AH "unsafe" - who and when and how?

[HandsInTheDark]

I'd like to continue the conversation about AH being an unsafe place for women. The claim was made because men here "coerced" women into providing nude pics in exchange for writing help. (I'm sticking to the words of the original post but I suspect I'm overstating the original claim.)

I'm not a huge fan of what passes for politeness in AH (or much of anywhere on the internet); and I'm certainly more than willing to believe that guys pressure girls for titillation and sex in every possible medium, including online, without pause.

But somehow this claim sticks in my craw. It was probably the choice of words: "safe", "coerce". You can't coerce an anonymous person over the internet, because coerce means force or threaten until unwilling action. But you can't employ force over the internet and you can't threaten an anonymous person. You can't even pester them with repeated requests, because Ignore. You cannot make someone unsafe by any definition of the word when they can end all interaction by clicking a mouse.

And you cannot be made unsafe unless you hand out personally identifying information. If you could be swayed by words on a screen to do something unsafe, you'd be judged so incompetent you couldn't be allowed to go online.

But I don't want to debate about words.

I want posting of names of people who have insistently attempted to influence (I will not say coerced because that can't be done here) others to give up personal information (like pictures) here on Lit, and why the existing mechanisms (like Ignore) weren't sufficient to deal with the issue.

If no such names and situations are described, I'm going to assume the original point was raised by someone engaged in some amount of hysteria, or at least conflating events in the real world with events happening on the internet.

C'mon. Let's out the creeps. Since we're all anonymous here, or should be if you have sense, there can be no consequence to naming names and giving circumstances, and they do say sunlight disinfects things. Shine some light on the predators reputed to be among us.

Coercion of real people in real contact with each other is a real problem in the real world. But this is the internet. I'm a little horrified that telling someone to flash their boobs over the internet in a supposedly adult forum is getting discussed like it's actionable. (Please note I'm not known for pestering people for nudes pics here and if I did I'd expect to be instantly ignored, so I'm not defending the practice. I'm also not claiming it's ethical or proper social behaviour. But it gets talked about here like it should be literally illegal, which strikes me as an attempt to criminalize half the people with a Y chromosome, and that's obscene.)

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, enough of the innuendo and/or made-up generalities. If you receive an obscene hit from a Lit. member in a PM, out him/her on the forum. You can't receive an anonymous PM. If you're just making up generalities to push an agenda on the forum, stop it.

 

[TxRad]

Since most people are writes in the AH, there is a big problem of retaliation. If you have a problem with someone harassing you in PM, report it to Laurel. Send her a copy of the PM with an explanation on your part of what is going on. You will get action.

 

[sr71plt]

Since most people are writes in the AH, there is a big problem of retaliation. If you have a problem with someone harassing you in PM, report it to Laurel. Send her a copy of the PM with an explanation on your part of what is going on. You will get action.

I believe some have said you will get "put them on ignore," which, yes, will certainly stop the PMs coming. Anyone to attest that reporting it to the site gets more than that?

I'm of the "shine a flashlight on them" school (as you might have surmised).

 

[SamScribble]

Many many years ago, I spent most Friday nights in a pub somewhere between Adland and Fleet Street. You didn’t have to be a writer to drink there; but most of the drinkers were writers: journos, advertising copywriters, radio and TV writers, PR writers, and a smattering of would-be novelists.

Aside from the fact that you could see your drinking companions’ faces, it was not unlike the AH. There were extroverts and introverts, stirrers and peacemakers.

And there were a handful of blokes – some young, some not so young – who, after a pint or two, never passed up an opportunity to hit on the opposite sex. As one seasoned fellow – known as ‘Uncle Ugly’ – used to proclaim: ‘If you don’t ask, you don’t get’. And, to be fair, I gather that sometimes ‘he got’ – although goodness knows why.

Personally, I have never sent anyone a ‘show me your tits’ PM. (Hey, I didn’t even know that you were supposed to.) But, if you got one of those, I would have thought that the power was with the receiver. Make your call. And make it in a way that the sender understands exactly what you mean. If that doesn’t work, PM Laurel. The AH is not that different from a ‘60s pub. The landlady still has the power to ban you. And I think that’s more than fair.

 

[sr71plt]

If that doesn’t work, PM Laurel.

As already noted, would like to see testimonials on where that got anyone.

