discussion board, and there will ***always** be stuff in a community that does not please all members. The job of 'censor' is a delicate one...we have several censors who err on the side of caution, which suits me fine.....and I am getting pretty durn good at not opening threads that I know I will not appreciate.... |
|
13 Aug 02 - 02:23 PM (#764533) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Pretty Damn Disgusted Midchuck, Mrrzy, and Jack the Sailor, I appreciate I am an easier target than Peg and Big Mick, so go ahead and find fault with me if you will. But I think you are ignoring the feelings and sensibilities of your fellow members at your own risk. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 02:28 PM (#764535) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: MMario I haven't found it yet - |
|
13 Aug 02 - 02:34 PM (#764538) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Pretty Damn Disgusted MMario, it is the one I recently saw a guest refer to (in a different thread) as "the shaved pussy thread." |
|
13 Aug 02 - 02:39 PM (#764542) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: MMario which is pretty obvious from the thread title. VERY easy to avoid. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 02:40 PM (#764544) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Clinton Hammond This place needs an Off Topic posting area soo bad it feckin' hurts! And Moderators who will dcelete garbage and spam... Just like any other Message Board worth it's salk on the net...
|
|
13 Aug 02 - 02:41 PM (#764545) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: kendall My friend, Marshall Dodge, who studied humor seriously came up with this observation: The foundation of the dirty joke stems from a basic disrespect for women. My ex wife agreed, and she was seldom wrong in such matters. (No, that was not tongue in cheek) |
|
13 Aug 02 - 02:48 PM (#764551) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Obviously, it was the thread title I found IMPOSSIBLE to avoid, opened the thread, and had my worst suspicions confirmed. I don't disagree with Big Mick's interpretation that paddymac was attempting to tongue-in-cheek comment on the recent proliferation of tasteless, sexist threads a la "Womanly jiggles" etc which were mostly started by a person or people posting with guest appellations. I took note of the fact that a number of Mudcat members have posted a few faint objections in the form of jokes or "get back at" threads (ie the Men's Stubble thread) too. What I'm asking people to consider here isn't that we censor anything. Rather, I saying that if on the one hand, everyone is comfortable with censoring personal attack threads here, why no threads which a whole group of members (ie most women and a lot of the men) takes personally as being offensive, is tolerated. Please, try to just think about where it leads the forum itself if we start defending and contributing to "shaved pussy" threads, and attacking the people who object to them as humorless prudes. I undertand it is the dog days of August, people are bored, |
|
13 Aug 02 - 02:52 PM (#764554) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Sorry, I cut myself off there. But I was nearly done anyway. I was just going to say I also understand it is easy enough to get carried away with what starts out innocently enough. But I really don't think this is the sort of thread that most Mudcatters want to have in the forum, is it? BTW kendall, I too would agree with your friend and your ex. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:01 PM (#764560) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Amos It is an entirely different thing to attack ad hominem than it is to discuss topics that may or may not be interpreted, construed, translated and altered into "offense". The taking of offense is a personal choice. One of the subtexts here is that as an open forum, one does not attack the individuals, but for the rest it is pretty much open discussion. The reasons for taking offense at some topic or other are entirely too variable, and oftimes wholly inexplicable. Sometimes, offense is taken, for example, when one's own vanity is revealed, or a practice mentioned in jest that one has one's own secrets about. I will never attack a member who contributes here in good faith, but I find it awfully dicey to start promising not to offend anyone -- in fact, I see no benefit in open discussion of general topics, in pussyfooting around. If individuals are involved, then it is a different matter altogether and I will try not to step on toes. I would even go so far as to say that I am offended by certain kinds of preciousness and oversensitivity offensive, amongst fellow humans who all pretty much share the same parts and mechanisms and fallibilities, but I would never dream of censoring them, or letting myself be censored in exchange. It just wouldn't make much sense to me. A |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:05 PM (#764567) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: RichM don't be offended if you are a "humorless prude". It takes all kinds to make a world :) .... All I ask is that you accept the internet for what it is: an anarchic discussion forum, not subject to anyone's individual likes or dislikes. Now I suggest you write a song about it, and post it to this forum. Songs are a sacred cow, aren't they, and shurely not subject to censorship, shurely??? |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:11 PM (#764571) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Little Hawk I couldn't even figure out what that thread was about until Peg posted to it...the word "tonsorial" had me thoroughly confused. - LH |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:11 PM (#764572) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Amos, do you suppose if started a thread titled "BS: Shaved Pussy Jokes" it wouldn't offend nearly everyone who reads this forum? How about you put it to the test for me, as it most certainly would be deleted by the Joe Clones in heartbeat if it was posted by an anon guest. Like I said, I'm an easy target. Would you really sit down in 3D life with Peg, and say what you just said straight to her face? |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:14 PM (#764577) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: RichM Well, no... what I'd rather ask her to do is dance like she did in de ol' days..... ;) Rich |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:19 PM (#764579) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST What a sick pervert you are. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:31 PM (#764589) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Muddy Pussycat Meow! |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:32 PM (#764590) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: smallpiper now now chldren there is no need to be offended or to become offensive, just ignore things that upset you, use the BS filter but don't impose your censorship on the rest of the clan and I would suggest that people who post "would be offensive threads" use the same sensitivity as I am suggesting the offended use. Lets just let people be people. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:37 PM (#764595) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Big Mick Now.............see, children. This is how you play into the troll/flame game. This "GUEST" has sucked you in, again, to a discussion of petty crap, instead of an issue. It's like this. The thread is not in very good taste, and it is offensive to some, myself included. If it were in my power to delete it, I would. But that is not my call. Now.........quit feeding this bitter person. For once, GUEST has a decent point, but you should not lose sight of the fact that a busted clock is right twice a day. This persons real agenda is to damage this site. Don't feed the trolls. Let this be the last post, eh? (wishful thinking on my part) Mick |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:37 PM (#764596) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Right--we get it smallpiper. We just have to let the boys be boys, and take whatever they dish out. Hey guys--any of you who find holding women in such contempt, counted the number of ladies contributing to this and the "feminine shaving" thread? This isn't just "offensive" subject matter. You are being abusive, hateful, ugly, and mean. And enjoying the fact that you have such power over others. This is the moral equivalent of road rage, and you know it. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:38 PM (#764597) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: RichM Relax, Mick. No one person can patrol the internet effectively. Have a cool one, play a song, tell a joke. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:43 PM (#764604) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Peg I am not sure what was said by Amos in his last thread that he would feel uncomfortable about saying to me in person...I can't find anything. I don't think I am overly sensitive or prudish about this sort of thing, and my position is a unique one, being a feminist, a pagan (we tend be to open-minded about sex) and, as a stripper, a former sex industry worker...that said, THIS FORUM is intended for adults, and those adults tend to engage in non-musical discussion as often as they do in musical discussion. I do agree that "dirty jokes" do indeed stem, however innocently, from the very source Kendall mentioned...and that the same is true for "good-humored" jokes having to do with race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, that is, they come from a place of fear/hatred/disrespect. I will reiterate, my objection to the afore-mentioned thread was its insuitability for Mudcat, as well as its (whether intentional or not) voyeuristic and somewhat perverse suggestion. I mean, do people really think a discussion of THAT is appropriate here??? And talking about men's beards does NOT constitute an equivalent or balanced discussion to the afore-mentioned one. ...and RichM, I know you are joking and I certainly don't take offense at your referring to what I have freely admitted and discussed here in the past, but your comment is not helping this situation, is it? (I also wish the GUEST would identify him or herself). peg
|
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:43 PM (#764606) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: katlaughing Sure members know that they don't have to open an offensive thread and read it. I've said this before when the "N" word showed up in a title of a thread: how about First Impressions to a visitor. What does it say to them if they come to the Forum and see so many inane BS threads, some of them offensive in the extreme? They wouldn't know if the thread has taken a turn towards music and probably wouldn't even want to look to find out. I know it will seem ironic to some for me to be saying such things. People change. Lately the sort of BS we've been having is truly offensive in that it is just plain stupid. Joeclones do not delete threads unless they are duplicates. Pene, Joe and Max are the only ones authorised to delete threads. In this case, I think any stupid, inane thread which is started anonymously should be deleted. I'd hate to add up the number of postings taken up by responding to such. kat |
|
13 Aug 02 - 03:48 PM (#764608) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: RichM Sure, I'm joking...but ain't it sad that I have to say so? Sex is a part of life--as is talking about it...and I certainly have respect for Peg--as a person, as a fellow mudcatter, as a worker in whatever trade she pursued with honesty and respect.
