Should Firefighters be forced to particpate...

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

DARN IT, Mr X! You caught BOTH aspects of my argument that I hoped I could slide by you!

<<I thought flashing was its own form of assault, regardless of whatever else happens?>>

<<...this conversation... has a distinctly SEXIST tone to it.>>

Okay, okay. "Flashing" (indecent exposure) IS legally a form of sexual assault. And it's wrong. [Never mind that if a guy is randomly caught discretely and desperately peeing on a tree in the dark he is legally labeled a "sex offender". TOTALLY overboard, IMHO. But for another thread.]

But, yes, to me, part of the "severity" of indecent exposure is the threat it represents. It's wrong to flash your winkle, no matter what. But it seems significantly more wrong to me if the member in question is erect, if the unwilling witness is close-by, if there's the threat that the exposer will advance, if there's the threat of rape. If a guy flashes his limp [thing] from a passing car, the whole thing seems much less serious (and less criminal) to me.

And, yes, I'm being TOTALLY sexist in my reaction to this situation.

When women are sexually taunted by men, there's frequently the very real threat that they can be overpowered. (Because of the size differential and/or the status differential.)

There's also the whole cultural sexist thing. Men don't get naked in front of women; women don't get naked in front of men. [Or in front of each other. But for another thread.]

So if it were female firefighters riding on the truck and guys flashed their units, it would totally violate cultural norms. It still would pose no threat, and I personally would still say "No big deal" about it. But it would be oh-so-horrible, culturally.

But guys flashing [those things] to other guys?! C'mon. Where's the shock in that? The firefighters have seen more meat in their own bunkhouse. I just can't get worked up over how horrible it is for a straight guy to see a penis. Especially since that traumatized straight guy grew up seeing them in school locker rooms and then joined a profession in which he sees them after every hard day's work.

If these guys are whining about seeing [you know whats], they are total [you know whats].

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

Nice try, but still 3 naughty words.

It's gotta go!



(sorry, but this sort of thing just amuses me in a "South Park takes on censorship" sort of way.

 

Originally Posted By debtee

<Debtee, if a man came up to you on the street and exposed himself, would you not consider that matter of sexual assault?>

First of all these men were on a firetruck not walking down the street.

Secondly if a man were to do that to me, then yes I would not like it, however it's not worthy of a lawsuit for goodness sakes.

Sometimes these lines are blurred but you deal with things you don't like, not turn to the courts to compensate you.

I just don't see this incident as making the grade and I think it makes a mockery of the true sexual harrassment laws which are put in place to help real victims.

 

Originally Posted By ADMIN

<font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>

 

Originally Posted By debtee

<X, if this one gets the boot, you and I will just have to take it up privately. Mano a mano.
With grease.>

LMAO..you are a saucy minx inspector!

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

LOL! A "saucy minx"! I LOVE that! Thank you!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

I'm also a thoughtful guy who's trying to make a serious post here. But the fact that my post necessarily involves mentioning, uhhhh... anatomy... seems to have made it impossible for my post to stick.

Let me see if I can bland it down even farther but still maintain enough content to be able to comment on Darkbeer's and Mr X's posts...

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

Just substitute each and every reference with the word "hippopotamus"...that way it'll be "legal" AND entertaining.

 

Originally Posted By debtee

inspector!

<<Debtee, if a man came up to you on the street and exposed himself, would you not consider that matter of sexual assault?>

I have been thinking about what I really would do if this was done to me.

I have a mischevious personality and I can't help thinking I really would say a smart alec comment like " Is THAT it? No wonder you feel the need to flash! "

That doesn't mean I don't take what people are saying in this topic seriously and think about what they saying, I do.

I have a friend that was a policewoman (as it happens) she was sexually harrassed by some male policemen while at work in the workplace, her physical injuries put her in hospital for months.
Being at her court case was horrific for her, her family and her friends.

This is what these laws were put in place for..... not a bunch of firemen that had their feeling hurt!