 

[NotWise]

Ms. Smith might be the mistress of manipulation. She launched this entire "unsafe" discussion with an ambiguous statement that may have been crafted to launch a larger discussion. That was the effect.

This forum is not a safe space, nor is it intended to be a safe space. It is supposed to be an adult space. Keep in mind that the only thing that keeps a 14-year old from being here is the "I'm over 18" confirmation on registration. That isn't much of a barrier.

Women who can be pressured into doing something like producing naked photos of themselves to have their story edited might not be the sharpest tools in the shed <shrug>. I thought that Ms Smith's point was that women who are faced with those or similar demands and don't like it should stand up for themselves and should be supported when they do it. I agree with that.

Maybe she should correct me.

 

[sr71plt]

I never did see any substantiation that anything was being done from the AH. Just some general innuendo.

 

[TxRad]

I never did see any substantiation that anything was being done from the AH. Just some general innuendo.

Other than a title which I agree is misleading, nothing she said in the original post applied to the Ah but to PMs . So your observation is probably right but that was not the point of the discussion. I think you're making orange juice out of apples.

 

[LadyVer]

I'd like to continue the conversation about AH being an unsafe place for women. The claim was made because men here "coerced" women into providing nude pics in exchange for writing help. (I'm sticking to the words of the original post but I suspect I'm overstating the original claim.)

I'm not a huge fan of what passes for politeness in AH (or much of anywhere on the internet); and I'm certainly more than willing to believe that guys pressure girls for titillation and sex in every possible medium, including online, without pause.

But somehow this claim sticks in my craw. It was probably the choice of words: "safe", "coerce". You can't coerce an anonymous person over the internet, because coerce means force or threaten until unwilling action. But you can't employ force over the internet and you can't threaten an anonymous person. You can't even pester them with repeated requests, because Ignore. You cannot make someone unsafe by any definition of the word when they can end all interaction by clicking a mouse.

And you cannot be made unsafe unless you hand out personally identifying information. If you could be swayed by words on a screen to do something unsafe, you'd be judged so incompetent you couldn't be allowed to go online.

But I don't want to debate about words.

I want posting of names of people who have insistently attempted to influence (I will not say coerced because that can't be done here) others to give up personal information (like pictures) here on Lit, and why the existing mechanisms (like Ignore) weren't sufficient to deal with the issue.

If no such names and situations are described, I'm going to assume the original point was raised by someone engaged in some amount of hysteria, or at least conflating events in the real world with events happening on the internet.

C'mon. Let's out the creeps. Since we're all anonymous here, or should be if you have sense, there can be no consequence to naming names and giving circumstances, and they do say sunlight disinfects things. Shine some light on the predators reputed to be among us.

Coercion of real people in real contact with each other is a real problem in the real world. But this is the internet. I'm a little horrified that telling someone to flash their boobs over the internet in a supposedly adult forum is getting discussed like it's actionable. (Please note I'm not known for pestering people for nudes pics here and if I did I'd expect to be instantly ignored, so I'm not defending the practice. I'm also not claiming it's ethical or proper social behaviour. But it gets talked about here like it should be literally illegal, which strikes me as an attempt to criminalize half the people with a Y chromosome, and that's obscene.)

Could you shorten this for those of us who can't figure out what you're trying to say? Thank you. Seriously.

 

[sr71plt]

Other than a title which I agree is misleading, nothing she said in the original post applied to the Ah but to PMs . So your observation is probably right but that was not the point of the discussion. I think you're making orange juice out of apples.

It's still pointed to the AH in the title of the new thread. NS is responsible for how she originally titled the thread (this is what this is really about--taking responsibility for yourself here), and I didn't see where she backed off from it being about the AH (or what her point was that she couldn't just say it directly to the poster who contacted her and not accuse the rest of us). It's still generalized, unsubstantiated innuendo. She could have just dropped it--her thread had gone dead. She bled all over the original thread today--enlarging it to smug personal attacks on me and LC. That was her choice/her responsibility.

We'll see what she does on this thread.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

At the risk of not getting a gold star on my homework paper, I've never felt threatened or harassed on lit. My response to unsolicited attention has usually been to think "Ew," and then move along. The only thing I could see as being coercion or harassment would be if Manu himself tried to get me to send nudies or he wouldn't put my stories up. That's harassment because he has the power.