Rich, |
|
13 Aug 02 - 04:08 PM (#764622) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: NicoleC Apologies for feeding the Troll, but folks, the Troll is right this time. I don't get offended easily, and I'm not going to be "offended" by any of the silly BS threads. Nor do I think any of the Joe Clones should have to be the morality police if someone mentions sex or a "dirty" word. But I do think there are far more appropriate places to discuss the so-called art of shaving. Like under the bleachers at the local high school. At a slumber party. Who said this was an ADULT forum? That doesn't wash when one of the first things you see is when you come to this site is "Mudcat for Kids." We can talk about encouraging kids to enjoy and play music, but creating a music community that excludes them is not practicing what we preach. C'mon, folks, show some restraint. There are numerous places on the internet to discuss sex, do we really need to make this one of them? |
|
13 Aug 02 - 04:08 PM (#764623) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Amos I would say anything to Peg I have ever said to anyone, and be happy to do it; I consider her a special and fine lady, and would even go out of my way not to offend her. But as she herself says she's not unduly precious about anything, and just because she doesn't like longshoreman's vocabulary, is no reason to soncider her anything but a fine person in my book. As for being hateful and mean and road-rage, let me just say, after due contemplation of the subtle ramifications of this arcane characterization, that I am forced to respond for lack of other meaningful choice, go piss up a rope, and don't be so goddamned delicate. And, oh, by the way, if I have given offense, please accept my apologies. A |
|
13 Aug 02 - 04:56 PM (#764653) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Clinton Hammond I've said it before, and I'll say it again... This place needs a bran muffin...
|
|
13 Aug 02 - 05:25 PM (#764671) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Susanne (skw) I gave the thread in question a wide berth - and I know now I was right, and will continue to do so. I wouldn't go as far as demanding its removal (as I haven't read it) but some threads we could indeed do without! Also, I believe not every removal of sexually offending material should be denounced as censorship - but as the line between the one and the other is very fine, and depends on individual sensibilities, I'd rather not attempt to draw it. Instead, I'll include this thread in those I leave untouched in the future. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 06:12 PM (#764703) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: sponge Guys, Fact: 'someone' owns the Mudcat servers. Fact: They allow us, the community, to share our thoughts on them. Fact: It is _entirely_ up to the owners of the servers what they allow and disallow, what they delete and leave for all to view. This kind of debate (happens all over the internet on any discussion groups/chat rooms/call it what you will.
Personally, If the owners of Mudcat don't like a thread or post for any reason, then I have no problem with them deleting it.(except this one
If I don't agree with that decision, then that is MY problem, not theirs and I have to get a life. Sponge. |
|
13 Aug 02 - 06:19 PM (#764708) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Genie |
|
13 Aug 02 - 06:23 PM (#764712) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Bill D ~~~~~~########.....||||||||||||||||||++++++^^^^^^ ....and so on..(and you may quote me) |
|
13 Aug 02 - 09:30 PM (#764850) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: smallpiper Guest don't forget Girls will be girls. Live and let live I say and avoid things you don't like the look of its your choice either to read the threads and be offended or to avoid them and not be offended. Taking a musical turn look what happened in Ireland when the british took offense to traditional music - should we start hanging people? I actually think that this is not a decent topic for the cat but I defend peoples right to free speach and try very hard to turn what could be offensive into somthing humorus. If you take offense at that then I'm sorry. No one has ever accused me of either being insensitive tiowards women or of oppressing them in any way and I object to your tone and accusation, but once again I believe it is your right to make those assumptions no matter how wrong they are or perhaps I could call you names instead? Which would be better? |
|
13 Aug 02 - 09:50 PM (#764869) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: X What a waste of time, I was looking for the porn. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 03:57 AM (#764987) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Joe Offer I was sightseeing in London yesterday, and I guess I didn't see the thread in question. It's gone, so I suppose Pene (Jeff) deleted it. I saw all sorts of messages complaining about some thread or another, but couldn't determine what people were talking about until I got a personal message from a friend. As Kat said, only Pene, Max, and I have authority to delete threads and objectionable messages - and usually it's Pene and I who handle it. If there's something you find objectionable, the best way to handle it is to send a personal message to both Pene and me. One of us is likely to be on duty and able to deal with it. We are usually quite reluctant to delete things, but we do feel a need to control things on occasion. The thread in question did seem to be a good candidate for deletion. Thanks. -Joe, having a great time visiting Micca- |
|
14 Aug 02 - 05:47 AM (#765015) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: smallpiper Nope Joe - the offending thread is still there. Glad to hear you're having a great time keep at it. Well, if a thread that's remaining is offensive, the one that was removed was worse (something about cunts and jock juice). I will agree, however, that there were a number of crude and stupid threads started in the last day or two, and the shaving thread was one of them. I didn't consider deleting them, but I think they're better left unread. Still, crude and stupid people must have an outlet for self-expression... |
|
14 Aug 02 - 06:17 AM (#765023) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST But I thought the "offending" thread was a genuine question (rather than some of the scatalogical humour we see around here from some established members) - and answered it as such. AND - I certainly didn't see it as sexist. Its not an exclusively male activity, nor just for male titillation. Its certainly not worth getting irate about! OK its off-topic, but so is about 30% of mudcat content anyway. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 06:18 AM (#765024) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Actually - from a brief look at the top of the threadlist - considerably more than 30%. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 06:20 AM (#765025) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Thanks for the filter link George. Now I can put Mudcat on my favourites list again.. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 06:23 AM (#765027) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,danielriverwind I haven't been on here in a while, but the whole world is getting pretty much like this. You take the good with the bad. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 07:23 AM (#765039) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Pied Piper I've not read this thread, and it appears to have been removed. I'd like to make some comment about it but, I guess I'm better of not being exposed to it in case I get corrupted. I'm so glad that "the management" makes these moral judgements for me because (at the age of 44) I don't think I have enough experience to deal with these dangerous issues for my self. As to all sexual references in humour being disparaging to women; bollox.PP |
|
14 Aug 02 - 08:05 AM (#765051) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Pied - here it is wicked thread |
|
14 Aug 02 - 10:21 AM (#765101) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA To those who say that the nature of the thread entitled "forms of feminine shaves" was obvious to anyone before opening the thread: Actually, I interpreted the title to mean that the thread was a harmless poll asking ladies if they shaved their legs using a blade, an electric razor, depilatory or Epilady. The shaving-of-private-parts aspect never entered my mind until after I'd opened the thread. But then, that's the sort of prude I am. While I found some of the comments in that thread offensive (notably the "very tasty" remark), I understand that the moderators of the Forum need to draw a line between what is offensive to some readers and what is downright pornographic. As others have noted, there have been many, many threads posted to the Forum that are offensive on one level or another to one person or another, but I disagree with the "Pretty Damn Disgusted" Guest's assertion that these offensive threads are equivalent to threads that attack an individual on a personal level. The presence of a thread can be tolerated if the majority of readers are not offended by the subject matter, but a personal attack is a threatening behavior that cannot be tolerated. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 10:35 AM (#765107) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST So SharonA, what do you suppose should be done in this case? There are a number of women and men who weighed in on this and agreed with Pretty Damn Disgusted that Mudcat was not the appropriate place for the shaved female genitalia thread. A number of people have said they felt it should be deleted. Yet, it is still there, I suppose with the Mudcat moderators/censors (pick from your point of view) hoping it will sink and they won't have to make a decision as to what is best for the forum on this volatile issue. I really think that Peg and Nicole are dead on the money. It is my opinion that if several women chime in to say they think the thread goes beyond what should be acceptable in this particular forum, that their concerns should be taken seriously. At this point, with the offending thread having been left in the forum, I don't see that their concerns are being taken seriously. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 11:12 AM (#765126) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Amos Esteemed Guest: Your condescending, moralistic, humorless, whining and self-serving duplicity is a lot more disgusting than any use of Anglo Saxon terms, and IMHO does a good deal more to suppress the innate quality of the 'Cat as a liberal forum for discussion. What are you REALLY trying to do here? Quitcher whining, get a life, and subscribe to Reader's Digest to build up your sensa yewma. 'Course that could be just me, y'know. I've been wrong before! :>) A |
