Japan's Comiket Prohibits Low-Angle Cosplay Photography

Japan's Comiket Prohibits Low-Angle Cosplay Photography

Comiket keeps creepy photographers away and asks that they always ask for permission to take someone's photo.

Last weekend, a large event in Japan known as Comiket - or Comic Market - enforced rules for cosplay and photography to keep cosplayers safe and advise photographers to be polite. Taking pictures at a low angle, or upskirt photos, is expressly forbidden.

Comiket also states photographers shouldn't be a "nuisance" when taking photos. This means photographers should politely ask for permission to take someone's photo and to avoid taking pictures of the same person for too long. Doing so starts to wade into creepy territory. Not to mention, Comiket asks photographers not to crowd around cosplayers.

This year, the Cosplay is Not Consent movement has grown in the United States since 2013. Signs at New York Comic Con in October were emblazoned with the white and red letters of "Cosplay Is Not Consent" and asked attendees to keep their hands to themselves and to ask before taking a picture as well as respecting people's right to refuse.

Cosplay Is Not Consent states just because someone is cosplaying it does not give anyone permission to touch them or take their picture. Geeks for CONsent, founded by former team members of HollabackPHILLY, collects stories of harassment at conventions and campaigns for conventions to enforce anti-harassment policies.

At Comiket, the new rule banning upskirt photos seems to have been followed, according to RocketNews24, which attended the event last weekend. While there is not a Cosplay is Not Consent movement in Japan, some events do advise photographers on proper behavior. Comiket reminded cosplayers to find staff members for help if they are uncomfortable.

An entirely different rule at Comiket for cosplayers specifically prohibits arriving or leaving the event in costume. This rule is much more common in Japan. Cosplayers register for Comiket and pay a small registration fee. They change in a dedicated area and have their picture taken in the cosplay area, but they are of course welcome to walk around Comiket in costume otherwise.

Source: Comiket (Japanese) via RocketNews24

Permalink

just to get it right.....
cosplayers have to pay more in japan, have to get dressed on lokation and even shoved into a cosplay area?
that doesnt seem right at all cO

syl3r:
just to get it right.....
cosplayers have to pay more in japan, have to get dressed on lokation and even shoved into a cosplay area?
that doesnt seem right at all cO

They can walk around the con in costume, but people are only allowed to take their picture in the cosplay area and only after they consent.

Good stuff. It's nice to see one of the biggest cons putting these rules into place. If they can do it, there's little reason why smaller cons can't follow suit.

This is probably a great idea. Have you seen how short those anime girl skirts are? Maybe if them tsundere would invest in a longer skirt, she wouldn't have to worry about the wind blowing it up!

In seriousness, this is good. Just because a cosplayer choses to dress up as a raunchy character doesn't give you the right to take wank material photos of them.

The cosplay situation/culture differs significantly between American and Japanese conventions, so these new Comiket rules are distinct from the "Cosplay is not Consent" movement. Comiket has long had an entrenched and tolerated common practice of up-skirt photos which was actively sought by many female cosplayers. The new rules seek to improve the reputation of Comiket as a whole by reigning in the outrageous (and consensual) pictures that emerge by the thousands every 6 months. These rules also bar the pervy shots which were wantonly encouraged by their female models. I'm sure there have been plenty of harassment complaints, but that was not the sole motivator for the Comiket rule change.

I'm totally on board with the push at American conventions to protect the personal space of cosplayers. Molestation shouldn't have a home in geek culture.

Well this sounds 100% fine to me. I went to a con earlier in the year dressed as Vega from street fighter, and was extremely pleased that everyone actually asked first to have my picture taken, so making it a hard rule seems like a great idea to me. As for the low angle stuff, I wasn't wearing a skirt so I can't comment on that for myself, but if you're having someone take your picture without asking, and then taking that sort of one? Must be incredibly uncomfortable to say the least.

Like Ryukage_sama mentioned, there is a 'gravure modeling' scene in these events and you could find on-street 'photoshoots' for the public where the girl takes particularly revealing poses for everyone.

I don't know much more to go into better details but a quick search shows that the low angles did not stop. Though, not sure if you would say anything when a crowd over 30 shows up.

On one hand I don't care to be photographed. On the other hand, I do not cosplay.