The guy has to have some sort of leverage, I would think. Hard to tell in the original case without knowing more about the relationship.

There is a flake who claims to be a "Creative Writing" Professor from the "St. Louis area" who routinely sends out the exact same complimentary form letter to brand new female writers. Can't remember his full name but he calls himself "Professor Gav." He sent me one, and I believed it, until I saw one or two women posting his emails on the AH with the same exact compliments. He never asked for pics tho. It's revolting and disgusting to have some dude try and exploit your writing, but is it harassment? I don't see how unless it escalates.

 

[sr71plt]

until I saw one or two women posting his emails on the AH with the same exact compliments.

Good for them. A testimonial to helping others on the problem.

 

[LadyVer]

It's still pointed to the AH in the title of the new thread. NS is responsible for how she originally titled the thread (this is what this is really about--taking responsibility for yourself here), and I didn't see where she backed off from it being about the AH (or what her point was that she couldn't just say it directly to the poster who contacted her and not accuse the rest of us). It's still generalized, unsubstantiated innuendo. She could have just dropped it--her thread had gone dead. She bled all over the original thread today--enlarging it to smug personal attacks on me and LC. That was her choice/her responsibility.

We'll see what she does on this thread.

Shut up. Now have my comment removed. Like I care, you big weeny who makes every thread about himself.

 

[sr71plt]

Shut up. Now have my comment removed. Like I care, you big weeny who makes every thread about himself.

Point of order. You're trying to make it about me. You do whatever you can to get my attention.

 

[LadyVer]

Point of order. You're trying to make it about me. You do whatever you can to get my attention.

Seriously. STFU. Thank you.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Women who can be pressured into doing something like producing naked photos of themselves to have their story edited might not be the sharpest tools in the shed <shrug>. I thought that Ms Smith's point was that women who are faced with those or similar demands and don't like it should stand up for themselves and should be supported when they do it. I agree with that.

Uh ... Dr. Smith

Yes. That was the aim of my original thread. Now closed, so I can abide by my own suggestions in the Troll Poll and not respond to some OTT posturing in there.


I will only say one thing. There is a group of writers who were driven off this board a short while ago by trolling. People still accuse them of being a vote-for-me brigade. Well, guess what - they are my friends! Because I actually have friends on here! Yes, I vote for them and I usually vote high because they are my friends because I admire their writing. It's my business what kind of writing I like and what votes I give for it, not anybody else's.

Plus, I give honest feedback on everybody's work, regardless. I usually boost good stories on my review blog, because it's my job is to identify good stories for people, so I give them a bit of love. I am harsher on Lien_Geller's thread in Story Feedback because that's not such a public site. (OK, I am still quite nice on there because I am a mum, LOL, and I don't like to slam people.)

I have given honest praise to sr71plt's work on my blog, even though it wasn't a safe sex story. I have edited Lovecraft68's work. I have given honest praise to the artist formerly known as JBJ in a previous FAWC, even though he didn't really enter the competition. I have given honest critique to many of my friends, because that's what friends are for.

Guys - that thread was aimed at WOMEN. It was not about PMs. It was about women being COERCED by men who got themselves into a position of influence by editing, and then hassled the WOMEN. It was to say: WOMEN: don't take that kind of bullshit. Just because you are writing erotica does not mean you are not a LADY entitled to courteous professional editing behaviour.

HandsInTheDark, where do you get off asking for proof of this behaviour? Are you a woman at risk of it? Are you a man at risk of hassling writers you edit for? Are you a therapist working with abused women?

Why do you have a problem with WOMEN talking to WOMEN on this board, to support them and say they should ignore and report problems they have with men hassling them?

If you think I am such a big problem on here, then you should just ignore me.

 

[Handley_Page]

Ms. Smith might be the mistress of manipulation. She launched this entire "unsafe" discussion with an ambiguous statement that may have been crafted to launch a larger discussion. That was the effect.

This forum is not a safe space, nor is it intended to be a safe space. It is supposed to be an adult space. Keep in mind that the only thing that keeps a 14-year old from being here is the "I'm over 18" confirmation on registration. That isn't much of a barrier.

