# What Affirmative Consent Looks Like



## Faithful Wife

Not wanting to participate in the other thread anymore...but do want to discuss the topic of AC.

Someone mentioned that AC would require women to actually say "yes, I want to have sex with you".

I totally agree, this is what women will have to be able to say. If they are not feeling comfortable doing this, then why are they comfortable having sex at all? Gone are the days where you could just give a come hither glance and expect a man to know this means yes. We can't be like that anymore, because there is too much risk for misunderstanding.

All of the young people I know get this and have no problems just saying yes, including women.

A lot of the men who still protest the AC concept, grew up in a time when they were schooled by other men that the way to get into a woman's pants was by escalation. You keep pushing the envelope, she either keeps going along, or if she didn't want to any longer she was basically expected to sit up and slap you across the face for "crossing the line". Anything less than this was considered a soft yes, please keep pushing the boundaries.

And of course, some women did enjoy this type of escalation and did not want to just say "yes, I want to have sex with you". Partially this was because she would be considered a sl*t if she did so, so she had to wait for the guy to push her along rather than state her desires.

Also, sometimes she just didn't know if she wanted to or not until they got to the point of going for it.

Again...those days are gone. If people are adult enough to have sex, they are adult enough to use condoms and say "yes I want to have sex with you". Anyone not able to do this should wait until they are able to.

I personally am not following the debate surrounding the laws about AC, I am only in tune with the sex positive concept about it. Remember too, there was a time when people scoffed at the idea of wearing condoms. Now it is understood and accepted that you really need to wear one, for your protection and your partner's. The same is true for AC. It protects both of you.

In a marriage things are different and AC can look anyway you both want it to look.

Here's a great video by the lovely Laci Green about consent. This is stuff most young people easily understand and adopt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_CpIbhkZco

It is really mostly the older crowd who don't get it...and that is basically because their early sexual experiences were much different (and more secretive, shamed, and unaccepted by their elders) than the young people now are having.


----------



## BlueWoman

I love Laci Green. 

The issue of consent isn't one sided. Men were taught to be aggressive in terms of getting sex, but women were taught to play hard to get. It's a formula bound to cause confustion, frustration, and a great deal of pain.

Women are taught that they are supposed to be untouched and "pure." Even now, we have a section of the population that still wants to shame women for wanting and enjoying sex. 

But the reality is that we need to teach young women to say "yes" when they want it and "no" when they don't want it. They have to be taught that it's alright to yes as much as it's alright to say no. We have to take shame out of sex. At the same time we need to teach young men to ask and respect. Actuallly both genders should be learning both. Men should not feel pressured to have sex, because not having sex makes them appear weak, and young women, need to know that having a vagina does not mean that she is always the victim. To get rid of the rape culture, both parts have to be present in both genders.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BlueWoman said:


> Actuallly both genders should be learning both. Men should feel pressured to have sex, because not having sex makes them appear weak, and young women, need to know that having a vagina does not mean that she is always the victim. To get rid of the rape culture, both parts have to be present in both genders.


Right on.

Women need to be encouraged to own their sexuality, and men do as well...without being shamed about it. At the same time this education and encouragement should include giving them the agency to NOT want sex, as some want to remain celibate for their own reasons. They need to be able to own this as well, particularly boys, who are usually shamed if they do NOT want sex. That is just more shaming and doesn't help anyone.


----------



## GTdad

My concern is more of a professional one. I'm all for affirmative consent, but I'm not entirely sure what it looks like. Do we need to see confirmation of consent at various intervals during sex, or when something "new" is initiated? I'm also not sure how to deal with a situation where both parties are intoxicated, or maybe when only the man is intoxicated.

We deal with Title IX investigations all the time; that in itself is not a big deal. But if the California version of affirmative consent becomes the law of the land, there are some nuanced features of I what perceive is or could be required that are going to cause considerable fumbling on the part of universities. Those will get straightened out in time as is usually the case, but the process of learning from your mistakes necessarily will mean that some people are going to get screwed in the interim, and not in the good way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I had a woman say on a thread like this a TAM once that she didn't want to have to keep stopping and saying "yes" throughout a potentially sexual experience with a new person. She said this would be a turnoff to her.

That's fine, too. In that case, the woman would need to just say "please just keep going unless I stop you and say no". 

There are many ways a couple (even a couple together for the very first time) can make AC work for them in a way that keeps them in the mood and going forward. The point is, that woman who didn't want to be bothered to stop and keep saying yes along the way because it would kill her mood, still needs to take responsibility for herself and her actions by at least stating that he has a "yes" until he hears a no. It is no ok anymore to just expect a man to push your boundaries.

In some situations, there can be an agreement upfront that you WANT your boundaries pushed. This can be worked out, too...but you still have to be adult enough to own what you want and give consent for it.

Most men who have encountered women who know how to say yes no longer want to dink around with women who can't even say they want it. It is a game changer. I've heard from many men who simply won't even consider dating or having sex with women who can't give and enthusiastic yes. Either you want to have sex with me or you don't, be clear.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GTdad said:


> My concern is more of a professional one. I'm all for affirmative consent, but I'm not entirely sure what it looks like. Do we need to see confirmation of consent at various intervals during sex, or when something "new" is initiated? I'm also not sure how to deal with a situation where both parties are intoxicated, or maybe when only the man is intoxicated.


The video I posted gives a really great guideline for everything you just asked. There are many other videos and articles that line out the same. It really isn't that difficult, and the point is that it is on YOU to make sure the person you are trying to have sex with actually wants to have sex with you. If the person cannot state that they do, then move on.


----------



## soccermom2three

Thanks for posting that video, FW. I'm going to send it to my 20 year old and 17 year old.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> The video I posted gives a really great guideline for everything you just asked. There are many other videos and articles that line out the same. It really isn't that difficult, and the point is that it is on YOU to make sure the person you are trying to have sex with actually wants to have sex with you. If the person cannot state that they do, then move on.


I haven't seen it, and it may offer some parameters. The real question, though, is whether the courts will agree with those parameters when the Title IX/retaliation suit and the suit for violations of due process come down the pike.

Like I said, it will get sorted out in time, but I see (yet more) headaches coming as we try to wrap out arms around this.

But understand my gripes are about execution and not the underlying sentiment and philosophy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

My only focus is on changing the mindset of people who are sexually active to a sex positive culture (which always implies good AC practices, as well as acceptance of our sexuality). I believe if we do that, rape culture will not exist. Rape would still exist, and so would assault, etc. I do not actually believe AC (as a concept and practice) will eliminate rape. I don't think it can be eliminated, actually, but hopefully, the numbers could get lowered over time. 

The vast majority of adult sex that is had in the world is consensual. So let's just make it a new normal that you need to express your consent in whatever way is necessary depending on your situation. For instance, kids who are boyfriend and girlfriend and love each other and having sex don't typically have to worry about these gray areas anymore. The AC concept doesn't need to be drummed and pounded between couples who are having consensual sex regularly.

In my relationship, we have each other's blanket consent and we take each other freely. Yet when we met, we talked about everything first. Talking about those things before we did them was sexy.


----------



## BlueWoman

GTdad said:


> I haven't seen it, and it may offer some parameters. The real question, though, is whether the courts will agree with those parameters when the Title IX/retaliation suit and the suit for violations of due process come down the pike.


Issue of semantics for me. It's not the "real" question. It's just one of many questions dealing with sexual behavior between two people. 

And since many sexual assaults go unreported and so don't ever enter the legal system, this might not even be the most important question. 


But it's not an unimportant one, either. Corporations and governments do need strict guidelines. But it gets messy when dealing with people, and I agree with Faithful Wife, if you are not ready to say yes or not, you are not ready for sex.


----------



## GTdad

BlueWoman said:


> Issue of semantics for me. It's not the "real" question.


It's the real question for me, personally, because I'm one of the folks who deal with these complaints. 

The less vagueness and ambiguity, the better for everyone.


----------



## techmom

As I stated in the other thread, the only men who feel threatened by AC are those who never experience being lusted over and highly desired by a woman. The men who do experience this don't have any problem with AC. Affirmative consent is very clear between 2 consenting adults who are lusting for one another.

The rest of the population only experienced a "maybe". As FW stated, men who experience high desire women who are lusting after them don't even bother with women who are not totally into them. It would be a waste of time when they have so many others who are clearly into them. So these men can't even fathom as to why some men would push and push.


----------



## techmom

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's a great video by the lovely Laci Green about consent. This is stuff most young people easily understand and adopt.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_CpIbhkZco


Laci Green rocks!!!



> It is really mostly the older crowd who don't get it...and that is basically because their early sexual experiences were much different (and more secretive, shamed, and unaccepted by their elders) than the young people now are having.


This is another reason why it is so difficult for some to grasp this concept, sexual shaming. Religion also plays a huge part in making sex seem "bad" and "sinful". Hopefully the younger generation and sexually liberated older people will change the culture.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> As I stated in the other thread, the only men who feel threatened by AC are those who never experience being lusted over and highly desired by a woman. The men who do experience this don't have any problem with AC. Affirmative consent is very clear between 2 consenting adults who are lusting for one another.
> 
> The rest of the population only experienced a "maybe". As FW stated, men who experience high desire women who are lusting after them don't even bother with women who are not totally into them. It would be a waste of time when they have so many others who are clearly into them. So these men can't even fathom as to why some men would push and push.


Right, so only about 80% of the male population is affected, namely the ones that women don't lust after. Therefore it's not a problem!


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Right, so only about 80% of the male population is affected, namely the ones that women don't lust after. Therefore it's not a problem!


Are you saying that 80% of the men never experienced lust from a woman? Never experienced a woman wanting to have sex with them enthusiastically? Really?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Are you saying that 80% of the men never experienced lust from a woman? Never experienced a woman wanting to have sex with them enthusiastically? Really?


Yes.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Yes.


I need you to cite the source of this information before we can move forward, because from where I sit most men experience enthusiastic sex at least once in their lives. This is deprivation thinking, and it is hindering our progress into a more sexually open society because some men think that they will never have a woman want them in this way. Thus, they become bitter and hinder the younger generation's maturity.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> I need you to cite the source of this information before we can move forward, because from where I sit most men experience enthusiastic sex at least once in their lives. This is deprivation thinking, and it is hindering our progress into a more sexually open society because some men think that they will never have a woman want them in this way. Thus, they become bitter and hinder the younger generation's maturity.


Ok, let's suppose that most men do experience enthusiastic sex at least once in their lives. Is that enough to negate the problems with "affirmative consent" all the times that a woman isn't as enthusiastic? I can't think of very many things that I'm always enthusiastic about, even if I like them in general.

And since you acknowledge that some men think that they will never have a woman want them in that way, *why* do they think that? Could it be that they have not had that experience themselves? If that is true, what can be done about it?


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Someone mentioned that AC would require women to actually say "yes, I want to have sex with you".
> 
> I totally agree, this is what women will have to be able to say. If they are not feeling comfortable doing this, then why are they comfortable having sex at all?


So this is what all this AC stuff is about eh? Looks like I'll have to disagree - if you are saying we men should have to ask for permission all the time as the only acceptable standard.

Never asked for sex in my life and I even discourage it in the sex-in-marriage section. For obvious reasons, as it's a pathetic way to approach and romance a woman.



> Gone are the days where you could just give a come hither glance and expect a man to know this means yes. We can't be like that anymore, because there is too much risk for misunderstanding.


So, by such a statement you have officially declared 50% of humanity as clueless, unempathetic, insensitive folks incapable of understanding 93% of human communication:












> All of the young people I know get this and have no problems just saying yes, including women.


Well I have a problem with your post!

We're not all fking idiots that can't take a hint.


----------



## techmom

Another thing I wanted to add is this, men with deprivation thinking believe that just because they couldn't get the hot, beautiful girl to lust after them means that NO GIRL OR WOMAN will lust after them. Ignoring the other women who may be interested while they chase after the so-called cream of the crop. This only causes them to be hurt.

Dating people who have similar interests and are into you just doesn't click with these types of men. PUA sites target men like this who want the hot chick to boost their ego while they are totally incompatible in every way. This is also how most sexless marriages are made.

Consent can be possible if both genders go for the people who they are highly compatible with. Affirmative consent will be the guiding post towards this.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Ok, let's suppose that most men do experience enthusiastic sex at least once in their lives. Is that enough to negate the problems with "affirmative consent" all the times that a woman isn't as enthusiastic? I can't think of very many things that I'm always enthusiastic about, even if I like them in general.
> 
> And since you acknowledge that some men think that they will never have a woman want them in that way, *why* do they think that? Could it be that they have not had that experience themselves? If that is true, what can be done about it?


Change of the negative attitude will be most helpful. Also, stop viewing women as sex gatekeepers, women are also HD and we do enjoy sex. Holding hostile opinions of women does not help either, we can smell that a mile away and it reeks.


----------



## techmom

> We're not all fking idiots that can't take a hint.


Ok, so what is the problem with affirmative consent, because it is pretty cut and dry, right?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Change of the negative attitude will be most helpful. Also, stop viewing women as sex gatekeepers, women are also HD and we do enjoy sex. Holding hostile opinions of women does not help either, we can smell that a mile away and it reeks.


So in other words, if I'm understanding you, it's all on men to change this; women don't have to do anything.

Is that right?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Another thing I wanted to add is this, men with deprivation thinking believe that just because they couldn't get the hot, beautiful girl to lust after them means that NO GIRL OR WOMAN will lust after them. Ignoring the other women who may be interested while they chase after the so-called cream of the crop. This only causes them to be hurt.
> 
> Dating people who have similar interests and are into you just doesn't click with these types of men. PUA sites target men like this who want the hot chick to boost their ego while they are totally incompatible in every way. This is also how most sexless marriages are made.
> 
> Consent can be possible if both genders go for the people who they are highly compatible with. Affirmative consent will be the guiding post towards this.


Since you are a woman, men will lust after you, unless you are hideously ugly. This is not true for most men, who don't have *anyone* lusting after them.


----------



## RandomDude

techmom said:


> Ok, so what is the problem with affirmative consent, because it is pretty cut and dry, right?


If affirmative consent is what FW described in her OP, I already answered your question.


----------



## techmom

techmom said:


> I need you to cite the source of this information before we can move forward, because from where I sit most men experience enthusiastic sex at least once in their lives. This is deprivation thinking, and it is hindering our progress into a more sexually open society because some men think that they will never have a woman want them in this way. Thus, they become bitter and hinder the younger generation's maturity.


The "80% of men" statement needs to stop, because I have yet to see a source of this information.


----------



## tom67

Finally a judge with half a brain big precedent.
Student Wrongfully Expelled for Rape Triumphs in Court: Due Process Beats 'Yes Means Yes' - Hit & Run : Reason.com


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Since you are a woman, men will lust after you, unless you are hideously ugly. This is not true for most men, who don't have *anyone* lusting after them.


How do you know what MOST men experience in their lives?


----------



## techmom

RandomDude said:


> If affirmative consent is what FW described in her OP, I already answered your question.


Did you care to view the video in the OP, because it clearly states what affirmative consent is.


----------



## RandomDude

techmom said:


> Did you care to view the video in the OP, because it clearly states what affirmative consent is.


It's just like the OP, asking for sex/kiss as the only acceptable standard WTF?!

What do you not understand about my answer?


----------



## techmom

tom67 said:


> Finally a judge with half a brain big precedent.
> Student Wrongfully Expelled for Rape Triumphs in Court: Due Process Beats 'Yes Means Yes' - Hit & Run : Reason.com


According to the case, the girl had become sick in the bathroom from being drunk and he still had sex with her. If the accused would have used half of his brain and avoided sex with her he would have not gotten into that mess in the first place.

Boys need to learn not to have sex with drunken girls right after they were sick in the bathroom.


----------



## OnTheFly

techmom said:


> According to the case, the girl had become sick in the bathroom from being drunk and he still had sex with her. If the accused would have used half of his brain and avoided sex with her he would have not gotten into that mess in the first place.
> 
> Boys need to learn not to have sex with drunken girls right after they were sick in the bathroom. :rollseyes:


Bad manners, perhaps, but not rape.


----------



## techmom

OnTheFly said:


> Bad manners, perhaps, but not rape.


Yes it was rape, the girl was not in the condition to give consent. The boy was lucky to find a sympathetic judge, the college was correct in expelling him.


----------



## OnTheFly

techmom said:


> Yes it was rape, the girl was not in the condition to give consent. The boy was lucky to find a sympathetic judge, the college was correct in expelling him.


That cursed Patriarchy again…..oops, woman judge.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## tom67

techmom said:


> Yes it was rape, the girl was not in the condition to give consent. The boy was lucky to find a sympathetic judge, the college was correct in expelling him.


Eh just read the black parts next time my dear:smile2:

A week after the incident, Morris told Mock that she had not given consent. Three months later, she formally accused him of raping her.

Nope not buying what she is selling.


----------



## techmom

For the record, there are some women who feel that just because a female is drunk it justifies rape. These women tend to be conservative, sympathetic to men and hostile to other women who act in so-called "unladylike" manners. 

Just like there are "white knights" amongst the men, we have these women. The judge in this case might have been one of these women, which is why I stated she was sympathetic to the boy.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> For the record, there are some women who feel that just because a female is drunk it justifies rape. These women tend to be conservative, sympathetic to men and hostile to other women who act in so-called "unladylike" manners.
> 
> Just like there are "white knights" amongst the men, we have these women. The judge in this case might have been one of these women, which is why I stated she was sympathetic to the boy.


What if they were both drunk? Then would they both be raping each other?


----------



## always_alone

techmom said:


> How do you know what MOST men experience in their lives?


Not to mention what he also assumes about most women --which is also false.


----------



## techmom

tom67 said:


> Eh just read the black parts next time my dear:smile2:
> 
> A week after the incident, Morris told Mock that she had not given consent. Three months later, she formally accused him of raping her.
> 
> Nope not buying what she is selling.


Main question is, was she in the condition to give consent? Or did a non-answer or silence equal a yes?


----------



## RandomDude

Seriously you ladies are shocking in this thread, are you reading what you are posting?

I also still haven't heard a counter to my argument on the previous page. I'm in honest disbelief that you find it's acceptable to hold such sexist views and double standards against men.


----------



## techmom

Personal said:


> Saying yes applies to men like women as well, since there are lots of women including young ones who are not shy about coming forward. For example it's not unheard of for a woman to ask a man out on a date, take them home or elsewhere and want to or attempt to have sex with that man.


I agree with this, but for whatever reason it is believed by some that 80% of men do not experience this, so this would only apply to the remaining 20% percent....


----------



## tom67

techmom said:


> Main question is, was she in the condition to give consent? Or did a non-answer or silence equal a yes?


Like tech said what if the BOTH were drunk the guy is the only one accountable??
there is a big twitter account called #dateoffcampus
Cases like this is why.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Seriously you ladies are shocking in this thread, are you reading what you are posting?
> 
> I also still haven't heard a counter to my argument on the previous page. I'm in honest disbelief that you find it's acceptable to hold such sexist views and double standards against men.


What double standard? Affirmative consent applies to both men and women. And the reason it's important is that people can't always take a hint, and don't always read each other correctly.