Yes, it should be common courtesy to ask permission before photographing someone and to not be a fucking creep, but if you dress up like that you should not be surprised when some less polite people take photographs of you without you giving the OK. I'm not talking about creepy photographs, just the regular, look at what this person wore kind of photos. I, for one, would be annoyed if people kept coming up and asking for my photograph. I'd at least not be annoyed by people taking photos as I passed. However, unless you take a photo of my while I'm sleeping I can't think of a way you could make it creepy. But I'm a guy so there's that.

That being said, I've no problem with these rules. They merely enforce what should be done anyway and will probably end up getting a few creeps thrown out of a convention. That's a win in my book.

This is an outrage!!!1 The whole event just lost any meaning to half the attendees1!!!!11

More seriously however, it's nice to see someone finally do something about what's probably the most disturbing aspect of such events.

Eh, seems kind of dumb and pointless to me, but if it really makes them feel better, I guess it can't hurt.

The touching thing is pretty shitty, but photos shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

All of these have been unwritten rules for years and considered general etiquette. I actually went to Comiket a few years ago and had all of these rules explained to me by a friend to make sure I didn't bother cosplayers unnecessarily. I suppose they've only just made it official etiquette then.

Now if only they could put rules in like this at Supanova Australia. I went in cosplay there once and decided to not go in costume the next day after getting sick of girls slapping my ass really hard all day long. I could care less if people took my photo without asking, I personally feel as though I consented to and encouraged that by showing up in costume. But girls, if you really must sexually assault guys in costume please remember the golden rule of ass slapping, tap don't slap.

This is a-okay with me. Cosplayers, men and women should be able to dress however they want without the fear that they will get secretly photographed in a pose or area they did not consent too. And it's also good people aren't making a ruckus out of it.

The horror stories about how lacking some people are with consent and personal space in regards to cosplayers at cons is astounding and it's time to crack down on it.

VanQ:
All of these have been unwritten rules for years and considered general etiquette. I actually went to Comiket a few years ago and had all of these rules explained to me by a friend to make sure I didn't bother cosplayers unnecessarily. I suppose they've only just made it official etiquette then.

Now if only they could put rules in like this at Supanova Australia. I went in cosplay there once and decided to not go in costume the next day after getting sick of girls slapping my ass really hard all day long. I could care less if people took my photo without asking, I personally feel as though I consented to and encouraged that by showing up in costume. But girls, if you really must sexually assault guys in costume please remember the golden rule of ass slapping, tap don't slap.

Eck man. I personally would of reported that shit. You didn't consent to getting ass slapped, and they did it hard. That would make me super grossed out. But like you said, you didn't go back there. Sounds like that place needs a crash course in basic etiquette.

The fact that no one is against this (nor will be, I imagine) makes me want to take the opportunity to remind us all of a recent Texas court ruling: https://news.vice.com/article/court-ruling-makes-taking-pictures-up-womens-skirts-legal-in-texas

(Do you feel progressive?)

Dragonbums:

VanQ:
All of these have been unwritten rules for years and considered general etiquette. I actually went to Comiket a few years ago and had all of these rules explained to me by a friend to make sure I didn't bother cosplayers unnecessarily. I suppose they've only just made it official etiquette then.

Now if only they could put rules in like this at Supanova Australia. I went in cosplay there once and decided to not go in costume the next day after getting sick of girls slapping my ass really hard all day long. I could care less if people took my photo without asking, I personally feel as though I consented to and encouraged that by showing up in costume. But girls, if you really must sexually assault guys in costume please remember the golden rule of ass slapping, tap don't slap.

Eck man. I personally would of reported that shit. You didn't consent to getting ass slapped, and they did it hard. That would make me super grossed out. But like you said, you didn't go back there. Sounds like that place needs a crash course in basic etiquette.

I've had a similar experience at a con once. I've been slapped with Yaoi Paddles on more than one occasion without my consent. And I fell down a flight of stairs due to being glomped. Again without my consent.

OK, this sounds good. Would decrease the amount of people doing bad things in cons.

I get the 'no touching' thing, but I think I'd be more annoyed about having people constantly come up and ask to take my photo than I would to just have them take my photo.

I get the upskirt photo part, but taking issue with someone just taking a normal, everyday picture seems sort of strange to me. 'It's ok for you to look at me dressed like this, but I don't want you to take my photo, because then you might look at me dressed like this again.'