|
14 Aug 02 - 12:00 PM (#765175) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA GUEST: Well, I think that calling this a "volatile issue" is putting it a bit strongly (I don't think it ranks up there with the situation in Palestine, for instance). But speaking strictly for my own personal preference, I would like to see the "feminine shaves" thread deleted. I agree with Peg's interpretation of paddymac's opening post on that thread as being of a voyeuristic nature; I think it may have been even solicitous (was he looking for a job when he asked "whether there might be a specialty niche in the various forms of the hair dressing trades for such artistry"?), rather than an innocent query about an "art form". Even if Big Mick is correct in his assessment that paddymac simply made a "tongue in cheek effort", a little joke in reaction to the beard-shaving thread, it didn't come across that way to me. As you say, the Mudcat moderators have to decide what is best for the Forum. There's been a policy of allowing material here that would be censored on many other forums, but I don't know if private-parts discussions that could be considered titillating have been allowed or deleted in the past, so I don't know what the precedent is for this situation. Bear in mind, though, that a decision to wait and see if the thread "sinks" IS a decision. If the thread dies a natural death from neglect, I think that that will serve as a signpost to anyone who contemplates starting a similar thread in the near future, a sign that says that the level of maturity among the posters to Mudcat is such that discussions on similar subjects won't give the gratification that one may be seeking by starting such threads. I think this says volumes more than simple censorship by the moderators would say. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 12:09 PM (#765181) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA Amos: Hey, I like the jokes in the Reader's Digest!! (The POV in some of its articles is another matter entirely...) |
|
14 Aug 02 - 12:11 PM (#765183) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST SharonA, I am pretty much in agreement with everything you've said, especially where you said that the moderators choosing to let the thread sink without taking any action being a decision. Where I disagree with you, is in your interpretation of what that decision, ie to not take any action, or offer any explanation, actually means. My opinion as to how this situation should be dealt with is to leave the thread to sink, but to make a comment regarding what the consensus is regarding "acceptable" use of the forum regarding BS threads with sexual adult content, when it bears no relationship to the purpose of the forum (ie folk and blues music). I believe it should be done in a new, totally separate thread. And then I think something could be added to the FAQ. Not anything earth shattering, but just a good summation of the best of the discussion currently going on regarding this issue. I think that would help tremendously, and wouldn't make some of us feel as if our feelings about the nature of the thread was being disregarded, for whatever reason(s). |
|
14 Aug 02 - 12:13 PM (#765186) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Pied Piper Thanks Guest alowing me to view this thread.Can't tell wether I've been corrupted. Is there a test ?. PP |
|
14 Aug 02 - 12:33 PM (#765201) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA GUEST: I like the idea of a comment being added by one of the moderators, but I'd like to see a comment that speaks to MAX'S POLICY on acceptable and non-acceptable sexual adult content (rather than a statement about "consensus", since we don't seem to have a consensus among all the members). I'd like to see such a Mudcat-policy statement added to the "feminine shaves" thread itself (such a statement could be posted by them without refreshing the thread to the top of the Forum list), where anyone who opens that thread in the future would read the comment. I agree that such a statement should also appear in the FAQ if it doesn't already. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 12:34 PM (#765203) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Genie Let's see -- a guy whose "handle" is "Pene Azul" deletes a thread for lewd content. Hmmmm... . (Jeff, you know I love you. Still, that image gives me a chuckle.) Wouldn't we have to throw out a great deal of traditional folk music if we censored all the smut? (Never mind the double entendre songs.) Seriously, I'm wit most o' youse. It's Max's site and I'll accept his rules--as enforced by Max himself, Joe, and Jeff. Personal attacks threaten the community itself. Threads or posts that merely offend some people's sense of propriety are not in the same category. Pretty easy to spot a "porno" thread by its title and avoid opening it. Also easy to avoid going back to a thread if you've opened it without knowing what it was about. Genie
|
|
14 Aug 02 - 12:45 PM (#765209) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Right Genie, but the hard part of this obviously is that the "porn" threads, as you refer to them, are ones where the subjects of denigration have been exlusively women. That does complicate the matter beyond "consensus" for adult sexual material for some people. No one in these threads has suggested that there be no sexual content in our discussions, whether BS or on-topic. What I do hear some people saying is that when many individual men cross the line of socially acceptable frank discussion, to the extent that paddymac and others did in the shaving female genitalia thread. As someone pointed out (Peg I think), a discussion of men trimming their beards isn't comparable. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 01:35 PM (#765257) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA ...and I don't suppose that a thread about shaving male genitalia would generate the same sort of "interest" or commentary as the female-genitalia thread... |
|
14 Aug 02 - 01:43 PM (#765263) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Clinton Hammond SharonA Lemme paraphrase Bart Simpson "There's nothing like an uncarpeted basement!" ;-)
|
|
14 Aug 02 - 01:57 PM (#765272) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA See, that's what I'm talkin' about: I don't think we'd see as many females making that sort of a joke (and I use the term "joke" loosely... *G*). |
|
14 Aug 02 - 03:09 PM (#765332) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Amos I think you'll find the history around this sort of topic has been addressed to penises as much as it has to breasts and vulvae, and, really, so the fuck what!!??? Given the culture we live in you probably find that men make a good many more sexually oriented jokes than women do (although the recent song hit "Viagara in the Waters" might be the bellwether of change in that respect!) That is not a flaw in the Mudcat, though, and I see no reason to resort to straining and artifice to palliate over-picky minds and pretend to niceties we don't really have. Sharon's observation above is consistently true across the bulk of human societies, I think. A |
|
14 Aug 02 - 03:29 PM (#765354) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA Yes, but Amos, the culture we live in has changed over time. For instance, it's no longer socially acceptable to make debasing jokes about people of different ethnic origins. Some of us would like to see the culture evolve to the point at which it is no longer socially acceptable to make debasing jokes about people of different genders! IMO, it's not about superficial "niceties", it's about respect for one another. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 03:43 PM (#765363) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: katlaughing It's about we don't need titles such as this for threads: "Her cunt smelled like cock juice." |
|
14 Aug 02 - 03:52 PM (#765370) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA Among other things, yeah, it's about that! |
|
14 Aug 02 - 04:13 PM (#765386) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Or shaved pussy threads either. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 04:21 PM (#765397) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: radriano You can't tell from a thread's name what the contents are. At least not usually. When I see an offending thread I follow rule number one. JUST DON'T POST TO IT! Unfortunately idiots never seem to go out of fashion and titilating threads get all sorts of enraged comments. That is exactly what the posters of these threads want. Don't give these morons the satisfaction. Their threads are a waste of time and don't for a moment think anything you say will make a difference to them. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 04:28 PM (#765402) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Which is why you are spending your time reading this thread and posting to it radriano? |
|