I mean, right here on this thread we've had someone saying that having sex with someone who is so drunk they're barfing in the bath room is nothing more then "bad manners."

Apparently consent isn't anywhere near as clear cut as some would like to imagine.


----------



## techmom

RandomDude said:


> Seriously you ladies are shocking in this thread, are you reading what you are posting?
> 
> I also still haven't heard a counter to my argument on the previous page. I'm in honest disbelief that you find it's acceptable to hold such sexist views and double standards against men.


Well, my argument is that affirmative consent looks like what is in the Laci Green video, if something seems off about the lady then you ASK THE QUESTION "are you ok with this" "how does this feel to you". If you don't get an answer then stop and say something like "you are not responding to me and you look like you are not enjoying this, do you want to stop?"

Simple to execute, and no scary woman will accuse you of rape later.

Really


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> What if they were both drunk? Then would they both be raping each other?


Well, since only 20% of men experience enthusiastic sex frequently enough as to not become deprived, this would not be a huge factor, no?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Well, since only 20% of men experience enthusiastic sex frequently enough as to not become deprived, this would not be a huge factor, no?


No. If the woman isn't enthusiastic, she can retroactively decide that she was raped, which is the whole problem with "affirmative consent". So the 20% with whom women are enthusiastic are the ones who are the least likely to be accused of rape, whereas the other 80% are much more likely to be accused.


----------



## anonmd

No problem with what is written below. It is most everything else in this thread. 

I must be a dinosaur, before marriage I never once asked for permission with words, not once. I did follow what is written. No one was ever the least bit unhappy.

After marriage? Lot's of affirmative declining :surprise:

On the other hand, if I was single again I could see adopting the policy at the beginning of relationships. But the new incredibly broad definition of rape and assault is frankly offensive. Feel free to pile on :wink2:



techmom said:


> Well, my argument is that affirmative consent looks like what is in the Laci Green video, if something seems off about the lady then you ASK THE QUESTION "are you ok with this" "how does this feel to you". If you don't get an answer then stop and say something like "you are not responding to me and you look like you are not enjoying this, do you want to stop?"
> 
> Simple to execute, and no scary woman will accuse you of rape later.
> 
> Really


----------



## Mr. Nail

techmom said:


> Are you saying that 80% of the men never experienced lust from a woman? Never experienced a woman wanting to have sex with them enthusiastically? Really?


Off the top of my Head I would say he is within 15%


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> No. If the woman isn't enthusiastic, she can retroactively decide that she was raped, which is the whole problem with "affirmative consent". So the 20% with whom women are enthusiastic are the ones who are the least likely to be accused of rape, whereas the other 80% are much more likely to be accused.


Ok, then just have sex with enthusiastic women.

Problem solved:smile2:


----------



## anonmd

The 80% thing seems like a red herring to me. Come on gentlemen, 80% of men may never have a women he's never met "lust after him" as he walks down the street. Count me amongst that group . But I've managed just fine, thank you very much, to attract a handful of women in my life. 

They all provided sex with enthusiasm after some period of time. I think most of us manage ok!


----------



## techmom

anonmd said:


> The 80% thing seems like a red herring to me. Come on gentlemen, 80% of men may never have a women he's never met "lust after him" as he walks down the street. Count me amongst that group . But I've managed just fine, thank you very much, to attract a handful of women in my life.
> 
> They all provided sex with enthusiasm after some period of time. I think most of us manage ok!


Thank you...thank you....


----------



## techmom

There are too many high desire women in the world who love sex and enjoy it with enthusiasm, why would you want to limit yourself to the ladies who you have to coerce to make them want sex? What's the issue?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> There are too many high desire women in the world who love sex and enjoy it with enthusiasm, why would you want to limit yourself to the ladies who you have to coerce to make them want sex? What's the issue?


The issue is, again, that most men never, or at best almost never, have a woman enthusiastic to have sex with *them*, although the same woman may be quite enthusiastic to have sex with *someone else*. Thus, this rule condemns those men pretty much never to have sex.

Is this okay with you?


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> The issue is, again, that most men never, or at best almost never, have a woman enthusiastic to have sex with *them*, although the same woman may be quite enthusiastic to have sex with *someone else*. Thus, this rule condemns those men pretty much never to have sex.
> 
> Is this okay with you?


You keep spouting this nonsense about "most men", again I ask, where is the research to back this up?


----------



## techmom

Personal said:


> Affirmative consent as an approach has been the norm for all of my sexual experience so I can't say I feel threatened by the concept. As it stands I've never been inclined to push and push wth any woman (if she's not interested someone else certainly is). I have simply never felt it was worth my effort to bother with any woman sexually that was anything less than lustfully enthusiastic. If I need to persuade or convince someone that they ought to have sex with me, it's fair to presume they probably aren't that interested in having sex with me.


This is exactly my point, most men do experience this. Most men in my life have been lusted over, I have never experienced negative attitudes such as is posted on TAM.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> You keep spouting this nonsense about "most men", again I ask, where is the research to back this up?


Never mind, I see you have known mostly alpha males. So I can see why you don't understand the world that most men live in.


----------



## soccermom2three

After reading some of the posts on this thread and the other thread, I'm scared for my 20 year old daughter and her friends.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Never mind, I see you have known mostly alpha males. So I can see why you don't understand the world that most men live in.


Wow, ok so you don't have any research to back up your statements.

Fine then


----------



## tom67

technovelist said:


> The issue is, again, that most men never, or at best almost never, have a woman enthusiastic to have sex with *them*, although the same woman may be quite enthusiastic to have sex with *someone else*. Thus, this rule condemns those men pretty much never to have sex.
> 
> Is this okay with you?


Stop that hypergamy you bastage.:wink2:


----------



## Centurions

Greetings!

Well, while the "rape culture hysteria" is fairly recent, I suspect much of this nonsense sweeping our universities and college campuses are largely politically and ideologically driven, in particular cases of such rape that is supported and *proven* in a court of law--as opposed to some kangaroo court drummed up by college "women's studies" departments, it does make me wonder about such genuine incidences;

Not so long ago when I attended college, we had to watch videos on "no means no" and gibbering about "date rape". I found it all to be tediously cartoonish, and a pretty pathetic profile of both young men and women.

On one hand, stupid drunk ****s partying with strangers they seldom know, getting so hammered they can't walk, and them laying about semi-conscious in hallways, strange bedrooms, or in cars of people they only vaguely know. When did young *adult* women become so stupid, careless, and irresponsible?

On the other hand, we have such young *adult* males that are so stupid and such ill mannered idiots that they cannot comprehend a girl saying "no" or voicing some apprehension? Or that she's so hammered she's incoherent? When did proceeding to fvvck such a girl ever become a good idea? There's a huge and simple difference between such a girl and a girl that growls "yes! Give it to me!" Or whatever. Such women have in my experience, always made it abundantly clear what they wanted to do with me. When I was in the Marines, for example, for myself as well as my friends, there was never a shortage of hungry, eager women, young and old alike. 

It just boggles me why a man would spend a minute with some stupid girl that wasn't *hungry and eager*. It seems to be entirely frivolous and pointless to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OnTheFly

This is what affirmative resentment looks like…

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/affirmative-resentment/

I encourage the female version of feminists to not read this, I don't want you to be micro-aggressed by having your beliefs challenged. 

To the men, even those sympathetic to feminism, read it, and see if you don't see a problem with the concept of AC. 

On a side note, I watched the video from Lacy Green, the 25yr old, self described feminist sex blogger/youtuber. Her description of how 'hot' it is when some guy constantly peppers her for 'yeses' is laughable. It is literally unbelievable. Also, the definition for rape she gives is so broad, so as to be meaningless, and as a previous poster said, offensive. An inch deep and a mile wide! (I wonder how many women are going to be accused of rape now…..it's sooo easy, guys, go for it!). I'm not seriously suggesting that, it's unseemly…for either gender.

The idea, that this is widely accepted (even by the women) amongst the younger generation and that they truly get 'it' is also laughable. 

Truly an Orwellian dystopia being advocated.


----------



## techmom

OnTheFly said:


> This is what affirmative resentment looks like…
> 
> https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/affirmative-resentment/
> 
> I encourage the female version of feminists to not read this, I don't want you to be micro-aggressed by having your beliefs challenged.
> 
> To the men, even those sympathetic to feminism, read it, and see if you don't see a problem with the concept of AC.
> 
> On a side note, I watched the video from Lacy Green, the 25yr old, self described feminist sex blogger/youtuber. *Her description of how 'hot' it is when some guy constantly peppers her for 'yeses' is laughable. It is literally unbelievable. Also, the definition for rape she gives is so broad, so as to be meaningless, and as a previous poster said, offensive. An inch deep and a mile wide! (I wonder how many women are going to be accused of rape now…..it's sooo easy, guys, go for it!). I'm not seriously suggesting that, it's unseemly…for either gender.*
> 
> The idea, that this is widely accepted (even by the women) amongst the younger generation and that they truly get 'it' is also laughable.
> 
> Truly an Orwellian dystopia being advocated.


Yes, just like the theory of 80% of men who never experience enthusiastic sex, this whole post gets dumped in the "statements without research" trash bin.


----------



## RandomDude

I don't get this "80% of men never encountered enthusiastic sex" crap either, *100%* of all my sexual encounters are enthusiastic, I don't go ahead unless I am certain it's green lights all the way. I never ask for sex, I never ask for permission, I just KNOW when the opportunity presents itself it's fking obvious when a woman wants it or not. But WTF, that's not enough?!

As for the double standards, you ladies look at the case of that college student who was accused of rape, automatically judge that he is guilty despite the fact there is no evidence of coercion. Why else do you do so if it's not for double standards?

People hook up drunk and regret what they did all the time, is that rape? So lets say I get drunk, this girl kisses me, we ended up fking, I wake up the next morning and regret it, should I go "I didn't give consent, therefore I was raped"? WTF?! No, I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUTTING MYSELF IN THAT SITUATION

I fking despise rape but I also despise throwing the word around as it ultimately discredits REAL rape victims and prevents them from achieving the justice that they DESERVE. Bah!

As for the sexism don't you see by enforcing such a ridicolous law of AC you are blanketing all men into thinking they are - as I described on page 2:



> clueless, unempathetic, insensitive folks incapable of understanding 93% of human communication:


Hell if this how America runs, no wonder there's so many threads on sexless marriage that follows predictable patterns of "I ask my wife for permission for sex, I live in a sexless marriage, I wonder why?!"

WTF?! Bah!


----------



## OnTheFly

techmom said:


> Yes, just like the theory of 80% of men who never experience enthusiastic sex, this whole post gets dumped in the "statements without research" trash bin.


By this standard 99.9999% of all posts on TAM get dumped, including everything you post also. 

Perhaps you need reminding, this is an internet forum, where we sit on our asses and fire opinions into cyberspace. Where's Ms Green's research paper that supports her assertions?? Her crap in the dumpster too!

Nice tactic of moving the goalposts when things get a little hot…typical! Next you'll stamp for feet and hold your breath until we agree?


----------



## BlueWoman

technovelist said:


> The issue is, again, that most men never, or at best almost never, have a woman enthusiastic to have sex with *them*, although the same woman may be quite enthusiastic to have sex with *someone else*. Thus, this rule condemns those men pretty much never to have sex.
> 
> Is this okay with you?


I doubt that most men never has a woman be enthusiastic to have sex. 

But even if it were the case, yes it's alright with me. If a woman isn't enthusiastic about sex with you, you're not entitled to it. 

And instead of contemplating rape, you should be contemplating what to do about yourself more attractive. 

One thing that can help, drop the entitlement attitude.


----------



## BlueWoman

We are mixing issues here. 
Just like we will never eliminate rape, we will also never eliminate false accusations. But that shouldn't dissuade us from working on making things better. 

Here some things that I think are true:
1) Nobody is entitled to sex. If no one wants to have sex with you, too bad. If no one wants to have sex with you, then you are probably doing something wrong. And as for the beta/alpha issue. My last BF was hardcore beta. And while I don't want to date him anymore, I was pretty damn enthusiastic to have sex with him when we were together. He's short, balding, socially awkward, and has no problem finding enthusiastic women. (Mostly because he's not creepy.) 

2) I agree that affirmative consent doesn't have to be verbal. Although in all honesty, men, if you are not making her beg for it, then you are probably pretty bad in bed. And that's another reason not to have sex with you. See item 1. (And to be fair, women, if he's not begging for it, move on or get better at your seduction skills.)

3) Women need to take responsibility for affirmative consent, as well. This is not all on the men. We need say "yes" when we want it and "no" when we don't. And it needs to be clear. As for the I don't know's, I think that has to be taken case by case. Is it the first time we've had sex? Better to wait until it's a definite yes. Are we in a long term relationship? Then convincing would be appropriate, as long as a "no" is still respected if said.


----------



## techmom

BlueWoman said:


> We are mixing issues here.
> Just like we will never eliminate rape, we will also never eliminate false accusations. But that shouldn't dissuade us from working on making things better.
> 
> Here some things that I think are true:
> 1) Nobody is entitled to sex. If no one wants to have sex with you, too bad. If no one wants to have sex with you, then you are probably doing something wrong. And as for the beta/alpha issue. My last BF was hardcore beta. And while I don't want to date him anymore, I was pretty damn enthusiastic to have sex with him when we were together. He's short, balding, socially awkward, and has no problem finding enthusiastic women. (Mostly because he's not creepy.)
> 
> 2) I agree that affirmative consent doesn't have to be verbal. Although in all honesty, men, if you are not making her beg for it, then you are probably pretty bad in bed. And that's another reason not to have sex with you. See item 1. (And to be fair, women, if he's not begging for it, move on or get better at your seduction skills.)
> 
> 3) Women need to take responsibility for affirmative consent, as well. This is not all on the men. We need say "yes" when we want it and "no" when we don't. And it needs to be clear. As for the I don't know's, I think that has to be taken case by case. Is it the first time we've had sex? Better to wait until it's a definite yes. Are we in a long term relationship? Then convincing would be appropriate, as long as a "no" is still respected if said.


This. Also guys please stay off of those websites written by bitter and angry men who don't have a clue as to what attracts women, the Heartiste site comes to mind.


----------



## techmom

OnTheFly said:


> By this standard 99.9999% of all posts on TAM get dumped, including everything you post also.
> 
> Perhaps you need reminding, this is an internet forum, where we sit on our asses and fire opinions into cyberspace. Where's Ms Green's research paper that supports her assertions?? Her crap in the dumpster too!
> 
> Nice tactic of moving the goalposts when things get a little hot…typical! Next you'll stamp for feet and hold your breath until we agree?


Wow, your posts are especially ridiculous...lol>


----------



## techmom

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Well, while the "rape culture hysteria" is fairly recent, I suspect much of this nonsense sweeping our universities and college campuses are largely politically and ideologically driven, in particular cases of such rape that is supported and *proven* in a court of law--as opposed to some kangaroo court drummed up by college "women's studies" departments, it does make me wonder about such genuine incidences;
> 
> Not so long ago when I attended college, we had to watch videos on "no means no" and gibbering about "date rape". I found it all to be tediously cartoonish, and a pretty pathetic profile of both young men and women.
> 
> On one hand, stupid drunk ****s partying with strangers they seldom know, getting so hammered they can't walk, and them laying about semi-conscious in hallways, strange bedrooms, or in cars of people they only vaguely know. When did young *adult* women become so stupid, careless, and irresponsible?
> 
> On the other hand, we have such young *adult* males that are so stupid and such ill mannered idiots that they cannot comprehend a girl saying "no" or voicing some apprehension? Or that she's so hammered she's incoherent? When did proceeding to fvvck such a girl ever become a good idea? There's a huge and simple difference between such a girl and a girl that growls "yes! Give it to me!" Or whatever. Such women have in my experience, always made it abundantly clear what they wanted to do with me. When I was in the Marines, for example, for myself as well as my friends, there was never a shortage of hungry, eager women, young and old alike.
> 
> *It just boggles me why a man would spend a minute with some stupid girl that wasn't *hungry and eager*. It seems to be entirely frivolous and pointless to me.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Another guy who gets it.


----------



## Cletus

techmom said:


> As I stated in the other thread, the only men who feel threatened by AC are those who never experience being lusted over and highly desired by a woman.


Yeah, you did say it.

Doesn't mean you were right.


----------



## Cletus

techmom said:


> Well, my argument is that affirmative consent looks like what is in the Laci Green video, *if something seems off about the lady* then you ASK THE QUESTION "are you ok with this" "how does this feel to you". If you don't get an answer then stop and say something like "you are not responding to me and you look like you are not enjoying this, do you want to stop?"


And there in a nutshell is the root of the AC problem. The potential accused is put in a position of interpreting the state of mind of the accuser who could, with a simple word, disambiguate the situation. All burden of ensuring that your state of mind be known has been moved to the only person in the room who doesn't know it. Failure to see a sign at the wrong juncture constitutes rape, and the accuser has no burden to correct the situation in the moment.

That is, legalistically, absurd in the extreme.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> This. Also guys please stay off of those websites written by bitter and angry men who don't have a clue as to what attracts women, the Heartiste site comes to mind.


Right. Men absolutely have to stay away from any sites that don't follow the feminist party line, as they might get politically incorrect ideas!


----------



## Cletus

techmom said:


> There are too many high desire women in the world who love sex and enjoy it with enthusiasm, why would you want to limit yourself to the ladies who you have to coerce to make them want sex? What's the issue?


So now the unenthusiastic women - and there's a big gap between those who engage enthusiastically and those you need to "coerce", however many we count, are to live a life deprived of sex? What if I want to have sex or, heaven forbid, spend 30 years married to one of these women? Because she won't rip the buttons off my shirt I should just say "next"?


----------



## Cletus

techmom said:


> This is exactly my point, most men do experience this. Most men in my life have been lusted over, I have never experienced negative attitudes such as is posted on TAM.


And? Surely you're imaginative enough to understand that your life experience is unique to you?


----------



## tech-novelist

Cletus said:


> So now the unenthusiastic women - and there's a big gap between those who engage enthusiastically and those you need to "coerce", however many we count, are to live a life deprived of sex? What if I want to have sex or, heaven forbid, spend 30 years married to one of these women? Because she won't rip the buttons off my shirt I should just say "next"?


The ultimate result of this would be a tremendous incentive for any man to emigrate to a country that doesn't have such laws.


----------



## techmom

Cletus said:


> And? Surely you're imaginative enough to understand that your life experience is unique to you?


Before I came to TAM, I never knew men who thought that 80% of them would never have enthusiastic sex. I guess they were too busy enjoying their lives with HD women who were also quite intelligent and had great personalities. They weren't busy on PUA web sites or depressing blogs. They don't have grudges against women, aren't bitter and they don't have entitlement complexes towards sex. They genuinely love women, my Dad is a feminist and he always had his pick of women, some threw themselves at him because he was smart, kind and good looking.

So, for you guys who think that women are out to get you and throw you in jail on some trumped up rape charges, you can drop the hateful attitudes towards us and lead way better lives. Drop the hateful MRA, PUA, and other sites which convince you that all women are hypergamous s!uts who only pick from the 20% of men to mate with. Find out what is holding you back from living a fulfilling sex life. Because when I show the men in my family what is posted here they laugh their asses off....REALLY.