Ihateregistering1:
I get the 'no touching' thing, but I think I'd be more annoyed about having people constantly come up and ask to take my photo than I would to just have them take my photo.

I get the upskirt photo part, but taking issue with someone just taking a normal, everyday picture seems sort of strange to me. 'It's ok for you to look at me dressed like this, but I don't want you to take my photo, because then you might look at me dressed like this again.'

It's more to prevent unknown ass shots, and shame shots. Not about taking pictures of con attendees doing con things.
Cos-play is not consent has an page talking about it
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/08/the-dummies-guide-to-cosplay.html
basicly it should be treated with a no harm caveat.

As usual I'll take the opposite side here..

To deter idiotic assumptions I'll just briefly rattle off my basic views: Don't be a dick/cunt, don't touch anyone inappropriately and don't be an attention whore.
If anyone is wondering about that last one, I mean don't be an obnoxious and intrusive person in general because you dressed up (regardless of gender). I don't care if you're Sailor Moon or Deadpool, fuck off.

This is preferential treatment and lets be honest, it's almost exclusively aimed at the female cosplayers (at least that's what I think and while I'm not exluding the possibility that men are intended to be protected as well, I'm not inclined to believe it).
Either way I don't like it, because it removes personal responsibility for drawing attention to yourself and absolves you of the consequences.

I'm sure some are already concluding that this is the same as slutshaming or limiting what people should wear and where, but that's not my point.

Wear whatever the hell you want; If you want to wear nothing but a c-string in public, be my guest.
Any illegal consequences that the wearer suffers thereof, should be punished according to law. Mitigating circumstances may apply as it's not a black and white world out there.

That being said, I do not believe that this is the correct way to handle the matter or to ensure the safety of cosplayers. I'd instead propose that they be informed of the risks involved, that there is a chance that someone may grope them, take inappropriate pictures of make lewd gestures/comments.
In accordance to proper decorum, certain things are not allowed and on-site staff is there to deal with any situation.
This does not mean that the rules need to be abolished, but perhaps relaxed to the point where all feel welcome/at ease, without sweating at the thought of breaking some rule by doing something innocent and getting thrown out face first.

-

Why I think it's a better alternative:

Thinking that this is a question of how things should be, is naive and has no place in the real world.

Everyone needs to learn personal responsibility. It's not about lecturing the person for doing something "wrong", it's about making sure that they know how to handle any situation, should it arise.
It promotes confidence over victimhood, which is healthier for the person in question.
(Edit; You could argue that you should teach people to respect others, which is a valid point. However, the reason I don't argue for this is due to sheer numbers of attendees vs. cosplayers. If everyone cosplayed it wouldn't be a problem because everyone would empathize with the situation.)

It does not lower the safety of cosplayers (I'd argue that it increases it) and it also respects all attendees.

Arranging these meetings is not hard to figure out. There are likely sex/porn conventions that have these things figured out and could recommend a security firm or bouncers with experience.

-

At this point I'm wondering if a con where cosplaying isn't allowed would be prefferable to some.
I'd certainly enjoy it more if I could freely take pictures without worrying about some bouncer kicking me out, because a cosplayer is on the edge of one of my shots.

Seems like just about the most reasonable thing in the world. Also, why the hell would people bother taking these "low-angle" photos to begin with? Does Japan not get deviantart or something?

Smilomaniac:
snip

Are you for real? So people should have to dress in accordance with what other people won't find sexually arousing if they want to be safe from sexual harassment? Honestly, why would you defend anyone's right to 'grope' another person?

Smilomaniac:

At this point I'm wondering if a con where cosplaying isn't allowed would be prefferable to some.
I'd certainly enjoy it more if I could freely take pictures without worrying about some bouncer kicking me out, because a cosplayer is on the edge of one of my shots.

Unless I'm mistaken, having a cosplayer on the edge of one of your shots isn't what is being prohibited, so I think your fine.

Olas:

Are you for real? So people should have to dress in accordance with what other people won't find sexually arousing if they want to be safe from sexual harassment?

You obviously just skimmed my post and picked at whatever offended you, without reading the rest.

Olas:
Honestly, why would you defend anyone's right to 'grope' another person?