14 Aug 02 - 04:39 PM (#765408) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Genie Actually, Guest, I used the term "porn" only to refer to what some of you seem to consider the content of some threads. I wouldn't know whether the offensive threads are mainly denigrating of women, because I seldom even open a thread that has a title like "female shaving techniques" or even "manly stubble: OK?" I didn't even check out the "womanly jiggles" thread until it had well over 100 posts. I waste enough time as it is without opening all sorts of threads that sound like just more totally inane discussions or a symposia on topics that don't really need discussing. There are at least 12 non-music threads active today in the forum which I feel no desire even to open. (Some days it's a lot more than that.) There are a few others that I've opened and then passed on posting to or opening again. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 04:43 PM (#765412) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA Obviously, this thread does not offend radriano. This thread was not intended to be a "titilating thread" so radriano is not contradicting himself by posting to it. Your post is quite illogical, GUEST. If you are the same GUEST with whom I've been chatting on this thread, you are doing nothing to further your cause by jumping down radriano's throat. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 04:48 PM (#765415) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST I agree that no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to get them to read offensive threads. But there is something more insidious about these threads--and that is the climate/attitudes from those sorts of threads that end up permeating other threads, and the forum in general. Now, considering the proliferation of these threads over the past week or so, there are at least two possible explanations for the current backlash against them: 1) they are getting more "in our face" or, 2) everyone's tolerance level of this sort of BS is dropping. It could be a combination of the two. It could be the doldrums of summer, and the offending posts will eventually go away. Or maybe the BS/non BS split in the forum is the real underlying issue. I don't know the answer. But more people do seem fed up with it, and are saying so. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 04:53 PM (#765419) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Chip2447 FER CYRIN OUTLOUD!!! If you think that a thread is gonna offend you, dont read the sumbitch. Personally, I couldn't care any less about the shaving habits or lack thereof of any Mudcatter, but if someone wants to talk about it I won't stand in their way, on the other hand though, you'll see that I neither started that thread or contributed to it. If enough people speak out against a thread because they are offended, and said thread is deleted, we have just allowed a group however large or small to censor us. The minute that we allow censorship because someone is offended by a thread will be the beginning of the end of the CAT. Granted, this is a private forum that Max has graciously allowed us to visit. If he chooses to censor the Cat, then that is his business. It boils down to the simple fact that you are your own censor. If you don't like a program on television, you turn it off, don't like rap music on your radio, change the station. If you dont like a thread title, subject, postings, or the people who have posted to it don't read the bastard, but whatever you do, don't try to tell me what I should or shouldn't read. Rant over... Chip2447 |
|
14 Aug 02 - 04:53 PM (#765420) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Same Guest as above And I meant to add, I also don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive anymore--it's spinning in circles at this point. Since I've already said what I wanted to say numerous times now, I think I'll stay out of this, unless something more compelling about the subject comes up. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 05:06 PM (#765426) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: katlaughing Personally, I wouldn't want to invite my mother, if she were alive, or many other older relatives to visit this site and have them see titles of threads like the one I cited above. I don't care what the content of the thread is, but I sure don't want people whom I respect, like Jean Ritchie, Sandy & Caroline Paton, etc. to come here and see a thread about "her cunt smelled like cock juice." I don't care if it is part of a song. It is NOT the title of the song, nor should it be the title of a thread, IMO. And, I am sure the Patons, Ms. Ritchie etc. have read and seen worse, probably, but I, for one, would love to attract more people of their caliber to the Mudcat and I don't believe that will happen with such thread titles greeting them when they come here for the first time. I mean, would you put that up on a sign over your front door and expect to attract anything but flies? kat THE TITLE'S THE THING |
|
14 Aug 02 - 05:21 PM (#765433) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST So let me get this straight kat. If the thread title had been "The Yellow Rose of Taegu" and your mother had innocently opened the thread to read: "She's the yellow Rose of Taegu, the girl that I adore. Her cunt it smells like cock juice; she's a good two-dollar whore." ...everything would be just fine? The problem is simply with the thread titles? |
|
14 Aug 02 - 05:40 PM (#765441) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: sponge Wake up and smell the coffee guys....the internet is a nasty place. People think they have a right to post what they want. people who own sites (like mudcat) always get slated for preveting people from posting what they want. If you don't like what you read, read something else. S. |
|
14 Aug 02 - 07:19 PM (#765504) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: artbrooks You all do appreciate that ANON.GUEST is keeping this...discussion going in order to satisfy his/hers/its own perverted desire to see everyone else running around in circles? DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!! |
|
14 Aug 02 - 07:39 PM (#765520) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: harpgirl ..my goodness my dear "archaic trickster", are you still at it? Why, your persistence alone should qualify you as as an insider by this time...Your desire to engage so many of us suggests a need on your part to become a member of the community. Why not just sign on as "archaic trickster", then we can all talk privately with you about your internet behavior....and your opinions about matters of sexual politics....Sincerely, hg |
|
14 Aug 02 - 07:43 PM (#765524) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: smallpiper Mornin Harp girl |
|
14 Aug 02 - 11:05 PM (#765583) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: michaelr Funny -- I fail to see the connection between "female personal grooming" and "porn"... Michael |
|
14 Aug 02 - 11:54 PM (#765603) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Bill D porn is not the same as gratuitous crudity and vulgarity---as in 'folk music', the line is often muddy. and regarding threads about 'male' genitalia...it should not be any different, but it is....society just makes it that way! A woman could go out on a street corner and flash...(exhibitionism) and get 'mostly' grins and shrugs....but a man would be VERY quickly reported and arrested.. Men's genitalia is treated as threatening and somehow more 'immoral'(yes, for some good reasons)...but.... |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:47 AM (#765608) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Blackcatter "Yo-ho, yo-ho a perverts life for me" If you want to stop offending people - especially with thread names - stop using the "BS" Think about how many people find that objectionable. I am worried about children visiting the site. I do reccommend the site to many adults who are interested in folk music, but I would NEVER suggest it to a kid under 15 or so who is, say, doing a report on Folk/Blues music. At least not without telling their parents first to mention that there are subjects discussed here that are not kid appropriate. That being said, WHO CARES? I still get a kick out of the fact that people love to complain about stuff they have absolutely NO POWER to change. Why don't you spend the time you've wasted on this and all the other threads on which you whine and GET A JOB. You might make enough money to be able to afford the set up your own rival Folk Music Site where you will actually have a right to say how the owner run it. The "GUEST" who started this thread is identical to the ones who start the objectionable threads he/she/it complains about. They want to generate NEGATIVE energy. It's just like that energy species on the original Star Trek series that feeds on emotions and knows that making people angry is the best way to "pig out." Come on, if Shatner understood that, certainly more of us Mudcatters should... yeesh. pax yall |
|
15 Aug 02 - 02:36 AM (#765645) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: NicoleC The more I think about this thread, the more it pisses me off. In response to the recent spate of sexually explict threads and threads degrading to women, quite a few registered members who happen to be women have expressed their opinions. NONE of them advocate censorship. NONE of them suggest eliminating all off-topic posts. NONE of them advocate the elimination of all sexual references. ALL of them have politely asked that the line not be crossed. You know where that line is. You don't need to argue about it. To be old-fashioned, it's called behaving as if you were in mixed company. On the other hand, we have a handful of men (not all, by any means) who's response is "fuck off, bitch, we'll say what we want because we're a *community.* Suck it up or go away if you don't like it!" Members of a community respond to each others desires by moderating thie public behavior. Reacting to a polite request by blaming the other person for asking is just rude and unneighborly. I have news for you: but just going away is not an option. There is nowhere on this planet that women can go and not be subjected in some form or another to this cultural disease that treats women like some sort of speaking livestock and men like horny herdsmen, whether it be the restaurant with ESPN2 turned up loud and a horde of men jeering at scantily clad female athletes or the guy at work at the next desk that does the same job, but gets paid 25% more. Women have the disease, too. Most of us go from day to day pretending to not notice or are so desensitized that we really don't pay much attention -- and women are guilty of the same behavior sometimes. It's not going to magically go away and no one is asking for that. We're asking for people to think before they open their month or start typing. At least where I grew up, that was called being mannerly, regardlesss of what you may think or do in private. Those who have stated their objections to this kind of behavior within this community are not wrong or "prudish" or "condescending, moralistic, humorless, whining and self-serving" for HAVING AN OPINION. But it says reams about the attitudes of those who fail to even consider another's feelings. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 03:31 AM (#765657) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Regarding shave thread: The "very very tasty" comment was a quote from an advert for some breakfast cereal (at least in UK) - so it was a tongue in cheek quip - and probably related to my (admittedly ill-advised) vegemite comment rather than anything much more salacious. And I STILL don't see how that thread is demeaning to women. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 03:46 AM (#765661) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST I haven't read all of the threads in question but I have read this one and get the general idea of what's going on in the others. I disagree with those who've said the guest who started this thread has been outspoken about this merely to generate negative energy. I could be wrong, but I don't read that as this person's intent at all. I think that person has made an honest attempt to explain why certain threads are offensive and would like to see that changed. There's nothing wrong with that. It seems to me that it's coming from a place of caring about the forum, rather than just trying to stir up trouble. Here's what I'm wondering. It's obvious that some of the posts in some of these threads are offensive to some, for whatever reasons, not the least of which is regard for the kids who may be lurking. Why is it so difficult to tone it down a little bit then? When we're in the company of others, don't we try to regard others' feelings as a matter of courtesy? What's so tough about that? To be courteous is not the same as saying you agree with the offended parties. It's just being courteous. kat brought up the attractiveness of this site to some of the older folks. I think that's a very important point. If they were to stop in for a visit and express discomfort with some of the things they found here, I would like to think that they and their opinions would be regarded with respect. That said, I think that most of the folks can look at these things and realize that the posts in the threads are a reflection of the individual who posted them, rather than the forum in general. Whether or not a particular thread or post is offensive to certain readers is one thing, but even more significant, IMO, is the reflection of the caliber of the poster, by the words he or she chooses to use.
|
|
15 Aug 02 - 03:48 AM (#765662) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,KT oops. That last post was mine..... |
|
15 Aug 02 - 06:46 AM (#765732) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: open mike but this thread title did catch the attention of many-members and guests as well.... |
|
15 Aug 02 - 08:43 AM (#765772) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA Right on, Nicole. I agree with every single word you just said in your most recent post. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 09:28 AM (#765794) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Was Pretty Damn Disgusted But I'm heartened by Nicole, KT, SharonA, Peg, and kat's contributions here.
|
|
15 Aug 02 - 09:50 AM (#765801) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Oh good - that's a relief to us all |
|
15 Aug 02 - 10:00 AM (#765806) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: katlaughing Thanks, Nicole and KT, well-said. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 10:16 AM (#765815) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Was Pretty Damn Disgusted Ah, sniping from the gallery. That is certain to help. Well, I've just finished rereading the entire thread here, and I think I may have spoken too soon. Don't get me wrong, I am heartened by the responses of the women in this thread particularly. But upon rereading the thread, I also so Joe Offer's inserted comments. He said above: "there were a number of crude and stupid threads started in the last day or two, and the shaving thread was one of them. I didn't consider deleting them, but I think they're better left unread. Still, crude and stupid people must have an outlet for self-expression..." That's it? That is the extent of the "official" Mudcat response? So Joe, we are just supposed to shut up and take the abuse, so crude and stupid people can have an outlet for "self-expression"? That hurts. What a slap in the face to the women who have expressed their opinions on this subject! |
|
15 Aug 02 - 10:30 AM (#765822) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Bill D ...censorship is a slippery slope..... |
|
15 Aug 02 - 10:39 AM (#765828) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Really damn disgusted We aren't looking for censorship BillD, or at least I'm not. Not once have I said I wanted the offending thread deleted. What I have said is that it would be appropriate for the Mudcat official(s), be it Max or Joe Offer or Pene Azul, to establish a clear position on the posting of titillating adult sexual content BS, which has no relation to the music. That they post that position in a new thread, and in the FAQ. It is really hurtful to see the glee some of the men are taking now, mocking the women who have objected to the subject matter in the shaved female genitalia thread. You are mocking us in this and several other threads. RichM started and quite a few men are contributing to the "Seven Words You Can't Say in Mudcat" thread, which was begun out of spite for our complaining that we thought the men had really crossed over the line of respect and manners on this line. This forum is really starting to look like a community for good ole boys who only want to talk to women members on THEIR terms, and whose rights to demean and degrade us whenever they feel like it must be protected at all costs. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:21 AM (#765856) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Bill D Max HAS said what his position is...it is to make the tech stuff work so that we can use this forum...he said specifically that our job is to learn to play nice! Joe Offer has taken the un-enviable task of deleting the most egregious threads...and has spoken out repeatedly about posts of bad taste which he didn't feel needed deleting! You seem not to understand that, short of censorship, there is NO way to stop posting in an open forum! I am displeased with many post/threads too, and have said so (and a couple of times in PMs to the offending party when I could identify them)..but there are hundreds of regular posters with **different** ideas of what is funny, clever and rude, and frankly, I do not have the time to keep objecting. Big Mick has said over & over & over that IGNORING them, as you would do when subjected to rude remarks on the street is the best, if not the most satisfying, technique! I wish you were not 'anonymous'...it would be easier to debate/discuss this with a person, and not a ghost...but...*shrug*...(if you want to PM me privately, I would try to share some ideas gained thru over 40 years of respecting women and still recognizing my male perspective on what some of the offensive jokes and remarks are about.) If you prefer to remain anon., please just try to understand that the complaints begin to be the issue, rather than the original remarks!! Demanding 'official' stands from the management is TRULY counter-productive, as NO 'official' stand would make a difference without censorship. Someone who, 2 months from now, is about to type a remark that YOU will find offensive will NOT go read a FAQ or analyze the 'guidance' perma-threads! I like the Mudcat---have been here since the beginning, and have met Max, Joe Offer and many others LIVE, and I KNOW that they want it to be a good place. I also know that it is impossible to make it please everyone! .....and I guarantee that righteous indignation, no matter how often expressed, will never cure the problems! Still...you have every right to post your objections, just as those you object to will sometimes post more stuff..... you pays yer money, you takes yer choice.... |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:28 AM (#765863) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,Really damn disgusted BillD, why aren't you discussing this subject with kat? With Nicole? With Peg? With Guest KT? Why are you ignoring their objections, and focusing solely on the one guest? Several women members and fairly regular guests have voiced their concerns about the proliferation of sexually titillating adult subject matter in the forum. They have asked that it be stopped, out of courtesy to them. The response has been to ignore them, mock them, and especially in regards to my posts, slap us down. It is easy to bitch slap the guest nobody likes, when you can't get away with bitch slapping kat and Nicole and SharonA isn't it? But you are sending them a veiled threat by doing so. And a not so very veiled threat in the all male thread "Seven Words..." Don't worry BillD. I'm guessing the other women are able to read between the lines of the men's messages to us, just as I am. If we complain about degrading, humiliating treatment at the hands of assholes in this forum, nothing is going to be done about it. The "community standard" for behavior is quite obvious to me. One standard for the men, one standard for the women, and if the women don't like it, well don't let the screen door hit you on the way out. Right fellas? I'm sure you all feel VERY powerful now. In the Mudcat forum, you aren't just powerful, you are the rule of law. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:29 AM (#765865) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Bill D well...I hit something wrong...I had no idea I posted that before I finished typing..perhaps the first post will be deleted |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:39 AM (#765869) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Bill D *sigh*....I tried to phrase my post in a way that would address the general concern...I posted because I CARE, but simply do not have time to go thru and respond to every point one by one. If you are determined to continue your complaints, I can no more stop you than I can those who offend you...My point is that loaded language about "bitch slapping" etc. is counter-productive....I talk to katlaughing often, and 'may' see Sharon A. in person this weekend...we shall see what develops.. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:42 AM (#765873) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Big Mick Ladies and Gentlemen, do you see the subtle way the person who started this thread is trying to turn it into a "we-they" game. And she neatly, after sniping at kat and others many times, now tries to act like she is part of the sisterhood against the rest of us. Her post, several back, starts with "We want" as if to imply that somehow she is now really just an advocate for women and speaks for more than herself. She is pretty good. But here is a news flash for you. No one, women or men, is falling for it. You could care less about the subject, your real goal is to try and divide us, turn folks on "Joe, Max, and Pene Azul". You are not even good. By the way, I notice that once again, when someone gives a reply that flies in the face of your gratuitous statements, you just ignore those and act as if your predicate was still correct. You did it with my posts. Look, folks. Nicole said it all. This comes down to simply using your head, and being a bit respectful. It isn't a male against female thing. Those of you who know me, Bill D, Jeff, Rick Fielding, and many others, know that we don't operate on those levels. I am not sure why I looked at the shaving thread, but I did and didn't like what I saw. I said immediately that I felt as though it should go. I still haven't opened the "jiggles" thread. The title of this thread says it all. Anyone who has been here more than a minute knows that the title is preposterous. And it speaks clearly to the intent of the GUEST who started it. She is malicious and couldn't care less about "the sisterhood". She is a pathetic person feeding on the only attention she gets by creating discord. Don't fall for it. Just leave it die. Mick |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:46 AM (#765877) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Amos Nicole, Well said. Since you borrowed my adjectives, I feel impelled to clarify what I was complaining about and characterizing with them. It was not anyone's objecting per se, even on arguable grounds; it was not even anyone having an opinion, for goodness' sake!! If the invisible whinger had just laid out clearly what he was saying, in his opinion, as you have done in clear direct (and preferably signed) prose, I would have left it at "cheers -- thanks for your opinion". But he she chose other styles of communication which regardless of gender, issue or message are styles I find offensive. I do not like moralizing, whining, and covert indirectness in communication. ANd I find certain kinds of stupidness offensive ESPECIALLY when the notion is being promulgated that I should subscribe to them myself. I value people who are capable of having an opinion, even one I disagree with. If the elements I find objectionable are not obvious to you, as they are to me, chalk it up to difference of opinion. But my adjectives had nothing to do with the opinion ppresumably extant somewhere behind the slyness. Nor do I subscribe to the Fuckoffbitch school of thought which you identify as operating on these threads -- a characterization, I might add, which is just as guilty of gender stereotyping as the sexism you are protesting against! Thanks for your well-written thoughts. I enjoyed them. A |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:49 AM (#765879) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: harpgirl ...dear GUEST...are you still attempting to manipulate with your antisocial and divisve rhetoric? I find your intrustion into this forum far more objectionable than the foolish comments of some of our imperfect male members! You are an outsider and I for one have no interest in taking up your psychopathic call to arms! I know what you are about. hg |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:51 AM (#765881) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Hippie Chick Dear disgusted Guest, I understand your pique at the vulgarity and apparent disregard for women here. If I read such threads it is to make sure that I am not misunderstanding the title or the intent of the first (or so)posts. I regard it just as I do the television offerings. If I don't like it, don't watch it. Writing letters to advertisers and program executives isn't really the same as posting one's ire here on a thread. Threads are discussions; complaints should be made to the boss/manager/whoever. My protest against vulgarity is to have my own site that strictly prohibits such meaningless drivel. I welcome general chat, but stuff like *penis jokes* are prohibited. That's MY site. This one belongs to MAX. Your continuing complaints on a discussion thread IMHO constitute railing in vain, beating a dead horse.....you see what I mean. I respect your views, and perhaps agree with them, but repeating them over and over and over is not convincing anyone and apparently giving you indigestion. Cyclic, that is to say. Hippie Chick has spoken |
|
15 Aug 02 - 11:54 AM (#765889) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Big Mick, even if every word you were saying was true, it still wouldn't change the fact that the offending thread was started by a well-liked male Mudcat member. Offending posts were contributed by well-liked male Mudcat members. A thread mocking the people who objected to the proliferation of titillating sex threads for men in the past week or so, was started by a well-liked male Mudcat member, and is being fueled by several other well-liked male Mudcat members. No one is addressing the content of Nicole's post today. No one is addressing the content of kat's posts. No one is addressing the content of Guest KT's posts. Take me out of the equation Big Mick, and Mudcat still has a big problem. Again, you are simply trying to make me the subject of the thread, to deflect criticism, and sweep this neatly under the rug. Before you try and shut down this thread, maybe you should ask if everyone is prepared to accept the status quo here. If Nicole, kat, Guest KT, Peg, SharonA all say they want all discussion of this matter to go no further, and wish to see it dropped in the interest of preserving the peace and shoring up the status quo for the so-called community, I'll abide by that. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:13 PM (#765898) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST Hippiechick, there is one aspect of this you are conveniently leaving out of the equation, and that is the community aspect. The women who have objected to the presence of said subject matter for male gratification have all said this is their community too. They have stated their anger, their hurt, their shock, etc. quite clearly, and I do not presume to speak for them. They are doing just fine without my help. What I hear them saying is they aren't happy with the way the community is treating them, and/or the way the community is presenting itself to the world, especially the online folk music community. If the Mudcat forum truly is to be the great community it is so often claimed to be by the very members engaged in this debate, then the status quo is clearly going to have to change. Yes, it is Max's website. If he wants to let men post vulgar and offensive sexually explicit threads which several female members of the community have objected to, then that shall be the final word. Certain community members are already presuming that since Max hasn't intervened, the female community members who have voiced objections must accept the status quo. If we are to accept Joe Offer's inserted remarks to this thread as "the final word" on the subject, then I agree with you Hippiechick, people who wish to remain members of this community must accept men will continue to be allowed to post vulgar and offensive sexually explicit threads which demean a least a portion of the female community here. Now, I think if we don't hear anything to the contrary in the next day or so, we can all safely presume that will be the status quo supported by Max, and there is nothing any of us can do to change that. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:13 PM (#765899) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Big Mick Nice try, but your bigotry still shines through. As I said in another thread, what you are speaks louder than what you say you are. Your attempt to make this an "us/them" thing is failing. First off, you refuse to acknowledge the men that agree with the predicate. If you truly were interested in the subject, you would acknowledge that. But that doesn't work for you because the same men who agree that the thread is off base, the same men who object to the characterizations of women in purely sexual terms, the same men who thini the line was crossed,...........these are the same men who object to you on the basis of your real intent. So you just ignore them. You are very transparent. To answer your original question, the answer is no. But because we are unmoderated, and because we are mere mortals, sometimes mistakes get made. Better to acknowledge the mistake and learn from it, apologize to the offended parties, and move on. That is what one does when their motives are sound. What you do is what one does when their motives are less than honorable. Let me apologize to the offended women here. I absolutely agree with you that this thread crossed a line. It offended me, even though I know the man that posted it did so in a tongue in cheek fashion to make a point. But that does not excuse in any way the offense that was taken and I am very sorry that it happened. I hope that my brothers will take a lesson from the posts that have been spawned. These are not "harmless" quips between adults. Women know the heartbreak of having their entire identity predicated on their gender instead of what resides within. Women know the hurt of having self worth determined by an ideal that they had nothing to do with creating. I for one, refuse to participate in this shit, and I would hope that we have learned from these threads. The fact that this one was spawned by a vindictive person with an agenda proves that good can come out of bad. Mick |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:17 PM (#765901) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST,KT LOL!! "Hippie Chick has spoken" I like that! From: Big Mick Date: 15-Aug-02 - 11:42 AM "Ladies and Gentlemen, do you see the subtle way the person who started this thread is trying to turn it into a "we-they" game." Yes, Mick, I caught that. The opinions stated here are not necessarily indicative of a desire to choose up sides for a "we-they" game. I, for one, have no interest in going there. 'nuff said and 'nuff read. I'm going back to the music sites.