----------



## RandomDude

BlueWoman said:


> We are mixing issues here.
> Just like we will never eliminate rape, we will also never eliminate false accusations. But that shouldn't dissuade us from working on making things better.
> 
> Here some things that I think are true:
> 1) Nobody is entitled to sex. If no one wants to have sex with you, too bad. If no one wants to have sex with you, then you are probably doing something wrong. And as for the beta/alpha issue. My last BF was hardcore beta. And while I don't want to date him anymore, I was pretty damn enthusiastic to have sex with him when we were together. He's short, balding, socially awkward, and has no problem finding enthusiastic women. (Mostly because he's not creepy.)
> 
> 2) *I agree that affirmative consent doesn't have to be verbal. * Although in all honesty, men, if you are not making her beg for it, then you are probably pretty bad in bed. And that's another reason not to have sex with you. See item 1. (And to be fair, women, if he's not begging for it, move on or get better at your seduction skills.)
> 
> 3) Women need to take responsibility for affirmative consent, as well. This is not all on the men. We need say "yes" when we want it and "no" when we don't. And it needs to be clear. As for the I don't know's, I think that has to be taken case by case. Is it the first time we've had sex? Better to wait until it's a definite yes. Are we in a long term relationship? Then convincing would be appropriate, as long as a "no" is still respected if said.


Yay! At least you get it, sheez!

Yet why are the women here in favor of having verbal consent as the only acceptable form? WTF?!


----------



## techmom

RandomDude said:


> Yay! At least you get it, sheez!
> 
> Yet why are the women here in favor of having verbal consent as the only acceptable form? WTF?!


The only men who would get a non verbal clue in the heat of sex would be those who are accustomed to reading non verbal clues from women. I'm afraid that would exclude many male posters.


----------



## RandomDude

You're not answering the question! Why are you in favor of having verbal consent as the only acceptable standard even if you just admitted that there are men out there who aren't fking tools?

We're not some fking rarity either!


----------



## techmom

The days of misogyny/ misandry are numbered. Soon young people will be accustomed to sex without the shame, guilt and wagging fingers that the older generations had to deal with. And with that goes the inter gender wars. 

Affirmative consent is the first step, it will teach women to own their sexuality and teach men to understand clues (verbal/non verbal) from women. Just like in the Laci Green video, which is understood by most men who I showed it to.


----------



## techmom

RandomDude said:


> You're not answering the question! Why are you in favor of having verbal consent as the only acceptable standard even if you just admitted that there are men out there who aren't fking tools?
> 
> We're not some fking rarity either!


Where did I state that verbal consent was the only consent? When I explained what affirmative consent was in a post in the " Affirmative consent" thread in the Men's Clubhouse not all of it was verbal...



> Re: Affirmative consent
> To the people who are opposed to affirmative consent, what does affirmative consent from a woman look like to you? Lust, panting, flushed in the face, and her pawing at you or ripping off your clothes? Some men never experienced what that is like, this causes them to think that most women are LD and would never lust for sex. Which makes this law of affirmative consent very threatening, because they feel that it would be the end of obtaining sex in the only way they know how.


Where did I state that all consent must be verbal?


----------



## RandomDude

Well I only chimed in to post my point, as I find the whole idea of asking for sex ridiculous

If you acknowledge point 2 of BlueWoman's post then yay!

Now WTF are we even arguing about?


----------



## techmom

RandomDude said:


> Well I only chimed in to post my point, as I find the whole idea of asking for sex ridiculous
> 
> If you acknowledge point 2 of BlueWoman's post then yay!
> 
> Now WTF are we even arguing about?


Oh my, you're a Random crazy Dude, lol:grin2:


----------



## OnTheFly

techmom said:


> Wow, your posts are especially ridiculous...lol>


I know, eh!!

It's a beautiful day, so I went for a toodle in the countryside.

I had an epiphany!!!

I think I know where the problem lies concerning this affirmative action…..oops, I mean affirmative consent issue.

See, I've been assuming all along that I was dealing with the type of feminist that believes that genders are social constructs, that there is no difference between the sexes, women are just as capable as men in anything. Believers in justice, equality, fairness, etc.

Au contraire! 

What we are dealing with in actuality, is the type of feminist that believes women are inherently inferior than men, that men take advantage of this fact, and that to rectify this they use the power of the state, academic/education institutions, social justice tactics, etc to shame, browbeat, criminalize the male gender into conformity with their 'feelings'.

The demeanour of the female advocates for AC makes more sense now. 

Of course, you would encourage men not to read Heartiste, or anything manospherian, red pill, etc, you wouldn't want the male fence sitters to be woken from their slumber. I encourage these men particularly, there's nothing to lose and much to gain.


----------



## techmom

OnTheFly said:


> I know, eh!!
> 
> It's a beautiful day, so I went for a toodle in the countryside.
> 
> I had an epiphany!!!
> 
> I think I know where the problem lies concerning this affirmative action…..oops, I mean affirmative consent issue.
> 
> See, I've been assuming all along that I was dealing with the type of feminist that believes that genders are social constructs, that there is no difference between the sexes, women are just as capable as men in anything. Believers in justice, equality, fairness, etc.
> 
> Au contraire!
> 
> What we are dealing with in actuality, is the type of feminist that believes women are inherently inferior than men, that men take advantage of this fact, and that to rectify this they use the power of the state, academic/education institutions, social justice tactics, etc to shame, browbeat, criminalize the male gender into conformity with their 'feelings'.
> 
> The demeanour of the female advocates for AC makes more sense now.
> 
> Of course, you would encourage men not to read Heartiste, or anything manospherian, red pill, etc, you wouldn't want the male fence sitters to be woken from their slumber. I encourage these men particularly, there's nothing to lose and much to gain.


Muaaahhh muuuaaahhhh!!!

By George I think he's got it!

Must...tell....the....female.....hive....mind....

RED ALERT!!!


----------



## OnTheFly

See, TechMom, I knew you could lighten up!


----------



## tom67

:grin2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic


----------



## OnTheFly

tom67 said:


> :grin2:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic


When I saw the opening scene of Naked Gun for the first time back in '88, I was laughing so hard I couldn't breath!


----------



## Mrs.Submission

technovelist said:


> Since you are a woman, men will lust after you, unless you are hideously ugly. This is not true for most men, who don't have *anyone* lusting after them.


What on earth are you talking about?

It sounds like you believe that women never want sex or experience sexual attraction for men. That viewpoint is just wrong and ridiculous.


----------



## techmom

OnTheFly said:


> See, TechMom, I knew you could lighten up!


Ok, now when will you and the rest of the bunch join us in realty?


----------



## tech-novelist

Mrs.Submission said:


> What on earth are you talking about?
> 
> It sounds like you believe that women never want sex or experience sexual attraction for men. That viewpoint is just wrong and ridiculous.


It is certainly the case that women want sex with and experience sexual attraction for *some* men. Not most men.

I hope that clarifies my position.


----------



## OnTheFly

techmom said:


> Ok, now when will you and the rest of the bunch join us in realty?


haha!

Lets be honest here. Nothing the pro-AC side could say will change my mind, nothing the anti-AC side say will change your mind. I know this, and I think you know this. 

When the two sides jaw back and forth on internet forums, or twitter, or blogs or youtube channels, it's not to convince the other side and it's not to gain a different perspective. It's purely to influence the portion of the population that are un-decided. It's the same when William Lane Craig debates Laurence Krauss at the highest levels of academia…..it's no different here (ok, maybe a little less sophisticated). 

So, when certain feminist posters rail against the red pill, or alpha stuff, they're just preaching to their constituents and hoping to sway the fence sitters. The same when kind-hearted men try to coach other men in the ways of marriage game, with the message, ''it worked for me, it might work for you''

So, with this understanding, can we agree that if you and your hive think we have said something you disagree with, go nuts and point it out (…and by all means, toss in a few sideways insults and barbs, it's the 'spice' that makes everything nice). And when you or yours say something ridiculously stupid, we'll do the same. 

Game on?


----------



## Mrs.Submission

technovelist said:


> It is certainly the case that women want sex with and experience sexual attraction for *some* men. Not most men.
> 
> I hope that clarifies my position.


Just as every man isn't attracted to every woman, every woman isn't going to be attracted to every man. 

Do you think that is wrong?


----------



## tech-novelist

Mrs.Submission said:


> Just as every man isn't attracted to every woman, every woman isn't going to be attracted to every man.
> 
> Do you think that is wrong?


Not wrong, but incomplete.
Most men are attracted to most women, but most women are not attracted to most men. This means that most men have a lot more trouble attracting women than vice versa.


----------



## Buddy400

What problem is Affirmative consent trying to solve?

What does it do that "No means No" didn't?

Is AC much more clear cut and easy to understand than "No means No"?

Are men that have given women date rape drugs and then had sex with them being found not guilty because "She didn't say no"? 

If a man didn't stop at "no", then it seems unlikely the he would ask for a "yes".

A man that says she didn't say "No" would probably also claim that she said "Yes". How would this help the "He said / she said" nature of many cases of sexual assault / rape?

If there are other ways (verbal and nonverbal) to say "Yes", what happens if the man misinterprets them?

Why is it the man's responsibility to make sure she wants sex instead of hers? Isn't she in the best position to know the actual answer?


----------



## Mrs.Submission

technovelist said:


> Not wrong, but incomplete.
> Most men are attracted to most women, but most women are not attracted to most men. This means that most men have a lot more trouble attracting women than vice versa.


Is your point of view based on your own experience or has it been researched?


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Is AC much more clear cut and easy to understand than "No means No"?
> 
> *No means no is nothing more than a catchphrase. It is not legislation it is not policy. Rape and sexual assault are *always* defined in terms of consent. Often explicit consent. AC is a specific educational policy designed to explicate standards for consent*
> 
> Are men that have given women date rape drugs and then had sex with them being found not guilty because "She didn't say no"?
> *YES*
> 
> If a man didn't stop at "no", then it seems unlikely the he would ask for a "yes".
> *What if the person he is after is asleep or incapacitated?*
> 
> A man that says she didn't say "No" would probably also claim that she said "Yes". How would this help the "He said / she said" nature of many cases of sexual assault / rape?
> *It articulates standards that should be obvious, but apparently aren't*
> 
> If there are other ways (verbal and nonverbal) to say "Yes", what happens if the man misinterprets them?
> *AC policy that I had read says that each person is responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure consent *
> 
> Why is it the man's responsibility to make sure she wants sex instead of hers? Isn't she in the best position to know the actual answer?
> *It is always both parties responsibility to make sure the partner is enthusiastically consenting.*


----------



## tech-novelist

Mrs.Submission said:


> Is your point of view based on your own experience or has it been researched?


Research.

"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium."

(from Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends)


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> What problem is Affirmative consent trying to solve?
> 
> What does it do that "No means No" didn't?
> 
> Is AC much more clear cut and easy to understand than "No means No"?
> 
> Are men that have given women date rape drugs and then had sex with them being found not guilty because "She didn't say no"?
> 
> If a man didn't stop at "no", then it seems unlikely the he would ask for a "yes".
> 
> A man that says she didn't say "No" would probably also claim that she said "Yes". How would this help the "He said / she said" nature of many cases of sexual assault / rape?
> 
> If there are other ways (verbal and nonverbal) to say "Yes", what happens if the man misinterprets them?
> 
> Why is it the man's responsibility to make sure she wants sex instead of hers? Isn't she in the best position to know the actual answer?


Because patriarchy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Research.
> 
> "As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium."
> 
> (from Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends)


I'd like to pick out the most important part of this article....

"When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone (who is above average in attraction) gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten."

So when we continually hear men say that they are attracted to most women, what they don't say is that they don't actually go after those women...they "only" want the most attractive woman they see in a line up, and if that woman doesn't respond to him, then he gives up or "settles". 

And yet, the same men complain that women may have higher standards than they do, therefore they never get a chance at feeling desired like those better looking guys do.

It is exactly the same both ways, guys.

I don't know why this point isn't obvious. When you are saying women only go for the hottest guys, why are you butthurt about it when you do the same thing? We women know that men only fall all over themselves for the hottest women, even though you say over and over that you are attracted to any willing, average female. It just isn't true in the way you say it is. 

So what really ends up happening, as could be expected, is that the most attractive people end up dating each other.

Typically, women understand this discrepancy and don't get all butthurt about it. We're just used to seeing it happen everywhere. The men are the ones who get butthurt about it, because although they only go after the cheerleaders, they are pissed that the lesser females aren't going after them. 

Of course...this discussion has nothing to do with AC, but I couldn't help but respond to the ridiculousness.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> So now the unenthusiastic women - and there's a big gap between those who engage enthusiastically and those you need to "coerce", however many we count, *are to live a life deprived of sex?* *What if I want to have sex or, heaven forbid, spend 30 years married to one of these women? Because she won't rip the buttons off my shirt I should just say "next"?*


Um well yes, actually, you should just say "next" and keep trying until you find someone who you have mutual sexual attraction with.

What did you expect us to say to this? "Oh yeah sure, just coerce her in to having sex with you and hopefully she will also marry you...yet you will end up unhappy because she's not really into you or sex or both...but yeah, go ahead and coerce her, that will work out great for both of you".

This is a serious question...*what did you expect us to say?*

You of all people should understand by now that marrying someone who you aren't sexually compatible with causes serious long term problems.

But even further, in the beginning stages, YES if she isn't sexually into you and can't say she wants to have sex with you enthusiastically, then RUN, don't walk...and find someone else to date. Why in the world would that even be a question?

Are we supposed to feel sorry for a man because some specific woman doesn't want to have sex with him? Why would we feel sorry for him? I'd feel far more sorry for the girl he's trying to coerce into sex. Bleah.

No one is "owed" sex, therefore, not getting any doesn't leave you "deprived".


----------



## Faithful Wife

techmom...Thanks for all of your great posts on this thread.

The 80/20 thing some of the guys quote is straight out of the red pill/PUA handbook.

As far as I'm concerned, any guy who believes it and is bitter about it (which would be the guys who end up reading that crap), is probably one of the guys women don't want, that's how he ended up reading there. So even though the 80% number is total bunk as far as total population, I'm quite positive that 80% or more of the guys who end up reading the PUA/red pill crap are undesired by women. Not necessarily because of how they look, but because of something askew in their character.

But as for real numbers, they can't offer any. There's no science behind it, it is just a rally cry to all the men who chased a cheerleader and were shot down...they commisserate with other dudes who were shot down and conclude they constitute 80% of the male population.

Meanwhile, average men everywhere who don't have major character flaws are getting laid, getting married, falling in love, dating women, and living a good life.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I am trying to understand the 80/20 thing. Let's say it is true. (Which is a leap for me from my experience.) Are there people on this board actually suggesting that this is a reason to endorse anything less than enthusiastic consent? If so, that is kind of ... sad... or disgusting. Or both.


----------



## naiveonedave

techmom said:


> As I stated in the other thread, the only men who feel threatened by AC are those who never experience being lusted over and highly desired by a woman. The men who do experience this don't have any problem with AC. Affirmative consent is very clear between 2 consenting adults who are lusting for one another.
> 
> The rest of the population only experienced a "maybe". As FW stated, men who experience high desire women who are lusting after them don't even bother with women who are not totally into them. It would be a waste of time when they have so many others who are clearly into them. So these men can't even fathom as to why some men would push and push.


Nah - men need to be afraid, due to stuff like Duke Lax. Or any woman who has later regretted having had sex. 

Both of these situations the woman involved actually was into the sex, but then decided she wasn't later.


----------



## naiveonedave

OnTheFly said:


> This is what affirmative resentment looks like…
> 
> https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/affirmative-resentment/


This is exactly why AC is totally not going to work. Unless the goal of AC is to minimize sex occurring.


----------



## Faithful Wife

naiveonedave said:


> This is exactly why AC is totally not going to work. Unless the goal of AC is to minimize sex occurring.


Of course the red pill/PUA blogs are where some of you guys are getting your bitter, whiny nonsense on this topic. Like these gems on the article you quoted that the other guy posted....

quote:

"One thing you have to understand about lefties, particularly the white variety: They are the biggest prudes on the planet. The only difference between them and the evangelicals they love to hate are the target vices of their self-righteousness."

"Walk with your c*ck leading the way. Women love men who are proud of their tumescent entitlement. This is perhaps the hardest lesson for constitutional weaklings to assimilate. It cuts against a lifetime of assuming the rump-up position appeasing their betters."

"One night I ended up back in a girl’s room after a first date (those do happen in college). She had invited me in and was clearly attracted to me. We were kissing on her bed, outer layers of clothing removed, but when my hands wandered downward she said, “No, wait.” I waited. She began kissing me again, passionately, so again I moved to remove her underwear. “Stop,” she said, “this is too fast.” I stopped."

“That’s fine,” I said. I kissed her again and left soon after, looking forward to seeing her again.

"Interestingly, leaving a woman in the lurch of lust is not a guaranteed clit-killer. Off the tongue of a skilled vagician, a takeaway of this style could incite a girl to a higher plane of ecstasy."

"Men are the risk-taking sex. It’s biologically ordained. And so women expect men to push the envelope. When a man fails to do that, she’ll wonder what other chances at greatness he’ll choose to decline."

"Either women are infantile, or they’re adults with agency. If the former, then they need to be treated like infants across the board. This would include removing their right to vote or divorce without cause. If the latter, then these feminist-inspired policies and laws need to be trashed. That means Title IX, affirmative action, and all the rest of the “level playing field aka anti-white male” nonsense must go."

"Affirmative-consent laws are in practice Affirmative Resentment laws, because a woman will resent any man who seriously abides a law that requires him to ask her permission to crave and profane her body. Even feminist slags with a two-ton chip on their shoulders will be unable to control feelings of revulsion toward men who accept their demands for slavish foreplay petitions."

end quote

And this article isn't even the worst of them. There are lots of other articles describing to men that they should always, ALWAYS push against "last minute resistance", because of course, they already know most women don't want to have sex with them so instead of finding a woman who does want to, they just coerce the unwilling ones. (Of course it is obvious why most women don't want to have sex with them, and obvious why they have a hard time finding one who does...thus the need for coercion).

They tell this to other guys all the time. Every time. It is always the same answer. Just bully her into saying yes, or get her drunk, or pretend you don't need to hear yes because "she expects you to push her".

There is a whole movement out there working against AC and working for coercion.

And these are the guys who these guys here who claim the 80/20 nonsense are reading and whose ideas they are spreading.

It is so stupid and wrong, and that's why it sounds so stupid and wrong when it is quoted here. But these guys get caught up into reading this nonsense and buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I wonder if these guys tell their daughters to that silly stop last minute resistance with every loser who tries to have sex with them and just give it up and stop their "teasing games"?

I have to just use the ignore feature more on this site again, because I honestly can't see anything good coming from me reading men who read or would quote this stuff. If they are behind it, they have nothing to say that I need to read.