I've bolded the relevant part for you to make it easier:

Smilomaniac:
To deter idiotic assumptions I'll just briefly rattle off my basic views: Don't be a dick/cunt, don't touch anyone inappropriately and don't be an attention whore.

Olas:

Smilomaniac:

At this point I'm wondering if a con where cosplaying isn't allowed would be prefferable to some.
I'd certainly enjoy it more if I could freely take pictures without worrying about some bouncer kicking me out, because a cosplayer is on the edge of one of my shots.

Unless I'm mistaken, having a cosplayer on the edge of one of your shots isn't what is being prohibited, so I think your fine.

The point is to have fun and relax, not to pander to oversensitive people so they can leave their home without getting hissy fits. In other words, I'd rather attend that kind of con than take any risk of being accused.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is becoming a thing of the past in this age of hysterical groupthink.

144:
The fact that no one is against this (nor will be, I imagine) makes me want to take the opportunity to remind us all of a recent Texas court ruling: https://news.vice.com/article/court-ruling-makes-taking-pictures-up-womens-skirts-legal-in-texas

(Do you feel progressive?)

Yeah....but it's Texas. That state is a whole nother level of backwards insane. Nobody is surprised by this anymore.

144:
The fact that no one is against this (nor will be, I imagine) makes me want to take the opportunity to remind us all of a recent Texas court ruling: https://news.vice.com/article/court-ruling-makes-taking-pictures-up-womens-skirts-legal-in-texas

(Do you feel progressive?)

That law was too broad to survive. Did you see what got it shot down? A guy taking pictures of kids swimming. Another case is a guy taking pictures of Cheerleaders at a football game. What do those have to do with upskirt photos (Which everyone agrees are abhorrent). The Texas lawmakers need to get their act together and make a law that prohibits upskirt photos without prohibiting perfectly normal uses of a camera.

How the hell do they enforce a rule about not being allowed to leave in cosplay? What happens if your normal clothes get fucked up for some reason while you're in costume?

Epicspoon:
How the hell do they enforce a rule about not being allowed to leave in cosplay? What happens if your normal clothes get fucked up for some reason while you're in costume?

Then I guess you're going home naked! Now shoo, the con is closed!

Smilomaniac:

Olas:

Are you for real? So people should have to dress in accordance with what other people won't find sexually arousing if they want to be safe from sexual harassment?

You obviously just skimmed my post and picked at whatever offended you, without reading the rest.

I didn't. I read the whole thing. Carefully. And trying to dodge criticism by talking down to me and assuming I don't know what you mean is a cheap, and somewhat rude tactic.

All your qualifiers and disclaimers don't change what your actual point is, which is that people who dress a certain way shouldn't expect to be free from treatment that many people would find offensive or uncomfortable. Am I wrong? You mentioned things like "don't be a dick/cunt" which I guess is better than nothing, but is vague and left up to one's own interpretation of what a dick/cunt actually is.

And for the record, I don't find any of your post "offensive", just concerning.

Smilomaniac:

Olas:
Honestly, why would you defend anyone's right to 'grope' another person?

I've bolded the relevant part for you to make it easier:

Smilomaniac:
To deter idiotic assumptions I'll just briefly rattle off my basic views: Don't be a dick/cunt, don't touch anyone inappropriately and don't be an attention whore.

[sarcasm]Thanks for making it easier[/sarcasm] but still you're relying on the vague and interpretive nature of what is "inappropriate". Anyway, if you're saying you're against "inappropriate" touching, then why not crystallize what you mean and and make an enforceable rule about it? Simply saying it's against your "basic views" is hardly going to stop someone else from doing it.

Olas:

Smilomaniac:

At this point I'm wondering if a con where cosplaying isn't allowed would be prefferable to some.
I'd certainly enjoy it more if I could freely take pictures without worrying about some bouncer kicking me out, because a cosplayer is on the edge of one of my shots.

Unless I'm mistaken, having a cosplayer on the edge of one of your shots isn't what is being prohibited, so I think your fine.

