Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

That's not what I'm seeing here. The incident involving Ashley has been clarified (see adman's post above. It's clear there was inadequate communication here. Partly that's bad organisation, partly that the people affected chose not to report it in writing. That must be made easier- and strongly encouraged.

Re your second comment;- There may be several reasons women registrants are dramatically down since last year.
Money is scarce and perhaps women see TAM this year as unaffordable- ie there may be no connection with any rumours.
But if women are staying away because they feel TAM is unsafe, then either they feel that because they , personally felt unsafe (presumably last year, at the TAM with the largest female participation yet) or they feel that because someone has led them to feel that.
I doubt DJ Grothe did that.

Having read some of RW's output, I'd say DJG is probably correct that her comments have spread discomfort among potential women attendees. Whether that's why they are staying away, I don't know.
Perhaps someone might ask them?

Men ask women about anything but sex?!!

Grab gonads, turn all cave man.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Ignoring all context in pursuit of "opportunity" crosses the dignity line.

Agreed and conceded based on Checkmite's post. But, is that what happened here?

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Agreed and conceded based on Checkmite's post. But, is that what happened here?

Yes, yes it is. Thank you for asking.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

I wanted for a long time to go to a TAM, to see some of the fabulous speakers, and to mingle with like-minded people. And then the ************* of elevatorgate happened last year.....and suddenly I don't feel like I'm missing out on much by not going to TAM.

NOT because I'm afraid that some creepy dude will cold-proposition me in an elevator, and certainly not because I think the chance of that happening at TAM is any higher than that happening as I go about my daily routine. I'm certain that the chance of getting propositioned by creeps is a lot higher at the average biker bar, and I do think that a convention of skeptics and progressive thinkers should strive for something better than your average biker bar.

I can really only speak for myself, but I don't think women in this community were turned off because Rebecca Watson related one incident of creepiness. I was most decidedly turned off by the reaction of the greater/predominantly male community to Rebecca's recounting of this incident. She told a story and said, "Guys, don't do that."

For this, she was called overreactive, hypersensitive, shrill, hysterical, rape-accusatory, and all kinds of vile and ugly names that the autocensor won't let me use. She received real rape threats for saying, "Guys, don't do that." She has been extremely active in trying to get more women into this community, and as a leader in that movement, she's been asked, "Rebecca, what can we do to make women feel more welcome?" And when she tells them, she's called all kinds of names, and has now been singled out by JD Grothe for somehow making things worse when it comes to attracting women attendees.

So I ask myself, "Self, do you really want to hang out with people who seem to think it's funny when women tell about things that make them feel unsafe? Who think the proper response is to joke about it, call you hypersensitive, accuse you of being out to attack all manhood and to keep all people for all time from every being able to have sex ever because, omg, if somebody can't cold-proposition somebody in an elevator, how is he ever supposed to get laid? Do I want to be called hypersensitive, do I want to be grilled by other members of the community about my skeptical credentials when I say I'm getting a creepy vibe off somebody and can we please sit somewhere else in the auditorium? No, I can't always provide you with evidence, no I can't say with 100% certainty that the guy is predatory as opposed to just 'socially awkward,' but I can say that with in my experience in dealing with men for 40+ years, I sometimes have to go with my gut and act in a way that puts my own personal comfort level above some random dude's belief that he should be able to act however he wants toward whomever he wants because it's all about free speech and equal rights for all. So yeah, I get that some guys want to act like d*****bags, and that is totally their right. But they certainly don't have the right to make me stand around and watch, especially if I'm paying the same price for admission."


And frankly I don't care if somebody giving me a card of him and his wife naked and asking me to join them in a three-way fits any legal definition of harrassment. I really don't want to be on the receiving end of that type of disgusting behavior. And if by some chance I *AM* on the receiving end; if I tell you about it, I don't want to hear that it was a joke. I don't want to hear that *YOU* would find it flattering. I don't want to hear that it totally doesn't count as harrassment because a behavior stopped when I said "No." I don't want to hear that I don't respect the rights of polyamorous people to get laid by whatever means necessary. I don't want to hear that my reaction is any type of overreaction. If I tell you that I find it creepy, I need you to listen.