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> "One thing you have to understand about lefties, particularly the white variety: They are the biggest prudes on the planet. The only difference between them and the evangelicals they love to hate are the target vices of their self-righteousness."
> 
> "Walk with your c*ck leading the way. Women love men who are proud of their tumescent entitlement. This is perhaps the hardest lesson for constitutional weaklings to assimilate. It cuts against a lifetime of assuming the rump-up position appeasing their betters."
> 
> "One night I ended up back in a girl’s room after a first date (those do happen in college). She had invited me in and was clearly attracted to me. We were kissing on her bed, outer layers of clothing removed, but when my hands wandered downward she said, “No, wait.” I waited. She began kissing me again, passionately, so again I moved to remove her underwear. “Stop,” she said, “this is too fast.” I stopped."
> 
> “That’s fine,” I said. I kissed her again and left soon after, looking forward to seeing her again.
> 
> "Interestingly, leaving a woman in the lurch of lust is not a guaranteed clit-killer. Off the tongue of a skilled vagician, a takeaway of this style could incite a girl to a higher plane of ecstasy."
> 
> "Men are the risk-taking sex. It’s biologically ordained. And so women expect men to push the envelope. When a man fails to do that, she’ll wonder what other chances at greatness he’ll choose to decline."
> 
> "Either women are infantile, or they’re adults with agency. If the former, then they need to be treated like infants across the board. This would include removing their right to vote or divorce without cause. If the latter, then these feminist-inspired policies and laws need to be trashed. That means Title IX, affirmative action, and all the rest of the “level playing field aka anti-white male” nonsense must go."
> 
> "Affirmative-consent laws are in practice Affirmative Resentment laws, because a woman will resent any man who seriously abides a law that requires him to ask her permission to crave and profane her body. Even feminist slags with a two-ton chip on their shoulders will be unable to control feelings of revulsion toward men who accept their demands for slavish foreplay petitions."
> 
> 
> I have to just use the ignore feature more on this site again, because I honestly can't see anything good coming from me reading men who read or would quote this stuff. If they are behind it, they have nothing to say that I need to read.


Thank you, thank you, thank you……for posting the quotes from the article I posted. A certain portion of readers to these threads would not have clicked on the link based on my views and posting record. But with your street cred as sex-positive, poly, feminist, goddess blogger the audience was opened much wider….again thank you. 

Also, yes, the ignore feature is your friend…..don't just threaten to use it(hints of melodrama)…….just use it.


----------



## Buddy400

I asked "Are men that have given women date rape drugs and then had sex with them being found not guilty because "She didn't say no"?"

You replied 


always_alone said:


> YES


Could you point out some cases? In this instance, I'm specifically asking about "Date Rape" drugs. It could also include cases where the woman is clearly unconscious for whatever reason. 

I think we could get a consensus that this is rape from all but the hardest core PUAs (and then we'll know who they are and can ignore them going forward).


----------



## Centurions

Faithful Wife said:


> Um well yes, actually, you should just say "next" and keep trying until you find someone who you have mutual sexual attraction with.
> 
> What did you expect us to say to this? "Oh yeah sure, just coerce her in to having sex with you and hopefully she will also marry you...yet you will end up unhappy because she's not really into you or sex or both...but yeah, go ahead and coerce her, that will work out great for both of you".
> 
> This is a serious question...*what did you expect us to say?*
> 
> You of all people should understand by now that marrying someone who you aren't sexually compatible with causes serious long term problems.
> 
> But even further, in the beginning stages, YES if she isn't sexually into you and can't say she wants to have sex with you enthusiastically, then RUN, don't walk...and find someone else to date. Why in the world would that even be a question?
> 
> Are we supposed to feel sorry for a man because some specific woman doesn't want to have sex with him? Why would we feel sorry for him? I'd feel far more sorry for the girl he's trying to coerce into sex. Bleah.
> 
> No one is "owed" sex, therefore, not getting any doesn't leave you "deprived".



Greetings!

That's damn right, no one is "owed" sex. And to those who are not getting laid like tile are not being "deprived." They need to get with the program and do what it takes to become more attractive to the opposite sex, so that they are inspired to want to have "enthusiastic and eager" sex with them! Their whining, self-pity, wallowing in their rejection, bleating about "why can't they just accept me as I am?"--is just pathetic. 

I have a friend that has this pathetic sense of entitlement, or used to, more or less. He's resigned himself now pretty much to being tossed into the reject pile of pathetic losers. He's beginning to believe that he'll never have sex again, that he'll just have porn for the rest of his life. At his age, he's just a pathetic, broke hogbeast that no woman would ever want.

I tell him all the time, that he needs to get with the frigging program and embrace the "Alpha" attributes if he ever hopes to have a girlfriend again. I listen to him go on about "why can't women accept me as I am? If they can't accept me when I'm down, why would I want them when I'm at my best?"

Geesus his apathy, and sense of entitlement gets so frustrating! I tell him, "brother, you're a hogbeast. Women get hot for men that have some muscle, that are strong and built. That's a fact of life. Women are not gonna find your big gut and double chin sexy. You need to go to the gym and get on it, brother! And you need to lose the fat so you can dress better, man. All's you wear is frigging shorts and flip flops. Women are attracted to sharp dressed men, dude. Next, you need to get your money on top, man. Get that straight, or you'll get nowhere with women. You don't need to be rich, but taking a woman to McDonald's isn't going to impress them. Women are attracted to men that have their ****e together, and you know that's right! Oh, and yeah, brother, getting with the alpha program will also help you once you do find a girlfriend. Getting in shape, you'll have stamina, and will fix your frigging ED limp deek problem, too. You huffing and collapsing on her after ten strokes like a hippo that's been shot isn't gonna impress her with your sex skills. So there's that benefit too, if you can get with the program."

*sigh* so far, he doesn't listen to me, and just wallows in his sense of entitlement. So frustrating! But, if that's the way people choose to be, then too bad. They get to stay lonely and get no sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> And this article isn't even the worst of them. There are lots of other articles describing to men that they should always, ALWAYS push against "last minute resistance", because of course, they already know most women don't want to have sex with them so instead of finding a woman who does want to, they just coerce the unwilling ones. (Of course it is obvious why most women don't want to have sex with them, and obvious why they have a hard time finding one who does...thus the need for coercion).


I use this bull**** as educational material for my children.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> That's damn right, no one is "owed" sex. And to those who are not getting laid like tile are not being "deprived." They need to get with the program and do what it takes to become more attractive to the opposite sex, so that they are inspired to want to have "enthusiastic and eager" sex with them! Their whining, self-pity, wallowing in their rejection, bleating about "why can't they just accept me as I am?"--is just pathetic.
> 
> I have a friend that has this pathetic sense of entitlement, or used to, more or less. He's resigned himself now pretty much to being tossed into the reject pile of pathetic losers. He's beginning to believe that he'll never have sex again, that he'll just have porn for the rest of his life. At his age, he's just a pathetic, broke hogbeast that no woman would ever want.
> 
> I tell him all the time, that he needs to get with the frigging program and embrace the "Alpha" attributes if he ever hopes to have a girlfriend again. I listen to him go on about "why can't women accept me as I am? If they can't accept me when I'm down, why would I want them when I'm at my best?"
> 
> Geesus his apathy, and sense of entitlement gets so frustrating! I tell him, "brother, you're a hogbeast. Women get hot for men that have some muscle, that are strong and built. That's a fact of life. Women are not gonna find your big gut and double chin sexy. You need to go to the gym and get on it, brother! And you need to lose the fat so you can dress better, man. All's you wear is frigging shorts and flip flops. Women are attracted to sharp dressed men, dude. Next, you need to get your money on top, man.


Being a hogbeast (love it) is not even specifically or entirely related to your looks. By itself he probably WAFTS entitled, insecure, loser.

My husband is a good looking man. But he is over 40, recently went into business for himself. Is very, very busy so not as much time for the gym or planning healthy meals. He grew a paunch. His hair does not cover as much of his 5 head as it used to.

He gets hit on every where he goes. He does not dress like a GQ model. He dresses cleanly and smartly. But he is a personable, friendly, confident man. He walks where he is going like he is not scared of anything. 

So I don't know what this "alpha" thing. But I can say for absolute sure that your hogbeast friend's problems are not limited to his gut.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> And this article isn't even the worst of them. There are lots of other articles describing to men that they should always, ALWAYS push against "last minute resistance", because of course, they already know most women don't want to have sex with them so instead of finding a woman who does want to, they just coerce the unwilling ones.


Are there ANY men commenting on this site that think it's okay to push against "last minute resistance"?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Are there ANY men commenting on this site that think it's okay to push against "last minute resistance"?


I don't understand what to infer from the 80/20 stuff.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Are there ANY men commenting on this site that think it's okay to push against "last minute resistance"?


Yes, there are several. Apparently, some of the guys have never had sex WITHOUT pushing against last minute resistance.

IOW, they don't even know what consensual sex looks like.

So they are here to each the other men who women don't want to have sex with how to coerce women into having sex...which is otherwise known as rape.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course the red pill/PUA blogs are where some of you guys are getting your bitter, whiny nonsense on this topic. Like these gems on the article you quoted that the other guy posted....
> 
> quote:
> 
> "One thing you have to understand about lefties, particularly the white variety: They are the biggest prudes on the planet. The only difference between them and the evangelicals they love to hate are the target vices of their self-righteousness."
> 
> "Walk with your c*ck leading the way. Women love men who are proud of their tumescent entitlement. This is perhaps the hardest lesson for constitutional weaklings to assimilate. It cuts against a lifetime of assuming the rump-up position appeasing their betters."
> 
> "One night I ended up back in a girl’s room after a first date (those do happen in college). She had invited me in and was clearly attracted to me. We were kissing on her bed, outer layers of clothing removed, but when my hands wandered downward she said, “No, wait.” I waited. She began kissing me again, passionately, so again I moved to remove her underwear. “Stop,” she said, “this is too fast.” I stopped."
> 
> “That’s fine,” I said. I kissed her again and left soon after, looking forward to seeing her again.
> 
> "Interestingly, leaving a woman in the lurch of lust is not a guaranteed clit-killer. Off the tongue of a skilled vagician, a takeaway of this style could incite a girl to a higher plane of ecstasy."
> 
> "Men are the risk-taking sex. It’s biologically ordained. And so women expect men to push the envelope. When a man fails to do that, she’ll wonder what other chances at greatness he’ll choose to decline."
> 
> "Either women are infantile, or they’re adults with agency. If the former, then they need to be treated like infants across the board. This would include removing their right to vote or divorce without cause. If the latter, then these feminist-inspired policies and laws need to be trashed. That means Title IX, affirmative action, and all the rest of the “level playing field aka anti-white male” nonsense must go."
> 
> "Affirmative-consent laws are in practice Affirmative Resentment laws, because a woman will resent any man who seriously abides a law that requires him to ask her permission to crave and profane her body. Even feminist slags with a two-ton chip on their shoulders will be unable to control feelings of revulsion toward men who accept their demands for slavish foreplay petitions."
> 
> end quote
> 
> And this article isn't even the worst of them. There are lots of other articles describing to men that they should always, ALWAYS push against "last minute resistance", because of course, they already know most women don't want to have sex with them so instead of finding a woman who does want to, they just coerce the unwilling ones. (Of course it is obvious why most women don't want to have sex with them, and obvious why they have a hard time finding one who does...thus the need for coercion).
> 
> They tell this to other guys all the time. Every time. It is always the same answer. Just bully her into saying yes, or get her drunk, or pretend you don't need to hear yes because "she expects you to push her".
> 
> There is a whole movement out there working against AC and working for coercion.
> 
> And these are the guys who these guys here who claim the 80/20 nonsense are reading and whose ideas they are spreading.
> 
> It is so stupid and wrong, and that's why it sounds so stupid and wrong when it is quoted here. But these guys get caught up into reading this nonsense and buy it hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> I wonder if these guys tell their daughters to that silly stop last minute resistance with every loser who tries to have sex with them and just give it up and stop their "teasing games"?
> 
> I have to just use the ignore feature more on this site again, because I honestly can't see anything good coming from me reading men who read or would quote this stuff. If they are behind it, they have nothing to say that I need to read.


Here is the thing FW. You totally dismiss biology and circumstantial evidence in favor of your feminist theory. The red pill does work, if you don't take it 100%. The fact that you are married to Joe Uber Alpha, totally blinds you to the plight of the common man. 

My take away from Red Pill (what works for me): stay/get into shape, lead, don't whine. Pretty much that. I never found that stuff anywhere, but MMSL/Red pill. 

You never did answer my question on the other thread: do you toss out a sex starved marriage that used to be not sex starved? Red pill saved it for me, as described above. You apparently, as I recall, tossed your 1st marriage for lack of intimacy, correct? Could it have been saved with a little bit of the red pill?


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, there are several.


I assume you are lumping me in that group, which is totally and utterly false.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't understand what to infer from the 80/20 stuff.


some red pill 'advocates' believe and there is some research to support that, in general, women only find about 20% of the male population attractive. Thus, women only get horny for 20% of the population.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, there are several. Apparently, some of the guys have never had sex WITHOUT pushing against last minute resistance.
> 
> IOW, they don't even know what consensual sex looks like.
> 
> So they are here to each the other men who women don't want to have sex with how to coerce women into having sex...which is otherwise known as rape.


Did you read the quote from Fly? Where the girl broke up with the dude, because he didn't push her (later admitted fake) boundaries? That is how the world works, most of the time. It is not normally the girl ripping the shirt off of the dude.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> That's damn right, no one is "owed" sex. And to those who are not getting laid like tile are not being "deprived." They need to get with the program and do what it takes to become more attractive to the opposite sex, so that they are inspired to want to have "enthusiastic and eager" sex with them! Their whining, self-pity, wallowing in their rejection, bleating about "why can't they just accept me as I am?"--is just pathetic.


The problem is with some of these PUA/red pill blogs, they don't tell men to just be a sexier man to attract women...they tell them to deliberately push women to have sex with them, even when they are clearly saying no. Did you read the article posted? That's not even the worst of them.

Also, you are still disregarding the fact that some women don't like alpha he-men. So to expect all men to act the same in order to "get sex" is ridiculous.

Meanwhile....average men everywhere are finding women they feel mutual sexual attraction with. Why is this fact overlooked and ignored? Why not ask an average man who is successful sexually and in love with his wife how HE did it? That would make more sense than asking a bunch of losers who trade PUA secrets with each other (namely, coercion and games).


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> The problem is with some of these PUA/red pill blogs, they don't tell men to just be a sexier man to attract women...they tell them to deliberately push women to have sex with them, even when they are clearly saying no. Did you read the article posted? That's not even the worst of them.
> 
> Also, you are still disregarding the fact that some women don't like alpha he-men. So to expect all men to act the same in order to "get sex" is ridiculous.
> 
> Meanwhile....average men everywhere are finding women they feel mutual sexual attraction with. Why is this fact overlooked and ignored? Why not ask an average man who is successful sexually and in love with his wife how HE did it? That would make more sense than asking a bunch of losers who trade PUA secrets with each other (namely, coercion and games).


you do realize who red pill is written for, do you? Primarily either those in sexless marriages or single dudes who have never been successful with women.

Most successfully married men don't know why they have a good sex life. So what will they tell you? They will follow the lines of do more housework or other bs.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't understand what to infer from the 80/20 stuff.


I don't see how that has anything to do with "pushing past the No". That's just a belief that women only really desire sex with 20% of men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I don't see how that has anything to do with "pushing past the No". That's just a belief that women only really desire sex with 20% of men.


It is simple, Buddy. The 80% of men who women don't want to have sex with, per these blogs and other nonsense writings, must PUSH women to have sex with them. Because just because women don't WANT to have sex with them is not relevant to them. They feel entitled to sex, and therefore will push, bully coerce and even rape women to get it. These guys who consider themselves in the 80% all agree with those tactics.

Sickening.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> It is simple, Buddy. The 80% of men who women don't want to have sex with, per these blogs and other nonsense writings, must PUSH women to have sex with them. Because just because women don't WANT to have sex with them is not relevant to them. They feel entitled to sex, and therefore will push, bully coerce and even rape women to get it. These guys who consider themselves in the 80% all agree with those tactics.
> 
> Sickening.


You say "PUSH". Does that mean "Pushing even after they've said No"?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> You say "PUSH". Does that mean "Pushing even after they've said No"?


Yes, it does. It also means, deliberately ply them with alcohol, coerce them into your car by telling them you are going one place but you are actually taking them to your apartment, and also a whole step by step list of what to say and do at each "no" to get past it and have sex with her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It wouldn't hurt to add....that a lot of guys were having a tizzy fit about women posting in the mens clubhouse, especially on the anti-feminism threads. Some of those same guys sure have a lot to say here. Double standards, anyone?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I don't see how that has anything to do with "pushing past the No". That's just a belief that women only really desire sex with 20% of men.


What does it mean in an AC thread? I mean if I go over to a sex in marriage thread and say "Many men like steak and potatoes" I will get crickets because there is nothing to infer. But I am reading something very different here. With a whole lot of ... um... gee... um... not really.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, there are several. Apparently, some of the guys have never had sex WITHOUT pushing against last minute resistance.
> 
> IOW, they don't even know what consensual sex looks like.
> 
> So they are here to each the other men who women don't want to have sex with how to coerce women into having sex...which is otherwise known as rape.


I've tried to flush out all the guys on TAM that think it's okay to ignore it when a woman says NO by asking the question in the Men's Clubhouse.

Haven't found any yet, still looking.

It seems that a problem here (and elsewhere) is that women that tend to get all revved up about this issue react as if any man pushing back is a MRA a$$hat. That's not true. Even the most rabid guy on this thread is no match for a PUA.

The MRA is a fringe organization with limited support (from men) and even more limited influence on popular culture. Don't give them the attention they don't deserve. Stop seeing misogynists behind every door.


----------



## ConanHub

Buddy400 said:


> I've tried to flush out all the guys on TAM that think it's okay to ignore it when a woman says NO by asking the question in the Men's Clubhouse.
> 
> Haven't found any yet, still looking.
> 
> It seems that a problem here (and elsewhere) is that women that tend to get all revved up about this issue react as if any man pushing back is a MRA a$$hat. That's not true. Even the most rabid guy on this thread is no match for a PUA.
> 
> The MRA is a fringe organization with limited support (from men) and even more limited influence on popular culture. Don't give them the attention they don't deserve. Stop seeing misogynists behind every door.


Well, at least I know why you started that thread now.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

I am trying to figure out why some guys brought up the 80/20 nonsense on THIS thread and what meaning that could possibly have. Still waiting.


----------



## naiveonedave

Buddy400 said:


> You say "PUSH". Does that mean "Pushing even after they've said No"?


The PUA may state that crap, but come on, no = no.

It is when there is not a "No" given, and no proceed either....


----------



## ConanHub

NobodySpecial said:


> I am trying to figure out why some guys brought up the 80/20 nonsense on THIS thread and what meaning that could possibly have. Still waiting.


20% of the women have to service 80% of the men right? 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> I am trying to figure out why some guys brought up the 80/20 nonsense on THIS thread and what meaning that could possibly have. Still waiting.


I responded already, so you must be ignoring me. 

there is research that shows most women are only attracted to 20% of the men..... the rest is extrapolation as to what that means in terms of desire.