The point is to have fun and relax, not to pander to oversensitive people so they can leave their home without getting hissy fits. In other words, I'd rather attend that kind of con than take any risk of being accused.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is becoming a thing of the past in this age of hysterical groupthink.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider not wanting to be sexually harassed as "oversensative". It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. I don't see how these rules would prevent any normal person from having fun. The only way you seem to justify disliking them is painting these rules as some straw-man Orwellian nightmare, which I don't see at all. You seem to suggest that the rules would lead to innocent people being falsely incriminated, but that seems more like a presumption about how the rules will be enforced. Obviously I'm against false incrimination, but I don't think the solution is to remove the rules one could be accused of breaking, just make reasonable rules and enforce them properly.

Anyway, I'm not completely unsympathetic to people who might be concerned that this will make the atmosphere of cons more uptight. But if I weigh the desire for a relaxed atmosphere against the desire to not be harassed, the latter is going to take precedent every time.

Olas:
Anyway, I'm not completely unsympathetic to people who might be concerned that this will make the atmosphere of cons more uptight. But if I weigh the desire for a relaxed atmosphere against the desire to not be harassed, the latter is going to take precedent every time.

I'm terribly sorry for butting in and snipping a lot of your post.
I just wanted to address this single statement.

Whatever happened to innocent until guilty?
"he who gives up a little bit of liberty for security deserves neither"
Etc.
To condemn all people before they've performed the act that is against the rules is a little bit too slippery slopery (okay, not a word but..lets go with it)..

Anyone can be offended by anything and it will not stop with just prohibiting low camera angles.
What about shots from behind? or bust shots? or certain side-view shots?
Or the cosplayer might feel threatened by the shooter. S/He might be just a bit too close, or look a bit too long, or...
I think you see where I'm going.

What about establishing certain enclosed areas/rooms for cosplayers who want to show of or be more risque?

I don't know really..

Anyway, thanks for reading. I don't usually engage in the more political topics.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Olas:
Anyway, I'm not completely unsympathetic to people who might be concerned that this will make the atmosphere of cons more uptight. But if I weigh the desire for a relaxed atmosphere against the desire to not be harassed, the latter is going to take precedent every time.

I'm terribly sorry for butting in and snipping a lot of your post.
I just wanted to address this single statement.

Whatever happened to innocent until guilty?

Nothing. I agree that people should be innocent until proven guilty. Why do people assume I don't? And in scenarios involving pictures I'm pretty sure the photo itself is pretty good evidence to prove one innocent or guilty.

Admittedly I think it's a little unfair that the burden of proof always falls on the person claiming to be a victim, but I'd rather have that than convict people over unproven accusations.

Vendor-Lazarus:

"he who gives up a little bit of liberty for security deserves neither"
Etc.

Well that's a stupid quote and you shouldn't have used it to try and make your point. Obviously one has to try and balance freedom and security. We can disagree over how much weight to put on each, but to say any amount of freedom takes precedent over any amount of safety is ludicrous. Do you not believe in rules at all? Because any rule is basically sacrificing some freedom for some added safety.

Vendor-Lazarus:
To condemn all people before they've performed the act that is against the rules is a little bit too slippery slopery (okay, not a word but..lets go with it)..

Yes, agreed, only a madman would think otherwise. Where do you get the assumption that I would want to prejudge people before they've done anything?

Vendor-Lazarus:
Anyone can be offended by anything

This isn't a rule about offending people, it's a rule about specific behavior that a lot of people find offensive, or uncomfortable. My goal wouldn't be to create a utopia for everyone, just a convention that's considerably less shitty for a significant percentage of people.

Vendor-Lazarus:

and it will not stop with just prohibiting low camera angles.

Slippery slope argument. Prove that enforcing these rules will INEVITABLY lead to more and worse ones.

Vendor-Lazarus:
What about shots from behind? or bust shots? or certain side-view shots?

I would say anything visible from one's normal line of sight is fine. You're trying to make this complicated, but really it's not. People dress assuming they'll be seen from the front and back, if they make their busts visible from this angle then it's fine. It's only when you're on your knees or elbows taking pictures from a low angle, without asking the cos-player if it's okay, that it's a problem.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Or the cosplayer might feel threatened by the shooter. S/He might be just a bit too close, or look a bit too long, or...
I think you see where I'm going.

Ya, a straw-man argument.

I didn't realize rules about closeness, or longness were being debated. I would say probably a foot or two away is fine, and no following a person around like a stalker without some good reason.

You know, reasonable restrictions. And if a person isn't comfortable with the protection they offer it's their issue.