Women who can be pressured into doing something like producing naked photos of themselves to have their story edited might not be the sharpest tools in the shed <shrug>. I thought that Ms Smith's point was that women who are faced with those or similar demands and don't like it should stand up for themselves and should be supported when they do it. I agree with that.

Maybe she should correct me.

Permit me to tell you a story.

Once upon a time there was a genuinely Clever Girl who studied and studied and learned and wrote essays about her chosen subject. Further research and even more odd-ball study into strange and esoteric stuff finally won her a Doctorate.

She was taken to lunch on the day she got her certificate by a senior bloke who knew, loved and understood the ways of the gourmand and promptly ordered a damned good meal. The waiter noted the order and said "And - for Miss"?

The Clever Girl looked sweetly at the waiter and said:
"That's Doctor Miss, thank you"


But, just for my understanding, tell me why the AH should not be considered a "Safe Place" - for anyone.
To my mind, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for ill-considered or bad behaviour. We (and I mean ALL users) should not have to put up with rude rants written in a rush [missing words, spelling errors, lack of logic].
Yes, we can press the "Ignore" button, but WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO ?

Is it no longer possible to have a relaxed discussion over matters of the day and the craft of writing without being rude and personal ?

 

[NaokoSmith]

just for my understanding, tell me why the AH should not be considered a "Safe Place" - for anyone.

Just for you, HP. AH may look safe on the surface but women on here get unsolicited explicit Private Messages. Women who come on here and don't even post, they read the threads here, sometimes get into a group off AH which they hope will be safer than the roughhouse which is AH. This can be like collecting all the little fish in a goldfish bowl for the kind of guy who is plausible, initially charming but who is only after 'one thing' .

There is nothing wrong with sending a PM saying 'How about it?' and that's very easy to ignore. Many women on here are extremely competent at presenting in a way that means we never get unsolicited PMs, and at dealing with them if we do get them.

However, drawing women into a situation where they feel safe and then gradually pressuring them to give you images of a sexual nature is a different matter.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

HandsInTheDark, where do you get off asking for proof of this behaviour?

You made a claim. I asked for proof. That exchange is the basis of all knowledge. I assume you don't have a problem with fact checking, because no honest person ever does.

Are you a woman at risk of it? Are you a man at risk of hassling writers you edit for? Are you a therapist working with abused women?

None of the above, though I spent a few years talking to abused women about their abuse (hardcore abuse like rape and incest, not teasing over the internet). But gender and profession have NOTHING to do with fact-checking a claim.

Why do you have a problem with WOMEN talking to WOMEN on this board, to support them and say they should ignore and report problems they have with men hassling them?

As written, this is innuendo, implying that I have something to gain by questioning your claim, that somehow it's better for me if women can be isolated from support. I think you'll find that's not the case. I haven't hit on anyone here. I posted this thread for two purposes - to give people a place to bring what you'd call abuse and I'd go as far as to call harassment into the open; and to fact check a claim.

These are both positive goals. You can't use innuendo to make it a negative one.

The one person who made the original claims - you, as I recall - could have used this thread to do positive good. You could have called out the instance or instances of what you claim happens. That's the point of this thread. I made that clear enough.

You didn't. I now consider your claim falsified. Unless you have reason to protect the harassers? But that's innuendo, and you're better at that than I am, so I withdraw the question.

The irony is, I get that men pester women all the time for sexual favors. As someone else here quoted, "If you don't ask you don't get", so men ask. Some men ask repeatedly and inappropriately and ask of everything that moves and has holes; it sucks to have a genetic calling and no off switch for it, and some guys handle it very poorly. But until it becomes abusive that's not a problem with a legislative solution (unless you want to put most men in jail for being male), as has been implied here. And online it's a problem with a definitive fix. To imply that women are too stupid or weak to click on the trivially available solution doesn't, I think, advance the cause of women especially well.

If you think I am such a big problem on here, then you should just ignore me.

Done. After all, I practice what I preach. This is an unusual case - usually I set Ignore on people who make a point of harassment; the sort of people who seem driven by hate and just can't not go on the offensive. But there are a few on the list who got there by making unsubstantiated claims and posting false information. Sadly, you've fallen into that category. It's a pity because I think you might have a positive motive for smearing around unsubstantiative claims. If you do indeed work with with abused women, you've seen cases of women who were permanently damaged by men, the women who don't recover from coercion. Enough of that and you start justifying doing more and more things to help. I know how just talking over the internet to a couple dozen abused women affected me, and I only did it for a a very few years.