----------



## ConanHub

naiveonedave said:


> I responded already, so you must be ignoring me.
> 
> there is research that shows most women are only attracted to 20% of the men..... the rest is extrapolation as to what that means in terms of desire.


I've actually never studied that research and am curious. Are there links?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

ConanHub said:


> I've actually never studied that research and am curious. Are there links?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Only what was referenced in MMSL. I don't have it on me, so I can't get it promptly. The basis is most men find most women at least nominally attractive, and 80/20 for women. 

I am not sure what that means when you extrapolate to sex, though.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I am trying to figure out why some guys brought up the 80/20 nonsense on THIS thread and what meaning that could possibly have. Still waiting.


If recall correctly, I think it had something to do with a woman stating that there is no shortage of women willing to have enthusiastic sex with a man.

The 80/20 was in response to that; that it might be true for 20% of men but not the other 80%.

The 80/20 thing is interesting (I believe that there is something to it) and would be worth discussing; if there was an actual chance of it being discussed productively.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I've tried to flush out all the guys on TAM that think it's okay to ignore it when a woman says NO by asking the question in the Men's Clubhouse.
> 
> Haven't found any yet, still looking.
> 
> It seems that a problem here (and elsewhere) is that women that tend to get all revved up about this issue react as if any man pushing back is a MRA a$$hat. That's not true. Even the most rabid guy on this thread is no match for a PUA.
> 
> The MRA is a fringe organization with limited support (from men) and even more limited influence on popular culture. Don't give them the attention they don't deserve. Stop seeing misogynists behind every door.


Buddy, did you read the blog post by Heartiste that was linked on this thread, talking about how a no DOES need to be pushed against because men are biologically wired to be sexually agressive?

If these guys posted that and some quoted it "for truth", why would you assume those same guys don't agree with it? They posted it, why else would they have done that?


----------



## ConanHub

I know there are many willing women but too often many men don't even notice them because their sights are on a woman that is not interested in them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

ConanHub said:


> I know there are many willing women but too often many men don't even notice them because their sights are on a woman that is not interested in them.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


do most women only find 20 of men attractive?

If you google the above, you get links to the articles based on the research. The research suggests that men are almost the opposite, they are attracted to >50% of the women.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Buddy, did you read the blog post by Heartiste that was linked on this thread, talking about how a no DOES need to be pushed against because men are biologically wired to be sexually agressive?
> 
> If these guys posted that and some quoted it "for truth", why would you assume those same guys don't agree with it? They posted it, why else would they have done that?


Actually, I noticed the "heartis..." link and ignored it. I do acknowledge that those guys do think you should push past the No (incredibly risky behavior these days. In addition to being morally wrong). I believe some small number of women might indeed say "No" when they mean "Yes", but there's no way I'd touch them (Louis C.K. had a great routine about this). I believe that was Naïve Dave? If so, he's registered as not believing in "pushing past the NO", so the link probably didn't indicate approval of everything in it. That site really shouldn't be linked to (even if it might be right from time to time). It's like trying to convince a Liberal that they're wrong by quoting Fox News or an atheist by quoting the bible..


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> I know there are many willing women but too often many men don't even notice them because their sights are on a woman that is not interested in them.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Right. Because some men are terrified of women who actually want sex. They consider her a sl*t.

So they only want to have sex with a woman who doesn't want it, because that means she's pure or has values he admires.

But rather than respect her purity and values, they want to coerce her into having sex.

It doesn't make much sense when you type it out like this...but men told each other this exact crap for decades and this is part of where the "push past her no" came from.


----------



## Buddy400

naiveonedave said:


> do most women only find 20 of men attractive?
> 
> If you google the above, you get links to the articles based on the research. The research suggests that men are almost the opposite, they are attracted to >50% of the women.


The theory is that it's like the difference between a wine connoisseur and a wino.

They both like wine a lot, one's just pickier than the other.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Actually, I noticed the "heartis..." link and ignored it. I do acknowledge that those guys do think you should push past the No (incredibly risky behavior these days. In addition to being morally wrong). I believe some small number of women might indeed say "No" when they mean "Yes", but there's no way I'd touch them (Louis C.K. had a great routine about this). I believe that was Naïve Dave? If so, he's registered as not believing in "pushing past the NO", so the link probably didn't indicate approval of everything in it. That site really shouldn't be linked to (even if it might be right from time to time). It's like trying to convince a Liberal that they're wrong by quoting Fox News or an atheist by quoting the bible..


So the guys who DO post it, you just give them a pass and don't consider that they actually believe the crap? They DID in fact post it here. Not sure why you'd ignore that they did so and assume they didn't really believe it. They most certainly do believe it.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Right. Because some men are terrified of women who actually want sex. They consider her a sl*t.
> 
> So they only want to have sex with a woman who doesn't want it, because that means she's pure or has values he admires.
> 
> But rather than respect her purity and values, they want to coerce her into having sex.


Maybe these are still the views in the further reaches of the bible belt (although there does seem to be a lot of sex positive [with your spouse] Christianity going on these days), but I think you're tilting at windmills that haven't been there since the 1950's.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Maybe these are still the views in the further reaches of the bible belt (although there does seem to be a lot of sex positive [with your spouse] Christianity going on these days), but I think you're tilting at windmills that haven't been there since the 1950's.


Then why are there blogs all over the net about how to overcome last minute resistance and get a woman from no to yes?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> So the guys who DO post it, you just give them a pass and don't consider that they actually believe the crap? They DID in fact post it here. Not sure why you'd ignore that they did so and assume they didn't really believe it. They most certainly do believe it.


I try to assume the best in people. I can easily give a pass to the occasional doubtful reference.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Then why are there blogs all over the net about how to overcome last minute resistance and get a woman from no to yes?


Why are there blogs all over the internet about Furries?


----------



## naiveonedave

Buddy400 said:


> The theory is that it's like the difference between a wine connoisseur and a wino.
> 
> They both like wine a lot, one's just pickier than the other.


I agree

Some of the other posters in this thread really extrapolate what that means. If only 20% of the men are attractive, you don't have very much obvious AC sex going on, assuming that the 20% of the men only have a few on the hook at a time. The women aren't that attracted to the rest of the men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Why are there blogs all over the internet about Furries?


Wow, really?

Okee doke. 

I get it why some people turn a blind eye to these things and expect the best in people. Even when those people show over and over that they don't have good intentions. It is easier to just assume "they didn't mean it like that".

But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to call the rapey sh*t out when I see it. Because people need to know what is being said, and that NO it is not just harmless "boys being boys".

I'm going to spread a sex positive message, which includes AC. Why? Because I want people to have happy, mutually consensual and enthusiastic sex. There are a lot of us spreading this message. Hopefully more of us than those who spread the "push past her last minute resistance" crap. Over time, that stuff will be seen for the rapey crap it is by most everyone, and certainly by all decent people who actually want to feel desired sexually.


----------



## ConanHub

OnTheFly said:


> This is what affirmative resentment looks like…
> 
> https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/affirmative-resentment/
> 
> I encourage the female version of feminists to not read this, I don't want you to be micro-aggressed by having your beliefs challenged.
> 
> To the men, even those sympathetic to feminism, read it, and see if you don't see a problem with the concept of AC.
> 
> On a side note, I watched the video from Lacy Green, the 25yr old, self described feminist sex blogger/youtuber. Her description of how 'hot' it is when some guy constantly peppers her for 'yeses' is laughable. It is literally unbelievable. Also, the definition for rape she gives is so broad, so as to be meaningless, and as a previous poster said, offensive. An inch deep and a mile wide! (I wonder how many women are going to be accused of rape now…..it's sooo easy, guys, go for it!). I'm not seriously suggesting that, it's unseemly…for either gender.
> 
> The idea, that this is widely accepted (even by the women) amongst the younger generation and that they truly get 'it' is also laughable.
> 
> Truly an Orwellian dystopia being advocated.


The woman described in that post that was mad that he didn't push past her "no" and "stop" was an idiot. I would have just made out with her after that unless she changed her tune. Her attitude is part of what FW is talking about correcting. She should feel confident enough about herself to not make a man basically rape her to have sex.

This is a recurring problem with women who are shamed for being sexual. That is why there are far too many rape fantasies in women, so they don't have to feel shame and bare no responsibility for burning with lust.

I see it as more of a social issue, not a biological one. Women are designed very well to be ravenous sex machines but they are very susceptible to societal pressures.

Not saying that women don't appreciate a sexually confident man but the reverse is just as true.

I believe that the pressure on women has resulted in real slvts, who just don't care, being the women who mostly display sexual confidence because they don't have to worry about an already ruined reputation. The only real difference between the town bike and the good girl is who is caving to social pressures and who isn't.

I'm not inferring that all women want promiscuity, but I absolutely believe they want more freedom from pressure when thinking about their own sexuality and who they want to be with.

This issue is huge and impacts untold numbers of marriages.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonmd

Faithful Wife said:


> So the guys who DO post it, you just give them a pass and don't consider that they actually believe the crap? They DID in fact post it here. Not sure why you'd ignore that they did so and assume they didn't really believe it. They most certainly do believe it.


I can read that page and toss out the editorial interjections and just read the story of the guy who went on a date, did the right thing, then found out later that the girl didn't like that he gave up. That part rings true to me, I would have walked away as well and then tried for date #2 and #3. If she doesn't respond she doesn't respond, NEXT! 

You read it and see the other crap. And off we go to page #11!


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> I can read that page and toss out the editorial interjections and just read the story of the guy who went on a date, did the right thing, then found out later that the girl didn't like that he gave up. That part rings true to me, I would have walked away as well and then tried for date #2 and #3. If she doesn't respond she doesn't respond, NEXT!
> 
> You read it and see the other crap. And off we go to page #11!


Sorry, but I will not ignore the rapey bullcrap in that article. I will always point it out and shed light upon the issue when I see it. And I will always lose respect for those who link it, believe it, and push that agenda.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> There are a lot of us spreading this message. Hopefully more of us than those who spread the "push past her last minute resistance" crap.
> 
> *You won. A long time ago. Who doesn't flinch these days when they see an old James Bond movie and James slaps her and gives her what she "really" wants.*
> 
> Over time, that stuff will be seen for the rapey crap it is by most everyone,
> 
> *It's already is seen that way by most everyone.*
> 
> and certainly by all decent people who actually want to feel desired sexually.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't believe "most everyone" sees it that way yet...which is evidenced by the hundreds if not thousands of blogs and books teaching men how to coerce, bully and rape women. They are not some small fraction on the fringe. I wish they were, but they are not. I'm spreading awareness about them. I have heard from lots of people at TAM alone (this isn't the only place I spread this message) thanking me for shining a light on these issues and that they had no idea this crap was happening, that these blogs existed, that men were sharing this crap. People who aren't dating don't tend to read the stuff that would shine a light on these issues...but I read them because I'm a relationship coach, and because I know a lot of young people who discuss these issues. If people don't even know these things are happening because they haven't heard of it, then it is typically quite a shock to them to find out what is being said on those blogs.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> do most women only find 20 of men attractive?
> 
> If you google the above, you get links to the articles based on the research. The research suggests that men are almost the opposite, they are attracted to >50% of the women.


Okay, so I googled the above, and what did I get? Nothing.

Then I put it in quotes. Still nothing. Then I changed the search to the assertion that women only find 20% of men attractive, and got only an Internet poll.

There are lots and lots of assertions that this is true on TAM, on all the MRA and PUA sites, but where oh where is the study that actually demonstrates even a shred of truth in that claim?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Then why are there blogs all over the net about how to overcome last minute resistance and get a woman from no to yes?





Buddy400 said:


> Why are there blogs all over the internet about Furries?


Because some people are Furries!


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Because some people are Furries!


And they are having wondering, consensual furry sex.


----------



## always_alone

Okay, I am getting seriously creeped out that the biggest objection to affirmative consent seems to be that 80% of men will not ever have sex.

I mean, yikes! Really? OMFG! You can't be serious? Please, please tell me you are not serious!


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> I asked "Are men that have given women date rape drugs and then had sex with them being found not guilty because "She didn't say no"?"
> 
> You replied
> 
> 
> Could you point out some cases? In this instance, I'm specifically asking about "Date Rape" drugs. It could also include cases where the woman is clearly unconscious for whatever reason.


Just one example, but there are more:
Jury finds Layton man not guilty of date rape<BR> Defense says sex was consensual, despite drug use | Deseret News


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Okay, I am getting seriously creeped out that the biggest objection to affirmative consent seems to be that 80% of men will not ever have sex.
> 
> I mean, yikes! Really? OMFG! You can't be serious? Please, please tell me you are not serious!


I'm not sure about the guys on this thread, but YES there are many, many guys who are against AC because they feel entitled to sex, and entitled to "push past no".

This is how AC came to be, by the way. Because "if she's too drunk to talk, she can't say no" was an excuse to rape women. That's why you now need to hear a verbal YES, so that there is never any confusion.

All the whining about false rape charges doesn't make any sense, since AC would protect those guys who weren't getting a clear signal.

Bottom line....any many who WANTS to know he has her consent has no issue with AC. It seems that the guys who would rather dabble in the gray areas are convinced that is the only way they WILL GET ANY SEX. Therefore, no only means no if she says it several times, gets up and leaves, slaps him in the face, or something to that affect.

The men who think they won't get any sex if they have to use AC probably shouldn't be having sex at all.


----------



## Centurions

always_alone said:


> Okay, I am getting seriously creeped out that the biggest objection to affirmative consent seems to be that 80% of men will not ever have sex.
> 
> I mean, yikes! Really? OMFG! You can't be serious? Please, please tell me you are not serious!



Greetings!

If 80% of men aren't having sex--wow, that's pretty pathetic! If these men embraced some basic "Alpha" attributes, they wouldn't need to waste time begging for sex from some stupid girl, or "pushing" some neurotic emo hogbeast to fvvck them. They could easily find lots of women that are "enthusiastic and eager" to fvvck them. White, black, Asian, Latina--there's a huge abundance of hungry, eager women. Few of them are attracted to socially retarded, unemployed hogbeast men that have poor hygiene and are too feminized and weak in character.

To change that, requires too much effort for many such men, sadly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm pretty sure that just creeped Always out even more, but whatevs.


----------



## Centurions

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm pretty sure that just creeped Always out even more, but whatevs.



Greetings!

I suggested what some of the obstacles are for those 80% men, and that it may be too much effort for them to change, which is, I think sad. That's creepy though?

LOL! Yeah, *whatevs*!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> If 80% of men aren't having sex--wow, that's pretty pathetic! If these men embraced some basic "Alpha" attributes, they wouldn't need to waste time begging for sex from some stupid girl, or "pushing" some neurotic emo hogbeast to fvvck them. They could easily find lots of women that are "enthusiastic and eager" to fvvck them. White, black, Asian, Latina--there's a huge abundance of hungry, eager women. Few of them are attracted to socially retarded, unemployed hogbeast men that have poor hygiene and are too feminized and weak in character.
> 
> To change that, requires too much effort for many such men, sadly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I just can't help but like on this because the word "hogbeast" seriously made me laugh! 

I'm going to steal it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

I just think it is a meaner way of saying "no fat chicks", which I find offensive.


----------



## ConanHub

He was calling men hogbeasts too.

I would not use it to describe an overweight person but a nasty one.

The word just cracks me up!
_Posted via Mobile Device_

Yes. I am damn immature!


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Just one example, but there are more:
> Jury finds Layton man not guilty of date rape<BR> Defense says sex was consensual, despite drug use | Deseret News


You're right. That is one. It was 16 years ago, hope it hasn't happened since. I couldn't find out if there was disagreement over whether or not she was given the drug. Hard to believe that the jury would have thought this and still not found guilty.

Even so, it seems that this was seen as a miscarriage of justice at the time and prosecutors felt that they could go to trial without an AC law.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> Okay, I am getting seriously creeped out that the biggest objection to affirmative consent seems to be that 80% of men will not ever have sex.
> 
> I mean, yikes! Really? OMFG! You can't be serious? Please, please tell me you are not serious!


I don't think that you are correctly identifying the biggest objection (or even An objection).

I think it has more to do with a law that would be problematic to enforce and might put men in a position of "guilty until proven innocent".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy....there is certainly a BIG objection based on what these guys consider the 80% rule. Do you not read all of the posts? They are saying it right here on this thread, on the other one, they've said it on plenty of previous posts...and men all over the internet say it to each other, which is where some of these guys are quoting from.

I'm super happy about the wonderful guys here who do NOT say it. But that doesn't mean the ones who object aren't saying it, they are.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Buddy....there is certainly a BIG objection based on what these guys consider the 80% rule. Do you not read all of the posts? They are saying it right here.


80/20 was initially discussed in response to the idea that "any man can get a woman who enthusiastically wants sex with them". Then, there's been a lot of off-topic discussion about it.

Point out a post that claims that Affirmative Consent is bad *because*, if required, 80% of men wouldn't get any sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's just a few examples of the type of guys who oppose AC:

What Turns Women on and how to eliminate last minute resistance | RSD Nation

5 Ways To Smash Through Last Minute Resistance With Any Girl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjEzwjTtpM4

How to break a girl?s LMR ? Last Minute Resistance in bed

If You Aren?t Familiar With LMR (Last Minute Resistance); You Ought To Read This Now! | PUA Adventures

(this one has this little gem of a quote on the first page of it: "If you’re unfamiliar with the Pickup-community term LMR (Last Minute Resistance), then check out this video of mines where I briefly spoke about the top 10 most common sh*t a girl would say to a guy in order to wiggle her way out of getting f*cked at the last second.")

How To Disarm Last Minute Resistance | Bristol Lair

PUA Freeze Outs - Using A Freeze Out To Overcome Last Minute Resistance

PUA Express



Those were just what popped up on the first page of a google search. There were dozens and dozens more of them.

Buddy, these guys ALL TELL EACH OTHER the 80/20 "rule". They ALL believe they are in the 80%. The ALL believe they cannot get women to want to have sex with them, that's why they must learn how to coerce and rape women. I wish I could be like you and just assume the best in people...but when it comes to this issue, nope, I can't do it. There is too much evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> 80/20 was initially discussed in response to the idea that "any man can get a woman who enthusiastically wants sex with them". Then, there's been a lot of off-topic discussion about it.
> 
> Point out a post that claims that Affirmative Consent is bad *because*, if required, 80% of men wouldn't get any sex.


I will have to un-ignore people to do this, but I will do so later tonight.

It is a very common thing the PUA/MRA/red pill crowd say to each other, they repeat it over and over. And yes, they have said so on this thread and on the other one.


----------



## ConanHub

technovelist said:


> Right, so only about 80% of the male population is affected, namely the ones that women don't lust after. Therefore it's not a problem!


One possible post.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

technovelist said:


> The issue is, again, that most men never, or at best almost never, have a woman enthusiastic to have sex with *them*, although the same woman may be quite enthusiastic to have sex with *someone else*. Thus, this rule condemns those men pretty much never to have sex.
> 
> Is this okay with you?


Possible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

ConanHub said:


> One possible post.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If a KKK member says the sky is blue, he's right.

Doesn't mean most of his other opinions aren't fvcked up.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You asked for examples...you got one (and I can do more later, as I said)....and you....mocked the example?