Vendor-Lazarus:
What about establishing certain enclosed areas/rooms for cosplayers who want to show of or be more risque?

Sounds like an interesting idea.

I'm also partial to the idea of people wearing stickers or something notifying people if there's anything in particular their uncomfortable with. The details of the rules are probably something best left to someone else. I just think it's ridiculous to be against any sort of rules protecting cosplayers from harassment.

Olas:
-snip-

Whoah..that was a lot more words than I expected. (And quotes)
Have to look up some fallacies as well, so I wont address them now.

I did probably read a bit too much into your statement, I did not mean to imply anything sinister about you.
I was just trying (ineffectually) to understand how you meant that fear of harassment should take precedent over people photographing cosplayers.
I was painting a picture of the scenario as I saw it, so that my meaning would come across better.
I will try to do better next time.

I wholeheartedly agree that people being rude and focus on doing panty-shots should be combated against, but prohibiting/banning people that take a "low-angle" photograph seems a bit too much for me.
Do not some of the cosplayers stand on podiums and the like?

I just wonder if there isn't another way, hence why I tossed out the enclosed area idea.

My apologies if I came across as anything other than sincere and honest.

Olas:

Smilomaniac:

Olas:

Are you for real? So people should have to dress in accordance with what other people won't find sexually arousing if they want to be safe from sexual harassment?

You obviously just skimmed my post and picked at whatever offended you, without reading the rest.

I didn't. I read the whole thing. Carefully. And trying to dodge criticism by talking down to me and assuming I don't know what you mean is a cheap, and somewhat rude tactic.

All your qualifiers and disclaimers don't change what your actual point is, which is that people who dress a certain way shouldn't expect to be free from treatment that many people would find offensive or uncomfortable. Am I wrong? You mentioned things like "don't be a dick/cunt" which I guess is better than nothing, but is vague and left up to one's own interpretation of what a dick/cunt actually is.

And for the record, I don't find any of your post "offensive", just concerning.

Asking someone whether they're "for real" and then assuming that they have a viewpoint that is clearly opposite of what was written, is not constructive criticism.

You are not entirely wrong; People who dress differently, in this case specifically for attention, should be prepared for certain situtaions.
Your assumption is that I'm saying that they deserve it, which is inane and unreasonable.

You may find my posts directed at you as rude and cheap, but I assure you that your response was no less frustrating to read.
So many people are shouting for equal treatment and are so busy judging others that they have no time to notice their own behaviour.
I believe you are one of these people, and I have no sympathy, courtesy or patience to spare for you.

Olas:

Smilomaniac:

Olas:
Honestly, why would you defend anyone's right to 'grope' another person?

I've bolded the relevant part for you to make it easier:

Smilomaniac:
To deter idiotic assumptions I'll just briefly rattle off my basic views: Don't be a dick/cunt, don't touch anyone inappropriately and don't be an attention whore.

[sarcasm]Thanks for making it easier[/sarcasm] but still you're relying on the vague and interpretive nature of what is "inappropriate". Anyway, if you're saying you're against "inappropriate" touching, then why not crystallize what you mean and and make an enforceable rule about it? Simply saying it's against your "basic views" is hardly going to stop someone else from doing it.

Why would I? The only fathomable reason that you'd ask such an oddly specific question is so that you could nitpick it apart.
I've already stated what could be done; Hire a security company as consultants, because they have the necessary experience in preparing a crash course or meeting.

It's not unreasonable if the intention is to protect people "at risk".

Olas:

Olas:

Smilomaniac:

At this point I'm wondering if a con where cosplaying isn't allowed would be prefferable to some.
I'd certainly enjoy it more if I could freely take pictures without worrying about some bouncer kicking me out, because a cosplayer is on the edge of one of my shots.

Unless I'm mistaken, having a cosplayer on the edge of one of your shots isn't what is being prohibited, so I think your fine.

The point is to have fun and relax, not to pander to oversensitive people so they can leave their home without getting hissy fits. In other words, I'd rather attend that kind of con than take any risk of being accused.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is becoming a thing of the past in this age of hysterical groupthink.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider not wanting to be sexually harassed as "oversensative". It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. I don't see how these rules would prevent any normal person from having fun. The only way you seem to justify disliking them is painting these rules as some straw-man Orwellian nightmare, which I don't see at all. You seem to suggest that the rules would lead to innocent people being falsely incriminated, but that seems more like a presumption about how the rules will be enforced. Obviously I'm against false incrimination, but I don't think the solution is to remove the rules one could be accused of breaking, just make reasonable rules and enforce them properly.