To sum up: Not attending is not about the off-chance that I'll be singled out for some sort of creepy behavior. It's about the dismissive response of a substantial portion of vocal men in the community when women decide to talk about their experiences. I don't have to have witnessed what happened specifically to Rebecca or Elyse or Ashley Miller. I have witnessed the ugly response. That's what's keeping me away.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

*You*, and only you, are what is keeping you away.

The strawman that the people here trying to sort out the facts in order to offer possible ways to address the situation are 'dismissive' and the conflation with 'real rape' and 'think it is funny', and the claim they are keeping you away is also... all you.

Reread the hilited.

You just dismissed her post.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Are you just making this up?

Where did I say the harasser makes the decision?

It must be offensive to the victim and to an RP to be illegal. It's an "and" there.

Since I predicted that you would simply resort to denial games, does this mean that I win the JREF $1Million?

So in addition to ignoring post #41, now you can ignore post #111, where *after* it was explained to you that the objective standard applied to the victim's perceptions, you glibly ignored reality and said:

"

Quote:

Thanks for the info-- I think we are on the same page, although in my mind, touching you on the elbow while asking you out is not harassment, even if you perceive me to be creepy.

"

BTW, I couldn't seem to find the citations on your publications... what were they again?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

But it does mean it is a little unfair for DJ to be blamed for not being aware of the full scale of the problem, especially since it was under his watch...

It's his responsibility to know. He should use his psychic powers.

So big deal, Bookitty and whoever else would rather make jokes about an incident while a known sexual predator is on the loose. I blame DJ.

I'd been meaning to mention the location of the event, city of sin, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Naturally, it fits in with the whole skeptical theme. Where else could you hold this conference? Cambridge, MA? No skeptics there.


---

GAME 101: If you want to get laid at one of these events you should be...

Famous. Have a name. It doesn't even matter (that much) if you're good-looking, women need to know who you are. There's a rather well-known study where very attractive men and women were enlisted for a study where they would essentially proposition members of the opposite sex around a college campus. Almost 70% of the men would have followed the attractive woman to her off campus apartment. Zero percent of the women would follow the guy.

Famous people are known, so there's some built in comfort. "People know this guy. Respect him." Men need respect like women need security. Famous man comes in with higher social status. He's (probably) not going to take you down to his rape dungeon.

If you're name's not on the program, and that's increasingly unlikely if almost half of the speakers are women, then you should be a recognized (if not ranking) member of some social network, probably stemming from this message-board. This network should include women. (Let them think you're a puppy when really you're a shark.)

For your first interaction with an XX do not ask any personal questions. None. Just make comments. Observations. Funny ones. Be funny. And TALL. Handsome also helps. Then, at the height of your interaction -- when she's laughing... LEAVE. Walk away. Go to your other friends. Have other friends. Just being seen with a semi-attractive woman earlier, and being non-needy, will make you more pleasant to the female race. Desperation is pussy-kryptonite. Repeat:

Desperation is pussy kryptonite. Frankly, I'm shocked -- shocked -- would not fall over themselves for intelligent, nice guys.

Also, since this is Vegas, hire out an escort (price probably depends on whether or not the rent's due). Bring her up to a party. Her name's Danielle. "She's a server here at the hotel." In fact, don't even attend TAM. Crash it. That's money you could have spent on escorts and cocaine.

If you're rich... then you be the one to throw the party. Hire out TWO escorts. Classy ones. The kind who look like dancers rather than servers.

If you have Asperger's... bring your favorite sock.

If you're smart then... go anywhere else.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And once again you utterly misstate the legal reality.

The victim *does* get to make that decision, not the transgressor, as you would like to pretend.

The harasser, the batterer, and even the date rapist can all imagine that they get to be the sole arbiter of when too far is too far... and that pretense can come back to bite them in the rear on occasion.

As I said--he don't get out into the real world much. Every Sexual Harassment Policy I've ever see has that as its basis.
And yes, I've seen several.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

As for things that make people uncomfortable, how about displays of homosexual affection? Is that sexual harassment, it is sexual and it makes some people distinctly uncomfortable, so how should we deal with men being seen canoodling?