I guess I can't take your questions seriously Buddy because even when we answer you, you just change the question or subject.

I'll save my energy and not bother with those other examples as I can see you will not change your thinking on it anyway.


----------



## Buddy400

On to the next question.

I said "If a man didn't stop at "no", then it seems unlikely the he would ask for a "yes"."

You replied



always_alone said:


> What if the person he is after is asleep or incapacitated?


I don't think we need AC to handle this. Is being asleep a significant problem such that AC is needed so that prosecutors can bring charges that they would otherwise be unable to bring? "Incapacitated" is handled under existing law. Why is AC needed to address this?


----------



## OnTheFly

Faithful Wife said:


> You asked for examples...you got one (and I can do more later, as I said)....and you....mocked the example?
> 
> I guess I can't take your questions seriously Buddy because even when we answer you, you just change the question or subject.
> 
> I'll save my energy and not bother with those other examples as I can see you will not change your thinking on it anyway.


Martyr!!

All this stuff about the 80% is a distraction and a rabbit hole.

Buddy nailed it a few posts ago, but since it's easier to mock the 80/20 you're going to stick to that.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> You asked for examples...you got one (and I can do more later, as I said)....and you....mocked the example?
> 
> I guess I can't take your questions seriously Buddy because even when we answer you, you just change the question or subject.
> 
> I'll save my energy and not bother with those other examples as I can see you will not change your thinking on it anyway.


Sorry, it was not intended to be mocking.

In fact, I just noticed that "one possible post" was by Conanhub? And my response was relevant to something that you had said previously but seemingly unassociated with "One Possible Post", so I can't really re-create what I was typing 15 minutes ago!

And, re-reading Conan's quote of technovelist, it does indeed tie the two together somewhat. I'm not sure that he meant to do that. Unforced error on his part and disturbing if intended. That's equivalent to saying if stealing is outlawed then some people will have less money than others.

I wasn't looking for that, you were. It's interesting to note how much what we expect to find drives what we find.


----------



## Buddy400

This is the one that I saw and didn't see any relationship between 20/80 and AC:

"Right, so only about 80% of the male population is affected, namely the ones that women don't lust after. Therefore it's not a problem!"

This one, right under it, I missed. This does indeed associate the two.

"The issue is, again, that most men never, or at best almost never, have a woman enthusiastic to have sex with them, although the same woman may be quite enthusiastic to have sex with someone else. Thus, this rule condemns those men pretty much never to have sex."

And I also, somehow, originally thought they came from FW.


----------



## TotallyDone

techmom said:


> Where did I state that verbal consent was the only consent? When I explained what affirmative consent was in a post in the " Affirmative consent" thread in the Men's Clubhouse not all of it was verbal...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that all consent must be verbal?


The problem is that *you* will not be the jury or the judge. And some poor bas$tards are going to end up in court arguing over if she was adequately flushed or panting hard enough to hurdle the high threshold that affirmative consent demands.

Placing the burden of proof on the defendant is never a good idea. And that is what affirmative consent does. Aside from emasculating men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I wasn't looking for that, you were. It's interesting to note how much what we expect to find drives what we find.


Um, no. I was just reading what was written by those posters, and I have read many other similar things by the same posters, so I know how they feel about the subject already since they have said the same things many times.

I was not "looking" for it, I simply paid attention to what they actually wrote and have written before.


----------



## BlueWoman

TotallyDone said:


> And some poor bas$tards are going to end up in court arguing over if she was adequately flushed or panting hard enough to hurdle the high threshold that affirmative consent demands.


You are confusing arousal with consent. They are not the same thing. I can be incredibly turned on, but think that sex is not a good idea, so I don't consent. 

Your apparent confusion only reinforces the point that affirmative consent is a good idea. 



> Aside from emasculating men.


If you can't get affirmative consent, then I think you have bigger problems.

People, this is not that difficult. If the person you are with doesn't want to have sex with you then don't have sex with them. If they do want to have sex with you, then they should tell you or show you. 

Seriously, the fact that there are so many people who are put off by affirmative consent is creepy. 

And just in case you didn't know it, let me tell you, nothing turns a woman off faster than a creep. 

If affirmative consent bugs you because you are afraid you won't get any...you're a creep, and you probably aren't going to get any because you creep women out. 

Happily I can report in my experience with men, far less than 80% are creepers.


----------



## Cletus

BlueWoman said:


> Seriously, the fact that there are so many people who are put off by affirmative consent is creepy.


I'm sorry that you find my concerns of AC in a legal framework to be creepy. I didn't think arguing from an information exchange, ambiguity, and inversion of responsibility position put me in the creeper camp.

I guess I should have realized that I needed to beg forgiveness _before_ posting.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Maybe you could try to see *why* it sounds creepy?

Or not. Not saying you should or that you care to. But it is a quite normal response for a woman to be creeped out by a man who says "I shouldn't have to hear a yes".


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's just a few examples of the type of guys who oppose AC:
> 
> What Turns Women on and how to eliminate last minute resistance | RSD Nation
> 
> 5 Ways To Smash Through Last Minute Resistance With Any Girl
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjEzwjTtpM4
> 
> How to break a girl?s LMR ? Last Minute Resistance in bed
> 
> If You Aren?t Familiar With LMR (Last Minute Resistance); You Ought To Read This Now! | PUA Adventures
> 
> (this one has this little gem of a quote on the first page of it: "If you’re unfamiliar with the Pickup-community term LMR (Last Minute Resistance), then check out this video of mines where I briefly spoke about the top 10 most common sh*t a girl would say to a guy in order to wiggle her way out of getting f*cked at the last second.")
> 
> How To Disarm Last Minute Resistance | Bristol Lair
> 
> PUA Freeze Outs - Using A Freeze Out To Overcome Last Minute Resistance
> 
> PUA Express
> 
> 
> 
> Those were just what popped up on the first page of a google search. There were dozens and dozens more of them.
> 
> Buddy, these guys ALL TELL EACH OTHER the 80/20 "rule". They ALL believe they are in the 80%. The ALL believe they cannot get women to want to have sex with them, that's why they must learn how to coerce and rape women. I wish I could be like you and just assume the best in people...but when it comes to this issue, nope, I can't do it. There is too much evidence to the contrary.


=/

Now I see what you're on about

I still don't like how you blanketed me along with ALL men thanks to these idiots but meh whatever, think I spat enough at your words on this thread

Regardless I find your links disturbing, may have to open up a specific topic for it


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> This is the one that I saw and didn't see any relationship between 20/80 and AC:
> 
> "Right, so only about 80% of the male population is affected, namely the ones that women don't lust after. Therefore it's not a problem!"
> 
> This one, right under it, I missed. This does indeed associate the two.
> 
> "The issue is, again, that most men never, or at best almost never, have a woman enthusiastic to have sex with them, although the same woman may be quite enthusiastic to have sex with someone else. Thus, this rule condemns those men pretty much never to have sex."
> 
> And I also, somehow, originally thought they came from FW.



Condemns? What then is the answer as it relates to affirmative consent? Or really any consent. What DO you do when you can't find a single woman to lust after you? That is what I find baffling.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Okay, so I googled the above, and what did I get? Nothing.
> 
> Then I put it in quotes. Still nothing. Then I changed the search to the assertion that women only find 20% of men attractive, and got only an Internet poll.
> 
> There are lots and lots of assertions that this is true on TAM, on all the MRA and PUA sites, but where oh where is the study that actually demonstrates even a shred of truth in that claim?


dunno, I got pages of hits on articles discussing and dissecting the research. Sorry, I am not going to teach you how to search on this forum....


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Okay, I am getting seriously creeped out that the biggest objection to affirmative consent seems to be that 80% of men will not ever have sex.
> 
> I mean, yikes! Really? OMFG! You can't be serious? Please, please tell me you are not serious!


You are missing the point. Based on the research, MOST women are only attracted to 20% of the men. This means that if you are in the 80%, the odds are against you, but you still have >>0% chance of having sex/LTRs/etc. What the research suggests is that MAY have issues where the woman is not 'as enthusiastic' as one would hope. Which, if true, may lead to issues with AC.


----------



## ConanHub

How is the AC law worded?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> I'm sorry that you find my concerns of AC in a legal framework to be creepy. I didn't think arguing from an information exchange, ambiguity, and inversion of responsibility position put me in the creeper camp.
> 
> I guess I should have realized that I needed to beg forgiveness _before_ posting.


To the degree that I think I understand what you are saying, I don't find your particular point of view creepy.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> dunno, I got pages of hits on articles discussing and dissecting the research. Sorry, I am not going to teach you how to search on this forum....


My search skills are adequate, thank you. That you are unwilling to post even a single link to a study that comes even close to confirming your assertions suggests to me that there is no study showing anything of the kind. Just a bunch of angry PUA types throwing around assertions.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I'm sorry that you find my concerns of AC in a legal framework to be creepy. I didn't think arguing from an information exchange, ambiguity, and inversion of responsibility position put me in the creeper camp.
> 
> I guess I should have realized that I needed to beg forgiveness _before_ posting.


And yet, AC actually reduces ambiguity about the standards of consent, and rather than inverting the responsibility, actually ensures that both parties bear some responsibility.

Under the current standard, all of the onus is placed on the accuser to establish lack of consent, to establish the circumstances, to establish all of the facts of the case. And all the accused has to do is say, "nope, that's not how it happened." And voila: reasonable doubt.

How is this standard likely to every lead to justice?


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think we need AC to handle this. Is being asleep a significant problem such that AC is needed so that prosecutors can bring charges that they would otherwise be unable to bring? "Incapacitated" is handled under existing law. Why is AC needed to address this?


"Incapacitated" is mentioned in existing law, but first of all, universities are not prosecuting rape and sexual assault law. They are enforcing educational policies. Which is quite different, and is in their purview to do.

Second, while "incapacitated" is mentioned in existing law, the standards are vague, and turns out, not particularly helpful in the prosecution of rape. Roughly 60% of all rapes are based in intoxication and it's easy enough to just say "I didn't know" or "I was drunk too" and then, bob's your uncle: reasonable doubt. 

The point with thinking about changes to the law is not at all to suggest that an accused is assumed to be guilty. It is to respond to the problem that the burden on the accuser is currently much too high to ever be a strong foundation for justice.


----------



## BlueWoman

naiveonedave said:


> You are missing the point. Based on the research, MOST women are only attracted to 20% of the men. This means that if you are in the 80%, the odds are against you, but you still have >>0% chance of having sex/LTRs/etc. What the research suggests is that MAY have issues where the woman is not 'as enthusiastic' as one would hope. Which, if true, may lead to issues with AC.


Nobody is missing the point. Just because a woman doesn't find a picture of a man attractive doesn't mean that that man wouldn't be found attractive. Women are not as visual as men are. Initial physical attraction is not necessary to be enthusiastic eventually about sex. 

So the fact that I'm not paying attention to every random dude does not entitle you or anyone else to sex. 

If you are not getting affirmative consent it has nothing to do with how you look. 

You want to attract a high value woman? Be high value yourself and then make her feel amazing. 

Women identify a variety of characteristics that make a man high value, and they are not all the same. 

So if you drop the entitled creep attitude, and then work on yourself you might just find it's much easier to get affirmative consent. 

But honestly...this conversation alone, no matter what you look like, is a serious turn off.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> =/
> 
> Now I see what you're on about
> 
> I still don't like how you blanketed me along with ALL men thanks to these idiots but meh whatever, think I spat enough at your words on this thread
> 
> Regardless I find your links disturbing, may have to open up a specific topic for it


Random, I did not blanket you with all men...you are not one of the guys who has been linking and posting MRA/PUA blogs.


----------



## BlueWoman

Cletus said:


> I'm sorry that you find my concerns of AC in a legal framework to be creepy. I didn't think arguing from an information exchange, ambiguity, and inversion of responsibility position put me in the creeper camp.
> 
> I guess I should have realized that I needed to beg forgiveness _before_ posting.


Where's the roll eyes smiley?

Look if you get affirmative consent, you have reduced your odds of being falsely accused. And while I'm not going to deny false accusations happen. 
I also know that the legal system is clogged with cases that had the man waited for affirmative consent or walked away when he didn't get it, wouldn't exist. 

But beyond the legal framework, this is just good manners. Waiting for affirmative consent, just makes you a decent person. It should be the standard always. 

And yes, having a conversation prior and finding a safe word other than no is affirmative consent. 

Or a woman who has expressed concern about sex, be it because of trauma or inexperience, but still says she wants to try but doesn't neccessarily enjoy it, that's also affirmative consent. (Although it might require you being very gentle and careful.)

Other forms of affirmative consent: your partner pulls down your pants, feels up your genitals, undresses you, helps you underss her/him, tell you that he/she want you, or my favorite, says "**** me now." 

Things that are not affirmative consent: an erection, arousal, deep breathing, apathy, the inability to say no, not saying no the second time you asked in that 15 minute period. 

If this is confusing to you, and you have difficulty accepting this, stop dating, stop trying to have sex, and get yourself into a counseling session, possibly with a legit relationship expert and discover what is wrong with you and then work on fixing it. 

If you continue to have sex, the next time you get accused of rape, it's probably not a false accusation, even if you don't get it.


----------



## Cletus

BlueWoman said:


> Where's the roll eyes smiley?
> 
> Other forms of affirmative consent: your partner pulls down your pants, feels up your genitals, undresses you, helps you underss her/him, tell you that he/she want you, or my favorite, says "**** me now."


Really? Pulling down your partners pants and feeling up his or her genitals sounds an awful lot like attempted rape to me unless you asked first and got permission later. 

But thanks for pointing out the inherent problem with AC. 




> If this is confusing to you, and you have difficulty accepting this, stop dating, stop trying to have sex, and get yourself into a counseling session, possibly with a legit relationship expert and discover what is wrong with you and then work on fixing it.


You could probably be more condescending, but it would take no small effort.


----------



## Centurions

Greetings!

Why does "consent" seem so ambiguous and complicated? Why would a man even bother if she's not enthusiastic and eager? If she's not eager, fvvck it, you say get dressed, maybe some other time. Whatever, and move on.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Why does "consent" seem so ambiguous and complicated? Why would a man even bother if she's not enthusiastic and eager? If she's not eager, fvvck it, you say get dressed, maybe some other time. Whatever, and move on.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Because unless you are one of the 20% mega hotties, you won't ever have sex in your entire life. Therefor you must walk some weird creeptastic range between encouragement, coercion and force.


----------



## Cletus

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Why does "consent" seem so ambiguous and complicated? Why would a man even bother if she's not enthusiastic and eager? If she's not eager, fvvck it, you say get dressed, maybe some other time. Whatever, and move on.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here's how it went back in my day. I'm old, cut me some slack.

You were in the basement with the lights down. Your relationship is new, your heart is pounding. You're making out on the sofa, swapping spit, touching each other, but not sexually yet.

Someone decides to make the first overtly sexual move. You didn't pull out a binder full of consent forms. You didn't pull out a checklist and ask permission. Rather, one of you puts his or her hand in the pants of the other one when it seems the time is right.

Sometimes the time was right, and sometimes it wasn't. The way you knew for sure was when your partner either allowed it or stopped it. In case of the latter, it wasn't rape, because as soon as your partner let you know that it wasn't welcome, you stopped. 

In AC, you may have just technically raped your partner. I'm not talking about a false accusation, I'm talking about a sincerely held belief that any sexual activity at all that isn't pre-approved constitutes rape. So to answer your question, finding out if your partner is enthusiastic by any other means than a verbal agreement *before hand* could be considered rape. 

You won't hear me arguing that this is necessarily the best way to communicate sexually, but it is not at all uncommon, even today. 

"In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0

This is the ever-so-creepy American Legal Institute discussing the issues surrounding making AC the law of the land.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Here's how it went back in my day. I'm old, cut me some slack.
> 
> You were in the basement with the lights down. Your relationship is new, your heart is pounding. You're making out on the sofa, swapping spit, touching each other, but not sexually yet.
> 
> Someone decides to make the first overtly sexual move. You didn't pull out a binder full of consent forms. You didn't pull out a checklist and ask permission. Rather, one of you puts his or her hand in the pants of the other one when it seems the time is right.
> 
> Sometimes the time was right, and sometimes it wasn't. The way you knew for sure was when your partner either *allowed it or stopped it*. In case of the latter, it wasn't rape, because as soon as your partner let you know that it wasn't welcome, you stopped.


All this time, the way I thought I knew it was right was that we were *both* actively participating with vocal and physical expression. I mean, a starfish could do what you describe. And how WOULD you know with a starfish?


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Maybe you could try to see *why* it sounds creepy?
> 
> Or not. Not saying you should or that you care to. But it is a quite normal response for a woman to be creeped out by a man who says "I shouldn't have to hear a yes".


And what about the man who says, "I have no problems needing to hear a yes from you, but I'm not sure I will always know when it is I'm supposed to ask for one, because there are no guidelines, I'm human, everyone is unique, you're under no legal obligation to say "no" if I get it wrong, and I'm afraid of being accused of rape because I touched the back of your knee in that Special spot you hold sacred".

What do you tell that man? 

There's no ambiguity if you push me away when I come in for a kiss. There's no ambiguity if you strip naked and straddle me on the couch (of course, you might have just sexually assaulted me). In between, there's the real world. 

THIS is the part of AC that I want to talk about. The part where the rubber meets the road of the real world and those situations that were hand-waved away start making sexual predators out of otherwise well intentioned people.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> And what about the man who says, "I have no problems needing to hear a yes from you, but I'm not sure I will always know when it is I'm supposed to ask for one, because there are no guidelines, I'm human, everyone is unique, you're under no legal obligation to say "no" if I get it wrong, and I'm afraid of being accused of rape because I touched the back of your knee in that Special spot you hold sacred".
> 
> What do you tell that man?
> 
> There's no ambiguity if you push me away when I come in for a kiss. There's no ambiguity if you strip naked and straddle me on the couch (of course, you might have just sexually assaulted me). In between, there's the real world.
> 
> THIS is the part of AC that I want to talk about. The part where the rubber meets the road of the real world and those situations that were hand-waved away start making sexual predators out of otherwise well intentioned people.


This one is really easy. If you are perceiving ambiguity, then you know to ASK. The PERSON.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> All this time, the way I thought I knew it was right was that we were *both* actively participating with vocal and physical expression. I mean, a starfish could do what you describe. And how WOULD you know with a starfish?


Your failure to imagine the entire universe of personal sexual interaction doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sexually inhibited people are legion, and they will continue to exist long after my generation is dead.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Your failure to imagine the entire universe of personal sexual interaction doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sexually inhibited people are legion, and they will continue to exist long after my generation is dead.


I was being goofy. Man, you are uptight. 

Do you think it is wise to push the envelope with "sexually inhibited" people? I don't.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> I was being goofy. Man, you are uptight.
> 
> Do you think it is wise to push the envelope with "sexually inhibited" people? I don't.


Sorry, I missed it. I've been grouped in with the creepy, with the old fashioned, with the rapey - pick your adjective on this one. 