Anyway, I'm not completely unsympathetic to people who might be concerned that this will make the atmosphere of cons more uptight. But if I weigh the desire for a relaxed atmosphere against the desire to not be harassed, the latter is going to take precedent every time.

I don't think the rules aren't the end of the world, but they're effectively bubblewrapping cosplayers instead of being meaningful.

It's fine that you think one should take precedent, just leave room for the fact that not everyone agrees with you.
Try not to accuse me of "protecting harassers" if you can and do some critical thinking as to why I wrote what I did.

Now if only Animes themselves could make such rules about low angle shots.

Smilomaniac:

Olas:

Smilomaniac:

You obviously just skimmed my post and picked at whatever offended you, without reading the rest.

I didn't. I read the whole thing. Carefully. And trying to dodge criticism by talking down to me and assuming I don't know what you mean is a cheap, and somewhat rude tactic.

All your qualifiers and disclaimers don't change what your actual point is, which is that people who dress a certain way shouldn't expect to be free from treatment that many people would find offensive or uncomfortable. Am I wrong? You mentioned things like "don't be a dick/cunt" which I guess is better than nothing, but is vague and left up to one's own interpretation of what a dick/cunt actually is.

And for the record, I don't find any of your post "offensive", just concerning.

You are not entirely wrong; People who dress differently, in this case specifically for attention, should be prepared for certain situtaions.
Your assumption is that I'm saying that they deserve it, which is inane and unreasonable.

No that's not my assumption, where did I say that, ever? I don't think you believe they deserve it, just that you believe it's acceptable if it happens, or at least it's not unacceptable enough to actually enforce rules against it.

So if people want to avoid these "certain situations" they would therefore have to dress in a non-provocative manner, whatever it means to be non-provocative. That's what I said in my first reply to you, which you said was the result of me skimming over your post to find the parts that "offend" me.

I think people should be free to dress how they want, so long as it's appropriate for the con, without fear of sexual harassment as a result. I don't see how that's too much to ask.

Smilomaniac:
You may find my posts directed at you as rude and cheap, but I assure you that your response was no less frustrating to read.
So many people are shouting for equal treatment and are so busy judging others that they have no time to notice their own behaviour.
I believe you are one of these people, and I have no sympathy, courtesy or patience to spare for you.

I'm not asking for politeness, just that you take what I say seriously and not immediately draw a mental image of me. I don't

And I'm not passing judgement on you, just on the idea that you're arguing in favor of.

Smilomaniac:

Olas:

Smilomaniac:

I've bolded the relevant part for you to make it easier:

[sarcasm]Thanks for making it easier[/sarcasm] but still you're relying on the vague and interpretive nature of what is "inappropriate". Anyway, if you're saying you're against "inappropriate" touching, then why not crystallize what you mean and and make an enforceable rule about it? Simply saying it's against your "basic views" is hardly going to stop someone else from doing it.

Why would I? The only fathomable reason that you'd ask such an oddly specific question is so that you could nitpick it apart.
I've already stated what could be done; Hire a security company as consultants, because they have the necessary experience in preparing a crash course or meeting.

It's not unreasonable if the intention is to protect people "at risk".

I'm confused. How is my question oddly specific? It seems pretty central to the discussion to me. You say your against certain inappropriate behavior, but also want to allow people to have fun without fear of facing consequences for inappropriate behavior. The way I see it the best way to do that is to come up with simple, easy, but specific guidelines for what is or isn't okay and enforce them. Leaving it up to arbitrary distinctions like "don't be a dick" is bad for both cos-players and people wanting to interact with them. The cos-players have no idea what they're safe from and people wanting to interact with them don't know if what they're doing counts as being "a dick".

I know you probably think that people should just use common sense. I get that, and the "don't be a dick" clause is okay as a backup to your main set of rules so that people can't just find exceptions to them. But I'd rather have clear rules over unclear ones wherever possible.