Well I've got this orange and this apple now what I want to know is why the apple doesn't taste like the orange?

[Checkmite]

Oh yeah, it's in Vegas so men should reasonably expect to sex up any woman they choose; suggesting otherwise is offensive and unreasonable. Suggesting they use the services of escorts is also offensive and unreasonable because sex with hookers is bad, not like sex with good clean TAM hoes that you can wear to dinner as jewelry before dipping your wick and thinking about who you're going to hit up tomorrow.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I don't know if I am obsessed with Scotus' application. I just think it's reasonable, and so applying it here might give some leverage toward figuring out a fair solution. Reasonable people indeed disagree on when this stuff crosses the line. Why not at least consider using a logical framework that helps determine this?

I have an academic interest in the topic. I even have two pubs on it (that no one is reading). I link one below, because it further illustrates the point I am trying to make. Anyone bored enough to click the link should focus just on the tables:



I agree no one is obligated to go to TAM. I would hope though that the reason they offer for not attending (fear of safety) is genuine and not a pretext for the real reasons (power struggles; spite; attention-neediness...).

So you're really saying is that Rebecca is an attention junkie, drama queen, power hungry bitch.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So we need to ban aspie guys form attending? That will certainly lower attendance.

Odd, you keep responding to statements no one made.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But how am I to know who exactly will be interested, amused or skeeved out?

You see, this is where having social skills is valuable.

[Moss]

Do I also get to play at second guessing someone?
Not that it matters, but I'm not exactly sure if wild guesses at what the other side might be saying next is helping the discussion.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bookitty

So I go to TAM. Some douchenozzle who knows I'm married decides to hit on me in an elevator. I decide to tell the story without mentioning his name and while protecting his identify. Do I then deserve to receive daily rape threats? Seems a bit much.

Exactly, it's not what Rebeca said but the reaction to it that is causing concern.

Right in this thread we have posters defending the right of men to ask women for sex at any time and any place; because? well men will be men and have the urges.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Agree completely. Hot women get hit on lots more. Gay is mostly immutable in that I can't usually tell your sexual orientation just by looking at you. So, yeah, I'm more likely to hit on an attractive woman (risking she might be gay) than a non-attractive woman. I don't think that needs apology, given the equally vacuous traits that many-- not all-- ladies seem to screen on (you must be tall; I like my heels!).

Have you ever tried building a relationship with a woman instead of hitting on her?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Why over-dramatize the point? I never claimed this. I only claim that I have the right to approach / you have the right to reject. And, that this behavior is not unique to TAM.

Well that's as bald a statement of pure privilege as I've seen for a while.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Yes, really. By the author of a report on sexual harassment.

The mind, it boggles.

I didn't read the paper, was he for or against it?

(probably thought it was non existent unless the Supreme Court decided it.)

[TsarBomba]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Men approach for sex, a potential relationship, or both. Surely women consent or not for the same reasons. I guess I'm not claiming every horny man deserves his day (as I now realize based on your above comments), I just think that expressing sexual desire is not (a) always harassment, (b) something unique to TAM, (c) something that JREF must eliminate completely.

Oh for crying out loud. Have you never heard of "social convention"?

It is inappropriate to just proposition someone for sex at an event like TAM. If you have a pre-existing relationship where it is understood that you can do that, fine. Or if the other party has somehow expressed willingness, okay. But seriously, just propositioning someone for sex, like going up to someone you other than your girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other in the hallway and saying "let's have sex"? That is never appropriate. Never. It is something the JREF should want to eliminate, along with spitting in others' faces, physical assault, and theft.

I support DJ and think Rebecca is way out of line, but your position--as expressed in your post--is even more ridiculous than hers is, and I doubted that was possible.

Please, can't we stop being on the same side?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by qayak

Why? Vegas is known for hook-ups. What about all the people who go there for an opportunity at no strings attached sexual adventures, they don't want to waste time with niceties? That they go there for TAM as well is irrelevant. When in Rome do as the Romans.