It is absolutely essential to push the envelope with sexually inhibited people, but perhaps only within the confines of an LTR. Even if they want you to do it before that, it's just too dangerous.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Sorry, I missed it. I've been grouped in with the creepy, with the old fashioned, with the rapey - pick your adjective on this one.
> 
> It is absolutely essential to push the envelope with sexually inhibited people, but perhaps only within the confines of an LTR. Even if they want you do it before that, it's just too dangerous.


I guess I just don't think it is too much to ask in the context of the history of rape in our culture to think that maybe if you are with an inhibited person, asking IS a good idea. Vs gee I am going to go for it and hope for the best. What IS the best? When discussing this with my son and daughter, the BEST outcome is not so much whether you get some. It is that everyone wakes up still happy the next day.


----------



## naiveonedave

BlueWoman said:


> Nobody is missing the point. Just because a woman doesn't find a picture of a man attractive doesn't mean that that man wouldn't be found attractive. Women are not as visual as men are. Initial physical attraction is not necessary to be enthusiastic eventually about sex.
> 
> So the fact that I'm not paying attention to every random dude does not entitle you or anyone else to sex.
> 
> If you are not getting affirmative consent it has nothing to do with how you look.
> 
> You want to attract a high value woman? Be high value yourself and then make her feel amazing.
> 
> Women identify a variety of characteristics that make a man high value, and they are not all the same.
> 
> So if you drop the entitled creep attitude, and then work on yourself you might just find it's much easier to get affirmative consent.
> 
> But honestly...this conversation alone, no matter what you look like, is a serious turn off.


I was pointing out the theory, I don't know if it true, partially true or total bs. My guess is that there is some truth to it, but it isn't nearly universal. And this isn't about me, so stop implying that you think I am an a$$hat. And to think that men have no reason to fear AC is asinine, because if implemented more globally based on the rules at use in some colleges, it does trample presumed innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> All this time, the way I thought I knew it was right was that we were *both* actively participating with vocal and physical expression. I mean, a starfish could do what you describe. And how WOULD you know with a starfish?


however, in this situation, if the form wasn't filled out or the woman had regrets later the man could be found guilty under AC


----------



## SARAHMCD

The last two men I was with both asked for specific affirmative consent. 

One stopped what we were doing, looked me in the eye and twice said "are you ok with this?". I was sober, at his place and we were in a state of undress. He's in his late thirties, I'm in my forties (not kids!). 

The second stopped, looked me in the eye and said "so I assume you know where this is leading, but I need to know you want this." I smiled, nodded and kissed him. We were still dressed. He stopped again "I need to hear you actually say the words _I want to have sex with you_." I jokingly asked if we were being recorded. He was very serious "No, but I need to hear you say the words."

They are both ex-US military (fairly recently) so I'm assuming its something they are being trained about there? No means no, just doesn't cut it anymore with the new law I guess.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> And what about the man who says, "I have no problems needing to hear a yes from you, but I'm not sure I will always know when it is I'm supposed to ask for one, because there are no guidelines, I'm human, everyone is unique, you're under no legal obligation to say "no" if I get it wrong, and I'm afraid of being accused of rape because I touched the back of your knee in that Special spot you hold sacred".
> 
> What do you tell that man?
> 
> There's no ambiguity if you push me away when I come in for a kiss. There's no ambiguity if you strip naked and straddle me on the couch (of course, you might have just sexually assaulted me). In between, there's the real world.
> 
> THIS is the part of AC that I want to talk about. The part where the rubber meets the road of the real world and those situations that were hand-waved away start making sexual predators out of otherwise well intentioned people.


I want to talk about this part of AC too, but every time I try, you scoff at what I say. As if actually being mature enough to TALK about sex with a potential partner is absolutely ridiculous.

So I can't go anywhere with that.

And I'll admit that likewise, I consider your view that people should NOT be expected to actually talk about sex with a potential partner is absolutely ridiculous.

So I guess we can't talk about this part of AC.

The thing is, I'm sorry but, the old days are over and your way lost. Your way is what lead us up to now, where we actually have to talk things out instead of grunt and moan.

And I can say I've tried it your way, and I've also tried it my way. Fully consenting adults have no issue doing it my way...I *love* talking about potential sexual things I might do with a new partner, and they have always *loved* discussing this with me, too. I'm no Laci Green. I have far more adult conversation about these issues with a potential partner. The way she did it on the video was great...but I'm a huge wh*re compared to that, so my words would be a lot more of the type that most men would actually want to hear.

Whereas, the late night basement make out sessions, meh...it might have been hot and heavy, but I literally felt like "ugh, if this guy is so shy he can't even talk about what's going on, I'm sure I'm not going to get anything good out of this" and typically ended it early, not because I didn't want more, but because I could see clearly that those who were fumbling and bumbling and also not even able to say actual words during, before, or after, really weren't worth my sexual energy. Even back then, there were guys (and gals) who *were* more than happy to discuss what was going on.

Keep in mind, and this may be hard to believe (that's a joke) that I am a sexually aggressive person, and I don't want to dink around with soft yeses and nos and shy touches and unsure initiators. It requires me to do more of the work, even though I'm already doing plenty of work.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I want to talk about this part of AC too, but every time I try, you scoff at what I say. As if actually being mature enough to TALK about sex with a potential partner is absolutely ridiculous.


That's a complete fabrication and you know it.

The reason we can't have that conversation is that you won't drop the hubris that you have the One True enlightened path to satisfying adult sexuality. All others need not apply.

I'm not trying to tell you you're way is wrong. I'm trying to convey that it's incomplete and judgmental in the extreme for those who will never be like you. And frankly, you're right, I don't have the energy to fight that battle.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> That's a complete fabrication and you know it.


Um, no...it is how I interpret you.

And in case you don't realize it, you do come across as if what I'm saying is totally-oatally ridiculous. That's how I'm interpreting you.

Funny that we both think the other is doing it, right?

Except not really funny, we ARE both doing it.

Sorry, my way is the way of the future, therefore you are wrong. Nyah nyah nyah. :x


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> That's a complete fabrication and you know it.
> 
> The reason we can't have that conversation is that you won't drop the hubris that you have the One True enlightened path to satisfying adult sexuality. All others need not apply.


I can't speak to the tone of FW in this thread. But you seem to want they way it was to remain the way it was as the one true enlightened way as well. Vagary, insecurity and inhibition are seen as ok, healthy states in which to engage in supposed "consensual" sex. For my part, I don't agree. Those are really good reasons to INSIST on affirmative consent. Not reasons that are cast in stone to deny its possibility.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> I can't speak to the tone of FW in this thread. But you seem to want they way it was to remain the way it was as the one true enlightened way as well. Vagary, insecurity and inhibition are seen as ok, healthy states in which to engage in supposed "consensual" sex. For my part, I don't agree. Those are really good reasons to INSIST on affirmative consent. Not reasons that are cast in stone to deny its possibility.


No, I don't WANT it to be that way. I am acknowledging that it IS that way for some people. That it will probably remain that way for many for a very long time. And since it is that way, we have to consider them when we talk about things like changing the laws of the land, which is where AC is headed.

I too would like to live in a world where everyone was open, frank, and uninhibited in discussing their sex lives. But human nature being what it is, and the influence of parts of our culture that shames sexuality being what it is, we are not in a position to mandate that everyone act as if they are more comfortable with their sexuality than they actually are. 

I am, in this matter as in most, a realist, not an idealist.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> No, I don't WANT it to be that way. I am acknowledging that it *IS *that way for some people.


It does not have to be. Things that don't work well can be changed. But sometime that change starts in the legal system before it can become mainstream in the culture.



> That it will probably remain that way for many for a very long time.


Why? There are great bloggers on consent all over the net. It does not HAVE to last more than this next generation if people are smart, thoughtful and teach their kids.



> And since it is that way, we have to consider them when we talk about things like changing the laws of the land, which is where AC is headed.


Ah. One puts cart. One puts horse.


> I too would like to live in a world where everyone was open, frank, and uninhibited in discussing their sex lives. But human nature being what it is, and the influence of parts of our culture that shames sexuality being what it is, we are not in a position to mandate that everyone act as if they are more comfortable with their sexuality than they actually are.


We ARE in a place to make people think twice about doing it when they are not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> But human nature being what it is, and the influence of parts of our culture that shames sexuality being what it is, *we are not in a position to mandate that everyone act as if they are more comfortable with their sexuality than they actually are*.


Yes, we are. If you want to have consensual sex with an adult, you will simply have to get comfortable enough to be able to actually discuss it. If you aren't then you are taking a risk of either being raped or being accused of rape or raping someone without even realizing it.

People of course can still ignore the law and ignore the best practices and do as they please. That's what we cannot mandate. 

But we are definitely in a position to explain to people what the best practices are....while at the same time some of us in the sex positive community are working diligently to remove shame and stigma about sex to make this type of person have an easier time with it.

It isn't that we don't care about or feel protective towards those people who are inhibited. It is that we are saying hey, if you are inhibited, you are putting yourself at risk, so either learn to get rid of your inhibitions, or don't have sex until you can do so.

As you know and you already said it....this law or even AC as a best practice isn't going to change anything for a lot of people. People will find their way into sexual relationships just like they always have.

What I don't see you acknowledging is that we are trying to work against the absolute real creepers who do want to push past resistance. If we teach all young people that resistance means NO and that only yes means yes, then perhaps in the future we won't have as many inhibited people who can't state clearly what they want....because they will now have a template for HOW to say yes or no.

But again....when I bring these things up, you act like it is nonsense and you seem to only focus on the "poor" people who won't get any sex if AC is in practice and the guys who will get accused falsely. Why no empathy for people who HAVE experienced unwanted sex or touching precisely BECAUSE they were so inhibited that they could not figure out how to say no. You imply that this is just something easy for people to do but many times, it isn't.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, we are. If you want to have consensual sex with an adult, you will simply have to get comfortable enough to be able to actually discuss it. If you aren't then you are taking a risk of either being raped or being accused of rape or raping someone without even realizing it.


This. 



> People of course can still ignore the law and ignore the best practices and do as they please. That's what we cannot mandate.
> 
> But we are definitely in a position to explain to people what the best practices are....while at the same time some of us in the sex positive community are working diligently to remove shame and stigma about sex to make this type of person have an easier time with it.
> 
> It isn't that we don't care about or feel protective towards those people who are inhibited.


Raises hand! (Was, clearly not anymore.) Trust me when I tell you that having some guy wait for me to say no while I was wondering what the hell to do was not exactly a benefit to me!



> It is that we are saying hey, if you are inhibited, you are putting yourself at risk, so either learn to get rid of your inhibitions, or don't have sex until you can do so.


It read more to me that he thought of it as somehow helping past the inhibition.

I think in EITHER case the entire issue can be avoided by removing the ambiguity to which he is consistently refers rather than accepting ambiguity as the nature of the beast or even immaturity as the nature of the beast. Neither are the case.



> As you know and you already said it....this law or even AC as a best practice isn't going to change anything for a lot of people. People will find their way into sexual relationships just like they always have.
> 
> What I don't see you acknowledging is that we are trying to work against the absolute real creepers who do want to push past resistance.


Meh. Me not so much. It seems like a total win/win to me for all parties concerned. People who may have reasons to be concerned about their readiness to negotiate these waters would have legal reason to act on that concern. People who are concerned about false accusations have a real framework for being SURE not just well the cold fish did not say no.



> If we teach all young people that resistance means NO and that only yes means yes, then perhaps in the future we won't have as many inhibited people who can't state clearly what they want.


I think it goes further than that. I think this education, to really work, has to go past just the legalistic element. That is the entry point. Not only does only yes mean yes, but a decent yes is frickin hot. And "getting" sex off of someone who isn't into it, for WHATEVER reason, it decidedly NOT.



> But again....when I bring these things up, you act like it is nonsense and you seem to only focus on the "poor" people who won't get any sex if AC is in practice and the guys who will get accused falsely. Why no empathy for people who HAVE experienced unwanted sex or touching precisely BECAUSE they were so inhibited that they could not figure out how to say no.


For the record, "unwanted sex" is not what rape is. It is a violation. It is not like, Ugh there was a totally unwanted accident on the interstate with me. Just sayin'. 




> You imply that this is just something easy for people to do but many times, it isn't.


It SHOULD be easy for them to say no. But somehow it needn't be easy for someone to ask. Can't say I get it.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> It does not have to be. Things that don't work well can be changed. But sometime that change starts in the legal system before it can become mainstream in the culture.


And sometimes changes in the legal system blow up in our faces - like mandatory sentencing, to name one. Sexual predator listings for another. Minor drug possession felonies for a third. The law of unintended consequences is the one that simply will not be stopped. This one, IMHO, is rife for such problems. For the zillionth time, if the ALI is concerned about the legal ramifications of AC, then by god it's worth worrying about. This isn't just the crazed ramblings of some dude in an internet forum. If I am out of touch, then much of the legal profession in this country is as out of touch as am I. 

The idea of AC is great, but law doesn't deal in ideas. It deals in statutes and penalties. 



> Why? There are great bloggers on consent all over the net. It does not HAVE to last more than this next generation if people are smart, thoughtful and teach their kids.


This is equal parts good idea and magic thinking. You will not eradicate the sexual mores of this country in one generation. The sexual revolution happened in the 1960's and we're still arguing over whether or not an employer can opt out of providing birth control. 

Some of the next generation lives in Mississippi where they're raised in a Southern Baptist church a 4 hour ride from the nearest Planned Parenthood. They don't use the word sex in public - ever. 

I'm not advocating that we don't try, only that we be careful about turning them into criminals.



> We ARE in a place to make people think twice about doing it when they are not.


Yes, we are. Don't confound my concerns about AC as law with a desire to not educate our youth about sexuality. I bought my daughter her first box of condoms and discussed her becoming sexually active while she was still in high school. I am not a stiff-minded "Get off my lawn" type. 

I gotta stick to my guns because the sand keeps shifting, so I repeat - I am worried about the implications of AC as law because of the requirement of knowledge about another person's possibly unspoken boundaries required to implement it. 

You want me to be behind AC? Here's the one simple way to do so: when AC is written into law or college codes of conduct, add a paragraph to the effect that if the person who feels violated was in a condition to consent to any act, but did not tell her partner to stop when she felt a boundary was crossed IN THE MOMENT, no rape charge can be filed, including (especially) retroactively. If a request to stop is made and immediately followed, no rape charge can be filed. 

The sexual aggressor has the obligation to determine if the person is in a state to consent and seeks that consent to the best of his ability, but the other party is not absolved of the requirement to stop the act if they find it exceeds her boundaries. Consent can always be revoked, but it must be made clear to both parties that this has happened. 

Seek and obtain consent. When the inevitable mistake or miscommunication is made, correct the mistake. Rapists are those who don't take no for an answer or assault you when you can't agree. Rapists are not well intentioned people who failed to correctly read your body language.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> The idea of AC is great, but law doesn't deal in ideas. It deals in statutes and penalties.


So if not AC, then what? Sucky statutes and no penalties for rapists is the status quo law of the land. AC does not sound like a heaping pile of unexpected consequences. I would be very against any repercussion that falsely punish an innocent. But not anticipating it to such a degree that it makes me fear action. Not all changes in law have these unexpected consequences. And callous as it sounds, who are we to say that unexpected consequences are not part of the longer view journey we must take toward progress. The status quo is clearly not working.




> This is equal parts good idea and magic thinking.


If you would like to insult me, I can refrain from posting in reply to you, if you like. I see no benefit to me in it.



> You will not eradicate the sexual mores of this country in one generation. The sexual revolution happened in the 1960's and we're still arguing over whether or not an employer can opt out of providing birth control.


Still? You don't see how much has changed since 1960? My god. That is, um, interesting. Once upon a time a woman could not GET it. Now we are arguing over who is going to pay for it for poor people. ForGET all the rest.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> What I don't see you acknowledging is that we are trying to work against the absolute real creepers who do want to push past resistance. If we teach all young people that resistance means NO and that only yes means yes, then perhaps in the future we won't have as many inhibited people who can't state clearly what they want....because they will now have a template for HOW to say yes or no.


I can't be held to task for what I'm not saying. I already spend too much time here. I'm not discussing it because it's 

1. Obvious that LMR is, at the very least, rape-lite
2. No means No doesn't work for these types, and neither will Yes means Yes. For them, yes means yes, no means yes, and nothing short of the apocalypse means no. I am not defending them nor their practices, and think AC will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on this type of person. They are irrelevant to the discussion because they are outside the bounds of decent behavior in both systems. 



> But again....when I bring these things up, you act like it is nonsense and you seem to only focus on the "poor" people who won't get any sex if AC is in practice and the guys who will get accused falsely.


Because the ambiguity of the concept is my concern! It's my ONLY concern. It's my only resistance to and disagreement with the concept. But it's a big one. I am trying very hard to stay on target and remain focused on the single issue I have with AC. Here it is, in one sentence:

"No person should have to risk becoming a rapist because of his inability to read the mind of another". 



> Why no empathy for people who HAVE experienced unwanted sex or touching precisely BECAUSE they were so inhibited that they could not figure out how to say no. You imply that this is just something easy for people to do but many times, it isn't.


Of course I have empathy for these people. I also don't have any confidence whatsoever that this kind of person will become comfortable with an open and frank discussion about their sexuality because we adopt a new pet phrase for consent. Inhibition runs much, much deeper than that. Removing it is a decades long process for many, and a good portion never manage to do it ever. Which is harder for such an inhibited person - saying "no", or discussing in detail what they like beforehand?


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> So if not AC, then what? Sucky statutes and no penalties for rapists is the status quo law of the land.


It's not the sucky statutes that are causing few rape convictions. The statutes are clear and have stiff penalties.

The problems are that the crime is often hard to prove (it should be, for his word vs. her word is not sufficient), witnesses are often non-compliant, and some police jurisdictions don't aggressively pursue rape complaints.

But the law is very clear about rape. You won't fix any of the above issues with AC. 



> AC does not sound like a heaping pile of unexpected consequences.


I respectfully disagree. Have you read the article I linked?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> It's not the sucky statutes that are causing few rape convictions. The statutes are clear and have stiff penalties.


The problems are that the crime is often hard to prove (it should be, for his word vs. her word is not sufficient), witnesses are often non-compliant, and some police jurisdictions don't aggressively pursue rape complaints.

But the law is very clear about rape. You won't fix any of the above issues with AC. 
[/quote]
Um. I disagree.



> I respectfully disagree. Have you read the article I linked?


No. I don't have time to source an article.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> It's not the sucky statutes that are causing few rape convictions. The statutes are clear and have stiff penalties.
> 
> The problems are that the crime is often hard to prove (it should be, for his word vs. her word is not sufficient), witnesses are often non-compliant, and some police jurisdictions don't aggressively pursue rape complaints.
> 
> But the law is very clear about rape. You won't fix any of the above issues with AC.



Soooooo..... wait.... it is not going to help with rape convictions? Only false rape convictions?


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> It SHOULD be easy for them to say no. But somehow it needn't be easy for someone to ask. Can't say I get it.


It is not hard to ask if you know when the question is required. Write an AC law that specifies exactly which activities require consent, and it will no longer be ambiguous. 

Your idea of what things require consent is not the same as mine or FW's or any other poster here. Yet AC requires that I anticipate all possible points of consent with every partner every time without fail. Is there some other way I can explain it to your satisfaction?