|
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:17 PM (#765902) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA The GUEST of 15-Aug-02 - 03:31 AM says, "I STILL don't see how that thread ["forms of feminine shaves"] is demeaning to women." From my point of view, one thing that is demeaning about it is the males' objectification of women's genitalia: the terms "beaver", "muff" and "twat" were used by a couple of male posters there (and the discussion about it in this thread prompted the use of the term "uncarpeted basement"). And objectification is what pornography is all about. Another demeaning thing is Mr. Happy's "very tasty" comment that I mentioned previously; I did not know about its being an advertising jingle, but I'm sure that Mr. Happy was not referring to breakfast cereal or vegemite when he posted it, but rather making a sexual reference. Even Big Mick's description of paddymac's original post as a "tongue in cheek" effort might be interpreted as a sexual reference within the context of that thread's subject matter. Again, as Peg had said on the "shaves" thread, its original intent seems to be voyeuristic and titillating in nature, intended to generate responses that men can "get off on" such as the comments about how the shaved female genital area looks and feels and smells as compared to the unshaved female genital area. Finally, I see a demeaning attitude in paddymac's question, in his second post to the "shaves" thread, "What kind of '-ists' see neither beauty nor humor in the thread?" This implies that those of us who find the tone of his original post objectionable should be labeled and dismissed, and indeed on this thread the term "humorless prude" and the adjectives "over-picky" and "whining" have been used as dismissive labels. And labeling people is demeaning behavior. Perhaps if men were sexually assaulted and abused as often as women are, men would better understand how demeaning it feels to have one's genitals talked about as if there weren't a human being attached to them. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:18 PM (#765903) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST I noted both your and kendall's support yesterday Big Mick, in several posts. From here on out Big Mick, I'm going to follow your advice, and ignore your and harpgirl's (and anyone else's) posts making me the subject of the thread, instead of the issue at hand. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:18 PM (#765905) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Amos Okay, let's talk about the woes of humans who stereotype each other based on gender. It is a sad but unavoidable fact that penises, vulvas, and mammary glands, and the remarkable electricity that gets generated about them, have caused more confusion, melodrama, and bullshit throughout our history than any other single aspect of human existence. One side effect of this tomfoolery on parts is that a huge legacy of jokes on all those topics has developed, from the earliest days of Chaucer on forward. There may well be as many jokes about male parts, and male stupidity, as there are about female ones. Now consider the fact that 99.9 per cent of the human race belongs to one of these camps or the other, or perhaps even both, there is a very low probability that you will be able to avoid running into some sort of generic humor that is about your personal parts. In other words, I have to put up with a lot of dick jokes, and men are beasts jokes, and the stupidity of people with dangly bits jokes. And other people have to put up with a lot of jokes about other parts. If I were to take these things personally, I would be a double-idiot. In general people do LESS stereotyping the more discriminating and intelligent they get. MORE discrimination between things that are actually different, even if somewhat similar, is a key symptom of intelligence, as well as maturity. So the kind of "blind stereotyping" of people by their gender which some have found so "offending" is (when it actually happens) likely to be a sign of stupidity. However, the sauce for the gander applies -- it is also stupid to identify relatively innocent humor with the bogies of 'male chauvinist pig-ism' because someone makes a reference to a body part. Parts is parts, folks, to quote a famous poet. Get used to it, because it is not going to change. No matter hopw electrical those parts may get, it makes very little sense to invest yourself in melodrama on their account. If you have nothing better to worry about, best review your assumptions. Finally, the same principle of intelligent discrimination also applies to the decision to take offense. Make no mistake, it is a decision. If you exercise your right to be offended, based on associating ANY reference to your penis or vulva with ALL sexual bias and stupidity, then I am very sorry but you are being just as mindless as those you are accusing. I would think we could find more important, meaningful, or productive things to be offended by than that. Things that too often do not get mentioned at all, like the perfidious corrosion of spiritual values in modern media. There ya go, pal -- your issue has been addressed. Refer to earlier instructions of 13-Aug-02 - 04:08 PM. I'm unsubscribing from any more of this wankery. A |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:25 PM (#765910) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST We're trying to overcome our history Amos, not repeat it in perpetuity. I for one am not willing to return to the social rules of Chaucer's day regarding the treatment of women. Or even the social rules of post-WWII 1950s, for that matter. We want people to treat women with MORE respect, not the same amount of respect (in other words, little to none) that was offered them in the past. Invoking the history of sexism as justification for it in this forum just won't wash with a lot of us. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:29 PM (#765912) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: GUEST BTW Amos--who is the "pal" whose concerns you have (contempuously?) addressed? I wasn't asking that you address mine. I was merely pointed out that you hadn't addressed Nicole's and SharonA's for example. Perhaps if you wish to address their concerns, you could do it by actually using their names. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:30 PM (#765913) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Skipjack K8 This page is a bit like Bedlam. Guest the Warder kindly hits the poor named creatures that are chained to this thread, on the head with a stout mallet, so you dance on the end of your chains for the entertainment of Guests friends. Oh God, now I've touched the golden goose.......... |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:34 PM (#765916) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Big Mick Well said, Skipjack. Thank you for pointing out the real reason this thread was started. You said in a few words what I have been trying to say with many. Mick |
|
15 Aug 02 - 12:44 PM (#765930) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Don Firth BEWARE! I am about to use one of George Carlin's forbidden words! I question the judgment and maturity of someone who deliberately uncorks a loud fart in church. I also question the judgment and maturity—and, perhaps, the motives—of those who feel impelled to leap up and call everybody else's attention to it. If someone feels that action should be taken, instead of further pewing up the pews, I would suggest speaking to the farter directly, if possible. Failing that, make your protest known to someone who can do something about it, (that would be Max, Joe Offer, or Pene Azul) and leave it to their judgment as to whether or not to do something. That, in practical terms, is all you really can do. Then, drop the matter. Anything more (such as this thread) merely adds to the problem. Don Firth |
|
15 Aug 02 - 01:00 PM (#765937) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Dave Bryant It says something about human nature that this thread seems to have become more "degenerate" than the original thread (which I only found by virtue of this one) and which I found mildly amusing in parts. It's possible to find something reprehensible in most threads (and in many traditional songs), but the more fuss you make about something, the more you adverise them. I am reminded of the old lady who called the police to complain about the pub opposite where she could see the men using the urinals. When the constable arrived he looked out of her window and said that he could see nothing wrong. "oh", the old lady said, "if you stand the chair on the table and climb up onto it .............". |