Perhaps it is time to change the venue of TAM to somewhere more worthy of the asexual behaviour you expect from skeptics.

There are prostitutes for that.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Yes, I was legitimately harassed, and I had to fend off a guy who stated his intention to get my friend drunk enough to take to his room. All of the parties had been to several TAMs, I was warned about 2 of them.

So how do we block these people from coming back? That is crossing a line much more clearly than an awkward come on. Why not bring this up instead of the awkward come ones that take no for an answer?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

My point throughout is that it's wrong to call it harassment. You can not come for any reason, and I'm ok with that. To claim that one is not coming for safety reasons seems suspicious.

You think you know her motives better than she does?


How demeaning.

[hcmom]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

I wanted for a long time to go to a TAM, to see some of the fabulous speakers, and to mingle with like-minded people. And then the ************* of elevatorgate happened last year.....and suddenly I don't feel like I'm missing out on much by not going to TAM.

I haven't read the 5 gazillion posts that have happened since this morning, but you do know that the elevator incident wasn't at TAM, right?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Cain

It's his responsibility to know. He should use his psychic powers.

So big deal, Bookitty and whoever else would rather make jokes about an incident while a known sexual predator is on the loose. I blame DJ.

I'd been meaning to mention the location of the event, city of sin, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Naturally, it fits in with the whole skeptical theme. Where else could you hold this conference? Cambridge, MA? No skeptics there.


---

GAME 101: If you want to get laid at one of these events you should be...

Famous. Have a name. It doesn't even matter (that much) if you're good-looking, women need to know who you are. There's a rather well-known study where very attractive men and women were enlisted for a study where they would essentially proposition members of the opposite sex around a college campus. Almost 70% of the men would have followed the attractive woman to her off campus apartment. Zero percent of the women would follow the guy.

Famous people are known, so there's some built in comfort. "People know this guy. Respect him." Men need respect like women need security. Famous man comes in with higher social status. He's (probably) not going to take you down to his rape dungeon.

If you're name's not on the program, and that's increasingly unlikely if almost half of the speakers are women, then you should be a recognized (if not ranking) member of some social network, probably stemming from this message-board. This network should include women. (Let them think you're a puppy when really you're a shark.)

For your first interaction with an XX do not ask any personal questions. None. Just make comments. Observations. Funny ones. Be funny. And TALL. Handsome also helps. Then, at the height of your interaction -- when she's laughing... LEAVE. Walk away. Go to your other friends. Have other friends. Just being seen with a semi-attractive woman earlier, and being non-needy, will make you more pleasant to the female race. Desperation is pussy-kryptonite. Repeat:

Desperation is pussy kryptonite. Frankly, I'm shocked -- shocked -- would not fall over themselves for intelligent, nice guys.

Also, since this is Vegas, hire out an escort (price probably depends on whether or not the rent's due). Bring her up to a party. Her name's Danielle. "She's a server here at the hotel." In fact, don't even attend TAM. Crash it. That's money you could have spent on escorts and cocaine.

If you're rich... then you be the one to throw the party. Hire out TWO escorts. Classy ones. The kind who look like dancers rather than servers.

If you have Asperger's... bring your favorite sock.

If you're smart then... go anywhere else.

Was there any particular reason you hit the submit button on these random musings?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I'm sorry, but so much I'm seeing here tastes like that misogyny that so many people are saying Rebecca was over-exaggerating. The notion that women like to punish men for being male and/or socially awkward. That a rejection of an "awkward advance" isnt based on discomfort, but rather women judging the poor hopeful male to be "unworthy". The insistence that women who claim that strangers' propositioning them for sex would make them uncomfortable, would certainly agree instantly "if it was George Clooney". The idea that women would never have decided for themselves based on their own observations and reasoning capacity to not attend a TAM, but rather must've been "scared off by a feminist news article". All of these complete speculations simply stated and argued as axiomatic givens. I see it now.

Awkward come ons can work. And I am convinced that a very effective strategy to get people to do to bed with you is ask a lot of them. You will get shot down a vast majority of the time, but the game of numbers is in your favor that you will find someone who will think you are good enough for tonight.