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> Soooooo..... wait.... it is not going to help with rape convictions? Only false rape convictions?


It is going to criminalize acts of miscommunication and misunderstanding as rape for people who are not ostensibly rapists. And when the accusation comes, it will put the burden of proving innocence on the accused.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ You are the one who keeps saying it is ambiguous. You ask when it is not clear to YOU. How ambiguous do you think self defense killing laws are. Do you think we even have the ability to write completely unambiguous laws.

For my money, if I were so charged, I would way rather be able to say, I was not sure if she was nervous, so I asked her if she was cool with this, is sex what she wanted, and she said Yes! Than, well she was lying there like a scared fish, but she never said no, so I went ahead and stuck it in her.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> No. I don't have time to source an article.


Then you do not understand why some in the legal community are concerned. 

Really, read the article. If you have time to take me to task here, you have the 10 minutes required to read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> It is going to criminalize acts of miscommunication and misunderstanding as rape for people who are not ostensibly rapists. And when the accusation comes, it will put the burden of proving innocence on the accused.


I think that is fear based bull****. Fear that something might happen, therefore nothing should be done.

Yet we know from recent news report there are STILL young men who don't have ANY idea that the absence of a no does not equal the same thing as a yes under the law TODAY. How is that working?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I can't quote it right now but your statement about not being able to read someone's mind is exactly the reason talking about consent before actually having sex is a good idea.

Why would anyone want to have sex with someone who can't do this? I can't make any sense out of that at all.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Then you do not understand why some in the legal community are concerned.
> 
> Really, read the article. If you have time to take me to task here, you have the 10 minutes required to read it.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0


You want me to read an op ed piece to support... your op ed? Maybe later.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I can't quote it right now but your statement about not being able to read someone's mind is exactly the reason talking about consent before actually having sex is a good idea.
> 
> Why would anyone want to have sex with someone who can't do this? I can't make any sense out of that at all.


This is why. Person A has no idea that hand-holding might be construed as a sexual act by Person B. This is the kind of scenario that those trying to legislate this issue struggle with. 

"In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a)."

You have your idea of what constitutes actions requiring consent, but AC doesn't care what you think - it only cares what Person B thinks, and Person A, raised in a different place with different parents and different sexual understanding, doesn't even know to ask.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ignorance is not an excuse for not knowing how to communicate.

Raising education about the issue is a good thing and may help those who don't know how to ask, as well as those who don't know how to set boundaries.

Whether anyone likes it or not, they will have to learn what AC looks like if they want to have consensual sex


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Ignorance is not an excuse for not knowing how to communicate.
> 
> Raising education about the issue is a good thing and may help those who don't know how to ask, as well as those who don't know how to set boundaries.
> 
> Whether anyone likes it or not, they will have to learn what AC looks like if they want to have consensual sex


Please help me understand how to interpret this as something other than a dismissal of the legal concerns about enacting AC as law. 

Trying to not be combative here.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> You want me to read an op ed piece to support... your op ed? Maybe later.


Then don't bother to respond to anything else I have to say. I don't have time for willful ignorance.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Then don't bother to respond to anything else I have to say. I don't have time for willful ignorance.


Give me something to read that supports your supposed facts. And I can read it when I get home. I but I am not reading a puff piece that does not to have any more fact support than you do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Please help me understand how to interpret this as something other than a dismissal of the legal concerns about enacting AC as law.
> 
> Trying to not be combative here.


I don't have any concerns about the law. Sorry.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> Give me something to read that supports your supposed facts. And I can read it when I get home. I but I am not reading a puff piece that does not to have any more fact support than you do.


The American Law Institute page is here:

https://www.ali.org/projects/show/sexual-assault-and-related-offenses/

I am not a member and there is no free access to the material. You can find various summaries of the content and the deliberations across the net.

What you will find at ALI is a link with this statement, endorsing the "puff piece" you're denigrating as irrelevant here:

"In June 2015, the New York Times published the op-ed titled "Regulating Sex" that examined the deliberations about affirmative consent. Read the full New York Times op-ed here."


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't have any concerns about the law. Sorry.


That's fine. So you'll have no issue with me objecting to it as a legal or quasi-legal (University code of conduct) matter, which is what I have been doing all along. 

I'm not against the notion of AC. I'm against a poor enactment of an AC law.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't actually have a problem with anything you say, Cletus....oddly enough.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> "In a memo signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a)."
> 
> You have your idea of what constitutes actions requiring consent, but AC doesn't care what you think - it only cares what Person B thinks, and Person A, raised in a different place with different parents and different sexual understanding, doesn't even know to ask.


The part that you are leaving out is that the ALI is also advocating for a redefinition of rape such that it includes only situations of force or coercion. They are proposing that a new crime be listed, a misdemeanor, that would include all situations where the sex was "unwanted" but where there is no force or coercion.

If successful, this reclassification would mean that a majority of rapes would actually no longer be rapes, but just "unwanted sex." A misdemeanor.

So, the reality is that the deep concern here, the deep divide on the affirmative xonsent, is actually all about what we classify and think to be rape. 

Do you agree this reclassification will lead to more justice? That date rape, that frat boy gang rapes, that situations where the victim was simply "not wanting" sex, but was too drunk, scared, unconscious to effectively object, that we no longer consider these things to be rape?

The fact is that most rapes are not strangers and are not forced. Most are intoxication based, among people who know each other, and who think they are entitled to take what they want, should opportunity arise.

What say you? Shall we go with the "best" legal minds in the country and simply get rid of the problem of rape by redefining a good chunk of it out of existence?

http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202...quires-Careful-Debate?slreturn=20150718183758


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> What say you? Shall we go with the "best" legal minds in the country and simply get rid of the problem of rape by redefining a good chunk of it out of existence?
> 
> http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202...quires-Careful-Debate?slreturn=20150718183758


I say nothing. With all due respect, I'm not touching that topic here with a ten foot pole. I might as well just go into the infidelity section and post that all cheaters are misunderstood fine upstanding individuals. 

Call me chicken. It's why I don't ever make any statements about abortion either. Been around the net way too long to make that mistake. I'll just leave it at deciding who if anyone is to blame between two equally drunk coeds having sex at a frat party is not a job I would relish.

The ALI is an upstanding legal institute with considerable influence in this country on criminal statutes. I doubt they are doing this just to victimize women.


----------



## Buddy400

BlueWoman said:


> People, this is not that difficult. If the person you are with doesn't want to have sex with you then don't have sex with them. If they do want to have sex with you, then they should tell you or show you.


This wasn't difficult. If a woman didn't want to have sex with me, she said No. That was clear. Why is "showing me or telling me" easier or clearer? What happens If I misinterpret her attempt to "show me". At the minimum, a clear, verbal "I want to have sex with you" might be workable, but I still don't see how it's an improvement.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> The ALI is an upstanding legal institute with considerable influence in this country on criminal statutes. I doubt they are doing this just to victimize women.


No one ever said that there were out to victimize women. Some of us are just unwilling to accept that simply because an opinion was stated by an upstanding legal institution that therefore it is unassailable.

I quite understand why you are not actually willing to engage here on what is and is not rape. But it is this question that lies at the very heart of this kind of debate about affirmative consent legislation.

And this is why you will see so many finding it quite creepy or rapey when a conversation about affirmative consent seems to be all about diminishing the importance of said consent. 

Determining the guilt or innocence of an accused isn't ever easy because of the he said/she said nature of rape and sexual assault, but I for one would prefer that the drunk girl who was gang raped by the frat boys would be able to see them prosecuted with something a little more serious than a slap on the wrist and a $50 fine.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Condemns? What then is the answer as it relates to affirmative consent? Or really any consent. What DO you do when you can't find a single woman to lust after you? That is what I find baffling.


Nobody, the "condemns" was in quotes because someone else said it. It was in quotes because I didn't want to go to the trouble of finding and quoting the originals. Never the less, in context this should have been clear to anyone trying to give it a fair read. I clearly wasn't saying what you think I was saying. Are you really approaching these posts with an open mind?


----------



## Buddy400

Cletus said:


> Really? * Pulling down your partners pants and feeling up his or her genitals sounds an awful lot like attempted rape to me* unless you asked first and got permission later.
> 
> But thanks for pointing out the inherent problem with AC.


Only if you're a man. If you're a woman, it's all good.


----------



## Buddy400

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Why does "consent" seem so ambiguous and complicated?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Because it's more ambiguous and complicated than the alternative of just having the woman say "No".


----------



## Buddy400

Cletus said:


> THIS is the part of AC that I want to talk about. The part where the rubber meets the road of the real world and those situations that were hand-waved away start making sexual predators out of otherwise well intentioned people.


That's the conversation that I'd very much like to have as well. But we're never going to be able to have it.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> This one is really easy. If you are perceiving ambiguity, then you know to ASK. The PERSON.


What if you DON'T perceive ambiguity and you're wrong?


----------



## Buddy400

SARAHMCD said:


> The last two men I was with both asked for specific affirmative consent.
> 
> One stopped what we were doing, looked me in the eye and twice said "are you ok with this?". I was sober, at his place and we were in a state of undress. He's in his late thirties, I'm in my forties (not kids!).
> 
> The second stopped, looked me in the eye and said "so I assume you know where this is leading, but I need to know you want this." I smiled, nodded and kissed him. We were still dressed. He stopped again "I need to hear you actually say the words _I want to have sex with you_." I jokingly asked if we were being recorded. He was very serious "No, but I need to hear you say the words."
> 
> They are both ex-US military (fairly recently) so I'm assuming its something they are being trained about there? No means no, just doesn't cut it anymore with the new law I guess.


Would they have stopped if you said "No"?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> It does not have to be. Things that don't work well can be changed. But sometime that change starts in the legal system before it can become mainstream in the culture.


The legal system is to enforce rules that have almost complete consensus.

It is not a tool to be used to effect social change (and then there's always the question of what type of social change should be affected. There might be some disagreement about this.)


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> People of course can still ignore the law and ignore the best practices and do as they please. That's what we cannot mandate.
> 
> But we are definitely in a position to explain to people what the best practices are....while at the same time some of us in the sex positive community are working diligently to remove shame and stigma about sex to make this type of person have an easier time with it.


That sounds good. You want to start Public Service campaign to encourage AC? Go for it. I have no objection. 

I'm against it being a law (and colleges treating rape the same way they do cheating on a test).


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't have any concerns about the law. Sorry.


So, as long as YOU don't have any concerns, it's all fine?

The fact that others might is to be ignored?

What if I wanted to pass a law that I didn't have any concerns with and you did?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> So, as long as YOU don't have any concerns, it's all fine?
> 
> The fact that others might is to be ignored?
> 
> What if I wanted to pass a law that I didn't have any concerns with and you did?


Er, well that happens all the time. I'm sure things I want and am interested in enough to study don't interest others. For instance, some people could give a sh*t about global warming, while others will write blogs or become activists in their attempt to help. Some will campaign for a certain candidate and work tirelessly for them, and some don't even vote.

I am not stopping Cletus from having his concerns, nor am I shutting him down or even disagreeing with him. How am I ignoring him, when we've been playing word badminton for days? I just won't debate the law part of this topic because I don't care. But he is free to and will do as he pleases.

I never said "hey shut up about it".

I like Cletus. And I get why he's concerned.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Er, well that happens all the time. I'm sure things I want and am interested in enough to study don't interest others. For instance, some people could give a sh*t about global warming, while others will write blogs or become activists in their attempt to help. Some will campaign for a certain candidate and work tirelessly for them, and some don't even vote.
> 
> I am not stopping Cletus from having his concerns, nor am I shutting him down or even disagreeing with him. How am I ignoring him, when we've been playing word badminton for days? *I just won't debate the law part of this topic because I don't care*. But he is free to and will do as he pleases.
> 
> I never said "hey shut up about it".
> 
> I like Cletus. *And I get why he's concerned*.


I'm happy with the two bolded statements.

Maybe I'm dense, but until now I thought that you were in favor of AC as law and I didn't know that you understood Cletus's concerns.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I'm happy with the two bolded statements.
> 
> Maybe I'm dense, but until now I thought that you were in favor of AC as law and I didn't know that you understood Cletus's concerns.


Understanding someone's concerns and agreeing with their conclusions are not the same thing. At least not for me.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> So, as long as YOU don't have any concerns, it's all fine?
> 
> The fact that others might is to be ignored?
> 
> What if I wanted to pass a law that I didn't have any concerns with and you did?


Then you would be a misogynist, of course! :surprise:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Maybe I'm dense, but until now I thought that you were in favor of AC as law and I didn't know that you understood Cletus's concerns.


It is inevitable that it will become law. I find no reason to wring my hands about it. 

Yes, I have always understood Cletus's concerns, he has made them very clear.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Marduk asked me on another thread...."FW -- have you ever experienced anything like this?

On the giving or receiving side?

In my case, this particular lady (who I was actually madly in love with but didn't tell her) was very happy to come to my place, start making out, taking off her own clothes, and climbing into my bed and then when we're about to do it...

Just say "I'm tired" or "let's go to sleep" or just turn over and go to sleep.

I mean, I've had girls take it so far and say "I'm not ready" or whatever, which I get, but this girl I didn't get. And confused the hell out of me... because as I say I was actually in love with her."


Yeah sort of stuff like that...before I respond further, how old were you both though?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Marduk asked me on another thread...."FW -- have you ever experienced anything like this?
> 
> On the giving or receiving side?
> 
> In my case, this particular lady (who I was actually madly in love with but didn't tell her) was very happy to come to my place, start making out, taking off her own clothes, and climbing into my bed and then when we're about to do it...
> 
> Just say "I'm tired" or "let's go to sleep" or just turn over and go to sleep.
> 
> I mean, I've had girls take it so far and say "I'm not ready" or whatever, which I get, but this girl I didn't get. And confused the hell out of me... because as I say I was actually in love with her."
> 
> 
> Yeah sort of stuff like that...before I respond further, how old were you both though?


I was 27 or so, and she was about 24ish.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well speaking for myself...if I've ever done this type of thing (nothing really even close but the closest things I can think of), it was really because I just wasn't that into him.

However...I have experienced basically the same thing (where a guy isn't wanting it but I am), and other women I've been with have experienced that, too. I have also had a guy friend tell me explicitly that he did this to a certain gal over and over, again basically because he wasn't that into her. So for instance, she'd beg him to have sex, but he would only go off on her (if you catch my drift).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Well speaking for myself...if I've ever done this type of thing (nothing really even close but the closest things I can think of), it was really because I just wasn't that into him.
> 
> However...I have experienced basically the same thing (where a guy isn't wanting it but I am), and other women I've been with have experienced that, too. I have also had a guy friend tell me explicitly that he did this to a certain gal over and over, again basically because he wasn't that into her. So for instance, she'd beg him to have sex, but he would only go off on her (if you catch my drift).


I just don't think you legislate the jerk out of people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Marduk and I weren't talking about anything that was non-consensual.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Marduk and I weren't talking about anything that was non-consensual.


Yah. Kinda side comment.


----------



## SARAHMCD

Buddy400 said:


> Would they have stopped if you said "No"?


YES. What would possibly make you think otherwise?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Well speaking for myself...if I've ever done this type of thing (nothing really even close but the closest things I can think of), it was really because I just wasn't that into him.
> 
> However...I have experienced basically the same thing (where a guy isn't wanting it but I am), and other women I've been with have experienced that, too. I have also had a guy friend tell me explicitly that he did this to a certain gal over and over, again basically because he wasn't that into her. So for instance, she'd beg him to have sex, but he would only go off on her (if you catch my drift).


That's what I thought. She just wasn't as into me as I was into her.

The weird thing is she seemed oddly hung up on me after we split, and tried to remain friends (her idea). She clung to a book I had leant to her for example, and would send me the odd email for a year or two afterward about how she finally "got it" and "made a mistake with me" and "felt awful about it" and "wished she had made different choices and had been in a better place when we met" kind of stuff.

Even to the point of bringing it up (our dating, I mean) at a mutual friend's wedding (we were seated at the same table). Which was kind of awkward given that my wife was there, and so was her fiancee.

Good thing my wife actually liked her honesty, and thought she was cool.


----------



## Faithful Wife

That's pretty lame ass, IMO.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> That's pretty lame ass, IMO.


Well, it was overshadowed when another girl at the table started drinking and then admitted that she slept with me, and it was awesome. I felt like absolute crap for her date.

Good thing I had told my wife about these women, and had tried to get to another table, or offered to not go to the wedding at all. We were good friends with the couple getting married, so both wanted to go.

It got really weird when my wife and these girls started drinking and talking about "does marduk still do X? And isn't Y great!"

And then, you know, I just kind of slunk off to the bar by myself after apologizing to the other men at the table and offering to buy them many drinks.


----------



## Buddy400

SARAHMCD said:


> YES. What would possibly make you think otherwise?


I suspected that the guys that would ask for consent would also accept No as an answer.

The guys that wouldn't accept No wouldn't ask for consent.

So, as an indication of trending social norms, the fact that they asked was interesting.

But, it doesn't indicate that AC will solve any problems that "No means No" wouldn't.


----------



## Cletus

Buddy400 said:


> I suspected that the guys that would ask for consent would also accept No as an answer.
> 
> The guys that wouldn't accept No wouldn't ask for consent.
> 
> So, as an indication of trending social norms, the fact that they asked was interesting.
> 
> But, it doesn't indicate that AC will solve any problems that "No means No" wouldn't.


Best. Summary. Ever.


----------



## Faithful Wife

How were you able to like his post twice?


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> How were you able to like his post twice?


It comes with the Alpha male decoder ring. Sorry, you're not properly equipped.


----------



## Marduk

Buddy400 said:


> I suspected that the guys that would ask for consent would also accept No as an answer.
> 
> The guys that wouldn't accept No wouldn't ask for consent.
> 
> So, as an indication of trending social norms, the fact that they asked was interesting.
> 
> But, it doesn't indicate that AC will solve any problems that "No means No" wouldn't.


I don't remember ever asking for consent, but I've always accepted no for an answer.

I mean, maybe I've said "Is this all right" or "are you ok" or something the odd time.

But normally, the first time was just a bunch of making out and clothes coming off. I kind of expected to be told no or to have her stop me if she didn't want it. 

Is that bad?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I don't remember ever asking for consent, but I've always accepted no for an answer.
> 
> I mean, maybe I've said "Is this all right" or "are you ok" or something the odd time.
> 
> But normally, the first time was just a bunch of making out and clothes coming off. I kind of expected to be told no or to have her stop me if she didn't want it.
> 
> Is that bad?


No, it isn't bad because that was the past and we didn't have good education available to us about consent. Most people in our age group had the same experience.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> No, it isn't bad because that was the past and we didn't have good education available to us about consent. Most people in our age group had the same experience.


So then what's all the fuss about?

Is this a generational thing?

Maybe I missed a point somewhere.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lol!

Oh honey...don't bother. Trust me.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Lol!
> 
> Oh honey...don't bother. Trust me.


Can I... in a forward, yet circumspect, sex-positive manner...

proactively state, for the record, that if I'm ever single again...

Ah, screw it. It will sort itself out.


----------