|
15 Aug 02 - 01:34 PM (#765968) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: harpgirl ...ah my dear GUEST. You and I both know that your only intention is merely to acquire and exercise POWER in our little forum. The assumption that women in this forum have to be rescued from degradation by your convoluted rhetoric is most amusing. But since it is part of your POWER game it could be any issue. The real thrill is indeed in the "mallett and the dance". That is precisely what psychopathy is about. I have wearied of this, your current choice of topics to manipulate the mudcat brethren. However, I will continue to expose your POWER game and your antisocial behavior. Though I must remind myself that whenever one takes on a psychopath, one must be prepared to be robbed of something, be it time, money, or a host of other valuables. hg |
|
15 Aug 02 - 01:38 PM (#765974) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: katlaughing No one speaks for me, but me, period. Enough of this. Anyone here interested in music? I just got a great new CD of Chinese hammer dulcimer music....gorgeous! |
|
15 Aug 02 - 01:41 PM (#765976) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: SharonA Dave Bryant: Your analogy might fly if paddymac had ever come back to post a statement saying that he didn't mean to be offensive or demeaning toward women. However, his posting history indicates that his August 12th statement that I referred to above, to the effect that anyone who didn't see his "feminine shaves" thread as beautiful or humorous is some sort of an "-ist", was his most recent post to date. I'm not "standing on a chair" straining to see something that isn't there; the only thing that isn't there is another post from paddymac. I must conclude that he intended to be provocative, and it worked; some of us have been provoked to anger! I'm really disappointed by some of the posts from male Mudcat members that I'm seeing here; if the comparatively liberal folk community thinks that women should "drop the matter" and put-up-and-shut-up rather than speak out when they feel they're being degraded as a group, then maybe our culture isn't so far removed from that of Chaucer's day after all. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 03:05 PM (#766038) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Don Firth Sharon, I'm not suggesting that women should "drop the matter," I'm suggesting that we should all drop the matter. The original threads were stupid and offensive, and this thread is merely adding fuel to the fire. I wasn't going to get involved in this, but something katlaughing said in her post of 14-Aug-02 - 05:06 PM resonated with me, and I felt I needed to put my two cents in. I know Sandy Paton from years ago. I've never met Caroline. Nor have I met Jean Ritchie. But the thought of someone whom I respect as highly as I do these people stumbling into this particular kind of wrangle makes me a bit ashamed for the Mudcatters who participate. At this point, I would not recommend Mudcat to people whom I respect because of the nature of so many of the threads, including this one. My suggestion was that if someone starts an offensive thread, PM them. Don't turn it into an open battle. I just want to see this stop, so this is the last I will contribute to this thread. Don Firth
|
|
15 Aug 02 - 03:28 PM (#766048) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: smallpiper This is all very sad, very sad indeed (and no doubt I will be attacked for saying that). If we can't agree to disagree then we're stuffed and whats the point anyway? I am truly sorry that so many people have taken offense to this and other threads. For my part I am sorry if any contributions I have made may have caused offense. I am however not sorry that there is a difference between male and female perceptions, about what amuses us etc. I have been the victim of male bashing on many occasions - working (when I do) in a predominantly female area of work and I know what its like to be on the recieving end. It still makes me feel sad. Now fuck off the lot of you and do something more constructive with your time!! |
|
15 Aug 02 - 08:36 PM (#766205) Subject: RE: Mudcat Cafe: New Folk Music Porn Site? From: Art Thieme This is day job vu all over again. Anyone remember the infamous condom thread? It was my intention, then, to point up the ridiculousness of 90% of the non-music threads and also to push for a moderator on this forum. Max wouldn't hear of it then and he won't now I'm pretty sure. We can always go over to that other mostly music site --- the one with a moderator --- but I'd still be looking in here at M'cat to see what you nuts are into or in a snit about. I guess I'd be bored at an all music site after experiencing Mudcat. I felt that way at the now gone Ballad-List site. Is that sad? No, not really. Just what is!!! It's never been easy to keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Pareeeee----or even Las Vegas --- or The Wisconsin Dells or that mediocrity of all mediocrities, BRANSON, Missouri. As I'm fond of saying lately, "The more things change, the more they get really schlocky. Love, Art Thieme OK, this is the current fight thread. I'm not going to tolerate having a dozen contentious threads refreshed and cooking, all at the same time. I'll transfer some messages posted today in other threads, just to keep everything together. Please note that most of the recent Guest posts are all from the same person, although he/she has used several different pseudonyms in the last couple days. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 09:12 PM (#766219) Subject: BS = Big Sewer From: GUEST Just logged in, and the top 10-15 threads are idiotic and/or nauseating BS threads, and precious little content of any sort (including music) worth reading. This place just keeps going from bad to worse, doesn't it? |
|
15 Aug 02 - 09:19 PM (#766221) Subject: RE: BS = Big Sewer From: Big Mick And you started several of them. Please folks, ignore our resident pschopath. Don't let this thread get to 5 posts. Mick |
|
15 Aug 02 - 09:43 PM (#766226) Subject: RE: BS = Big Sewer From: GUEST Thanks for responding Big Mick. Now this thread has actually surpassed the number of posts in the "Box Top Sendaways" thread. I can't imagine why. Especially considering the killer competition over there in the "Why do Men Wear Socks with Sandals" thread. The one and only saving grace is the "Todays the day we give babies away" thread. If it weren't for that one, I think the monster aliens who stealthily make crop circles while we aren't looking, would have crushed us by now. |
|
15 Aug 02 - 09:47 PM (#766228) Subject: RE: BS = Big Sewer From: DonMeixner The Big Sewer, A song about a fat Tailor? |
|
15 Aug 02 - 09:57 PM (#766231) Subject: RE: BS = Big Sewer From: GUEST Apologies, it must have been the cooking sherry. I just realized, on closer inspection, that Mudcat is currently enjoying cradle to the grave music threads, connected by the Gulf Coast Highway. There is the aforementioned thread on a lullaby, and the nursing home gigs thread. BTW, has everyone sent in their email for the free case of vanilla coke yet? |
|
15 Aug 02 - 09:58 PM (#766232) Subject: RE: BS = Big Sewer From: SINSULL dON, pROBABLY NOT THE BEST PLACE TO SAY THIS...BUT i LOVE MY BRACELET. Thank you. Mary |
|
15 Aug 02 - 10:14 PM (#766237) Subject: RE: BS = Big Sewer From: DonMeixner Actually Guest, Sinsull (Mary) sellected it from many in a case of bracelets I took to OLD SONGS just for her to choose from the money went directly to me to supply me with more raw materials so that I may continue in business. That way I can support myself and my family and pay taxes and live the American Dream. One small part of the SA,erican Dream for me is to support a place where like minded people can meet and exchange any old idea that comes their way. Be it scholarly musings or ordinary chit chattery. Don,Still not shamed or embarrassed by my own name,Meixner |
|
15 Aug 02 - 10:15 PM (#766238) Subject: RE: BS = Big Sewer From: DonMeixner Thanks Mary, I'm glad that you do. Don |