Now there has been clear bias against semi anonymous or short term sex. In that regard some of the posters here are coming across as trying to tell other people what they should do.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Since I predicted that you would simply resort to denial games, does this mean that I win the JREF $1Million?

So in addition to ignoring post #41, now you can ignore post #111, where *after* it was explained to you that the objective standard applied to the victim's perceptions, you glibly ignored reality and said:

""

BTW, I couldn't seem to find the citations on your publications... what were they again?

We must not be on the same page. I indeed missed addressing your points, but I think I have made over 30 replies here, so it wasn't because I'm trying to hide.

The objective standard does *not* apply to the victim's perceptions. That's kinda why the victim's perceptions are labelled *subjectively* offensive by the supreme court. The RP criterion is the "objective" standard.

It's possible you are talking about battery (something that was an aside on page 1 here, so excuse me if we're miscommunicating) and I am talking about harassment. Beyond that, I don't know how else to clarify.

Here's an example (age harassment) where the victim's perceptions weren't enough to meet the objective standard, and so it wasn't harassment:

http://www.maricopa.edu/legal/dp/inbrief/ageharass.htm

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

Umm... I don't think the issue at hand has anything to do with 'E-Gate'. That incident didn't happen at TAM. The real issue here is how RW has reacted to a comment made by DJ which may or may not have been fair/unfair.

From my perspective, when you become an internet public personality of some reknown, particularly in a specific and active community, you better be willing to stand some heat. Sometimes strategies to deal with these situations include:

- Ignoring the whole thing.
- Calling the individual out on the comment in a public forum (live, in person)
- Writing an article on your own blog/various fora
- Calling for a boycott / publicly choosing to not participate in a specific event
- Picking up the phone and talking to the individual(s) involved and trying to find a common ground.

I think that RW in this case has chosen a strategy that I PERSONALLY would not have selected. There was/is probably a better way to handle the situation for everyone involved, in particular the 'community' as a whole. But its entirely in her right to do so.

Her not attending TAM will have absolutely zero effect on whether or not women feel safe(r) at TAM. Those who are guilty of the harassment (I genuinely believe, a very small subset of the larger group) will continue to operate, presumably on the smaller number of available targets. The terrorists win.

It will be positive, who will host the misogynistic parties with out her?

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by tsig

Was there any particular reason you hit the submit button on these random musings?

Is Cain.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

As I said--he don't get out into the real world much. Every Sexual Harassment Policy I've ever see has that as its basis.
And yes, I've seen several.

As a tenured prof of management, I'll defer to your experience, despite the fairly clear language in the supreme court's decision.

A company policy more strict than the legal standard seems fine by me, although I don't really like zero tolerance logic.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

We must not be on the same page. I indeed missed addressing your points, but I think I have made over 30 replies here, so it wasn't because I'm trying to hide.

The objective standard does *not* apply to the victim's perceptions. That's kinda why the victim's perceptions are labelled *subjectively* offensive by the supreme court. The RP criterion is the "objective" standard.

It's possible you are talking about battery (something that was an aside on page 1 here, so excuse me if we're miscommunicating) and I am talking about harassment. Beyond that, I don't know how else to clarify.

Here's an example (age harassment) where the victim's perceptions weren't enough to meet the objective standard, and so it wasn't harassment:

http://www.maricopa.edu/legal/dp/inbrief/ageharass.htm

Except it was:

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals found enough similarity between the Act and Title VII to hold that harassment based on age might constitute unlawful discrimination in the workplace.

It seems likely that the Sixth Circuit's rationale in Crawford will guide courts in other jurisdictions as they address claims of age harassment. In the meantime, employers will no doubt encourage supervisors to be sensitive to employees' age-related comments that could create a discriminatorily hostile environment.


You've been told this several times. Harassment is in the eyes of the victim.

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by hcmom

I haven't read the 5 gazillion posts that have happened since this morning, but you do know that the elevator incident wasn't at TAM, right?

Yes. But I've read the reactions to that incident from JREF forum posters, and it's the reactions that are keeping me away. I'm not worried about getting hit on by a stranger at an elevator, but I'm choosing not to spend time with people who are quicker to blame/dismiss women who speak out than give some consideration to the simple request of, "Guys, don't do that."