 

Originally Posted By Admin

How about we just close the topic?

Continuing to repost this is just as bad as the trolls everyone complains about.

 

Originally Posted By ADMIN

<font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

Why? He was making a valid point (I don't really see why you erased the second one...I've seen far worse stay up including some nasty personal attacks and all that).

Seems to me that you just don't care for the topic, maybe?

Can't stop ya from closing it though, that's your perogative (I hope you don't though).

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

<<How about we just close the topic?

Continuing to repost this is just as bad as the trolls everyone complains about.>>

No. Absolutely not.

This is NOT a "troll" situation.

I never tried to take it over the edge. I was trying to make a legitimate post.

You Admin'd me, and I tried to clean it up. Of course, since you don't give clues as to why you delete posts, I didn't know what to change.

When it got to my THIRD try and you still admin'd me, it got to be a game.

The fact that you shut me down with no explanation is no reason to close the thread.

This is an interesting thread in which people are posting thoughtful comments. Please don't kill it because you won't explain why my post is not acceptable.

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57


I give up.

Darkbeer wins, thanks to Admin. I tried to express some thoughts, but that was unacceptable, apparently.

The official LP position is that firemen should not be in gay pride parades.

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with that final post, Inspector...nothing whatsoever.

It's obvious that whoever is behind the switch tonight just doesn't want this topic to be discussed. Since that's the end of story (we haven't received any further reply, yeah, I guess they might as well go ahead and shut it down.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

It's a cause parade, it is very sexually charged, and I think it really shows gay people to be obsessed with sexual matters, which is probably the opposite of what they actually want.

I think the average someone who doesn't care about gay rights that much who goes to one of these parades would be rather disturbed by a lot of the content. You also have things like the Folsom Street Fair in SF, and you know, what strikes you is that a lot of homosexuals are very sexually disturbed individuals.

It doesn't do you a lot of good when you promote behavior that everyone thinks is bizarre. It's not the sex act itself, it's everything that surrounds it.

 

Originally Posted By Lisann22

This is nuts.



<no pun intended>

 

Originally Posted By peeaanuut

the simple point is that they should not have been forced to participate. No matter what their beliefs.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

I did some checking with some HR and legal people who work for some cities.

These guys are unionized, and it's interesting to note they're choosing to sue rather than go through the union.

On duty firemen are sworn and have to follow orders. If their orders that day are to be in the parade, then they risk insubordination. If their station covers the area of the parade route, almost more so as they should show they support the community.

If they made their complaints known with sufficient time beforehand, it might have been prudent of the city to find others who would be in the parade. If eventually a trial is held over this and an appellate ruling made, whatever is decided will be a precedent. In the future, the city at a minimum should confer with the parade organizers about decorum along the parade route. If sufficient promises aren't made, the city fire department could abstain from participating.

Harassment is in the eye of the victim, but saying the city harassed them by forcing participation would be a very hard sell.

It helps the firemen not at all that the Thomas More Center is leading the charge here. If this goes further, expect charges to be made that the opportunistic legal center is merely using the firemen as props to further their own agenda.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

BTW, none of the firefighter statements presented does much for them at all. The one about shutting down companies is actually legit and what could happen if direct orders are refused. Why it's being presented as extraordinary suggests to me these guys didn't have much to do with their actual complaints and just signed what was put in front of them.

And again, police and fire rarely if ever do anything without going through their unions. I'd be very interested to know why there's been no mention of the union here. If these guys truly felt wronged, a grievance is the first thing they pursue, THEN later on try and get certified by EEO to sue, depending on outcomes along the way.

 

Originally Posted By peeaanuut

but this isnt an order being given to save a life or put out a fire. Its an order to support something that has nothing to do with being a fireman. There is an underlying political agenda of someone high up in the firemans association here and these guys were the poor saps that got stuck in the middle of it.

That is what should be being looked into. Misappropriation of funds and manpower.