Olas:

No that's not my assumption, where did I say that, ever? I don't think you believe they deserve it, just that you believe it's acceptable if it happens, or at least it's not unacceptable enough to actually enforce rules against it.

So if people want to avoid these "certain situations" they would therefore have to dress in a non-provocative manner, whatever it means to be non-provocative. That's what I said in my first reply to you, which you said was the result of me skimming over your post to find the parts that "offend" me.

I think people should be free to dress how they want, so long as it's appropriate for the con, without fear of sexual harassment as a result. I don't see how that's too much to ask.

It still wasn't constructive criticism and was emotionally laden enough to seem like you were taking offense at an assumption.

You seem to have grasped my point though, so I'm not sure why you asked to re-state what I wrote in the first place.

I agree that no person should ever fear anything, however it's an unrealistic goal to try to attain and that it's better to prepare people for the consequences.
Bubblewrapping peoples expectations of what they shouldn't have to suffer, does them no good.

I shouldn't get attacked for wearing a football shirt in an opposing teams favourite bar, but you know what? I'll probably get the shit kicked out of me despite what "shouldn't" be.
It's not a question of blaming the person for doing it anyway or even about comparing the two, it's only about what might happen and preparing the person in question for it.

Is it too much to ask people not to be irrational or behave a way that you might not agree with?
I think the answer is yes, it can be an unreasonable request in context, but not always in general.

Olas:

I'm not asking for politeness, just that you take what I say seriously and not immediately draw a mental image of me. I don't

And I'm not passing judgement on you, just on the idea that you're arguing in favor of.

Olas:

Are you for real?

Yeah, no judgement. No, I don't take you seriously.

Olas:
I'm confused. How is my question oddly specific? It seems pretty central to the discussion to me. You say your against certain inappropriate behavior, but also want to allow people to have fun without fear of facing consequences for inappropriate behavior. The way I see it the best way to do that is to come up with simple, easy, but specific guidelines for what is or isn't okay and enforce them. Leaving it up to arbitrary distinctions like "don't be a dick" is bad for both cos-players and people wanting to interact with them. The cos-players have no idea what they're safe from and people wanting to interact with them don't know if what they're doing counts as being "a dick".

I know you probably think that people should just use common sense. I get that, and the "don't be a dick" clause is okay as a backup to your main set of rules so that people can't just find exceptions to them. But I'd rather have clear rules over unclear ones wherever possible.

It's fucking obvious what you don't and what you do when approaching a stranger, but fine, I'll bite. If I see you nitpick over these despite the fact that I'm not a security consultant in this field, then I won't read it, much less respond.
You can't set rules for irrational or unreasonable people, because they'll break them anyway out of intention or ignorance, but you can prepare people who intentionally put themselves in a situation where they might experience something they don't want to.

Putting your arm around the shoulder or waist is at worst awkward, but obviously not intended sexual harassment.
How to respond: Politely ask the person to refrain from doing so or informing the person beforehand.
If the person is being particularly aggressive, remove yourself from the situation and contact security.

Grabbing a strangers ass, breasts, thighs or privates is obviously inappropriate behaviour.
How to respond: Immediately inform the person that it's inappropriate behaviour without exacerbating the situation (such as loudly accusing the person and screaming for security).
In case of this person being insistant and intent on inappropriate behaviour, remove yourself from the situation and contact security.
In case you receive an apology ("my hand slipped/costume got in the way") or whatever you may deem as sincere, go about your business.

Dealing with lewd comments:
Ignore them. Do not exacerbate the situation and report insistent behaviour to security.
It's not about being in the right, it's about not engaging in negative behaviour that may make the situation worse for you and others.

Dealing with photographers:
I don't get that a cosplayer would be bothered by someone taking a picture of them, not even "low angle" ones. If someone is sneaking a phone under your skirt, then by all means call security, everything else seems pointless to me to make a rule about.
I'm pretty sure though, that a security firm that's worked at a porn/sex convention would know exactly what to do though.

Never: Argue, insult or berate. Your pride is secondary to your safety. Engaging in negative behaviour is detrimental to it.

This is what I'd imagine being worthwhile recommending to a cosplayer, assuming this is a widespread enough problem that warrants it.
I get the feeling that actually dealing with your own issues would resolve almost, if not all problems at cons, rather than involving a third party to do it for you or trying to set rules that should be obvious anyway.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here