But I take huge issue with exaggerating problems and posting lies for the greater good. I'll do you the courtesy of assuming you had the best of motivations for making false claims and maybe you really do think you can promote harmony by lying. But in my school of thought, manipulation of facts never leads to good. And it's just as likely you're driven by some sort of politically correct man-hating, and just happen to be bright enough and manipulative enough (your claim, not mine) to make it look like a holy crusade. Which doesn't matter to me. Either way, we're done. It pisses me off when people twist words that we need for more serious purposes, like coerce and unsafe (...and pedophile) for their own agendas.

Not that an OP has any say on where his thread goes, but as far as I'm concerned the thread has served its purpose. I'd ask that if it's going to be shut down, it be closed, not deleted. As I can see where NS might have motivation to cause this thread to be deleted - and she's bright enough to arrange it by baiting people into personal attack - I'd suggest people find some other thread to do attacks in. Thanks.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

To my mind, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for ill-considered or bad behaviour. We (and I mean ALL users) should not have to put up with rude rants written in a rush [missing words, spelling errors, lack of logic].
Yes, we can press the "Ignore" button, but WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO ?

Is it no longer possible to have a relaxed discussion over matters of the day and the craft of writing without being rude and personal ?

I agree there's no excuse for bad behaviour. But this is the world. In any large population there are people who don't behave well. It's why we build prisons. Imagine asking "why should we HAVE to build prisons? They are too expensive. People should just be nice!"

If you find a society where that sort of reasoning works, let me know. I *really* want to live there.

So there's my answer. You don't have to use Ignore, but it's a standard feature everywhere you go because people have recognised that jerkish behaviour, lying and harassment are endemic to the race. Maybe you're too nice to bother others, but we don't all live to your standards - and can't be asked to.

That's what some of you don't seem to get. Your opinion on what good behaviour should be is all very well. It might be ideal. You might be the gold standard when it comes to having opinions on how people should be. And let's all encourage others to at least consider better behaviour.

But there will always be the people who don't hold to your views - the people who aim to misbehave. And in a very real sense, that's their right. There's no law against being an asshole, and there CANNOT be, unless we want to mandate jail time for everyone alive. Because we're all the asshole sometimes.

So YOU have to take personal responsibility for managing your place in the real world, with real assholes in it. You can't fix the assholes. You really can't. So you have to be responsible for managing your interactions yourself and choosing who you associate with.

 

[sr71plt]

The waiter noted the order and said "And - for Miss"?

The Clever Girl looked sweetly at the waiter and said:
"That's Doctor Miss, thank you"

A. My wife would have stood up and kissed the waiter--she constantly complains about waiters (and waitresses too) sauntering up and asking, "What'll you guys have?"

B. Clever Girl was out of line and is a snob. There's no reason a waiter should be expected to know anyone at the table has a doctorate.

 

[sr71plt]

This is an open-membership porn site granting anonymity.

Women who come here and expect it to change for them to get a Good Housekeeping sign of approval shouldn't be coming to a porn site, because the change just isn't in the cards. And that doesn't mean that every man--or even most men--posting in here is hitting on anyone. It's insulting to suppose this by preaching demanded behavior to the AH.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

A. My wife would have stood up and kissed the waiter--she constantly complains about waiters sauntering up and asking, "What'll you guys have?"

B. Clever Girl was out of line and is a snob. There's no reason a waiter should be expected to know anyone at the table has a doctorate.

They're both snobs, no offense to your wife. "Guys" is a generic plural noun, just as male pronouns in general do double duty as genderless terms. I agree it's not ideal, but it's how it works.

As men continue to pay the tab and tip at most social gatherings (why isn't that that dead yet?) a waitress that thinks about it at all is probably most focused on pleasing the males at the table. But in any case I doubt harm was meant, and unless you're going to suggest to the waitress an alternative that doesn't sound weird, you aren't helping.

I use "folk" to get around it, but people tell me it sounds weird.

 

[Handley_Page]

B. Clever Girl was out of line and is a snob. There's no reason a waiter should be expected to know anyone at the table has a doctorate.

I rather suspect it was more a source of pride in achievement.
I suspect she may have got used to it by now; it was a while ago!