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by tsig

You see, this is where having social skills is valuable.

Social skills are all or none? Being rejected, then, by definition means one lacked the social skills to know better than try?

We should not try unless we're sure of success. Is this the safe zone standard?

What is the safe zone standard? What would an ideal tam look like from a feminist perspective (this should be a soft ball).

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by bookitty

And yet, you ignored when I specifically answered that point.

ETA: based on the research for your paper, when would it be appropriate for an office mate to hit on a new employee, on their first day, while in the elevator?

Work environment and social environment are two different things. Now depending on company policy and such and assuming that this person is not their in any way in charge of them, it is not necessarily wrong.

And of course a work environment is different because they will continue to see this person and not only see them for a weekend.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Awkward come ons can work. And I am convinced that a very effective strategy to get people to do to bed with you is ask a lot of them. You will get shot down a vast majority of the time, but the game of numbers is in your favor that you will find someone who will think you are good enough for tonight.

Now there has been clear bias against semi anonymous or short term sex. In that regard some of the posters here are coming across as trying to tell other people what they should do.

So an "effective strategy" risks alienating, discomforting or otherwise bothering a large number of strangers in hopes that you might find one who will be willing to bed you. Your boner is that important. So why not just hire a prostitute? You get sex, no one get bothered. Win/win!

ETA: Might I suggest, based on your vast majority of shot-downs, that you simply explain to all and sundry that you MUST get laid. Give women the option of contributing a dollar towards a call girl instead of dealing with your advances. You'll have the cash in no time

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

OT I know, but is this true? I've never been, but I've only heard of cheesy theatre shows, gambling, hookers and strippers as the 'attractions' of Vegas. Are there really large groups who go there for instant bunk ups with strangers?

They advertise based on it.

"what happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas". So the city itself promotes this sort of behavior.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Social skills are all or none? Being rejected, then, by definition means one lacked the social skills to know better than try?

We should not try unless we're sure of success. Is this the safe zone standard?

What is the safe zone standard? What would an ideal tam look like from a feminist perspective (this should be a soft ball).

Do you view every woman you meet as a possible sexual opportunity?

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Work environment and social environment are two different things. Now depending on company policy and such and assuming that this person is not their in any way in charge of them, it is not necessarily wrong.

And of course a work environment is different because they will continue to see this person and not only see them for a weekend.

Appropriate, no. Illegal, no. Harassment, no, unless he persisted after rejection.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

If you're going to stick with the legalese crap here (which is pointless, as there is no such animal at this type of convention) I remind you of the one thing they point out at all the workshops and such we have in the workplace: "Sexual Harassment is in the eyes of the harassed. If an individual considers an action or activity to be harassment, It Is Harassment. Quit doing it, or face disciplinary action"

So could someone then view being around homosexuals with any level of affection displayed as sexual harassment? It is behavior that makes some people decidedly uncomfortable after all.

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Awkward come ons can work. And I am convinced that a very effective strategy to get people to do to bed with you is ask a lot of them. You will get shot down a vast majority of the time, but the game of numbers is in your favor that you will find someone who will think you are good enough for tonight.

Now there has been clear bias against semi anonymous or short term sex. In that regard some of the posters here are coming across as trying to tell other people what they should do.

My only bias is choosing not to throw myself into that particular mix. If that's what's going on at TAM, I'm not going to participate. I don't go to swingers conventions or strip clubs or naturist camps or Jesus camps, because I don't want to hang out with those crowds. I'm not telling other people what they can or cannot do, but saying, "Oh, if that's what this is all about, I'll pass on the invite." If I want a quick hook-up, I can go to a club. If I want to hang out and share ideas with like-minded people, I'll hang out with my friends.

What exactly is the draw of TAM supposed to be, anyway?

[rwguinn]

I would recommend that more men start using the grey matter between their ears to reason with, rather than be led around by the blind eye..
But then, I was young and stupid once. Now, not so young...

[Skeptical Greg]

Never mind...