# Last minute resistance?!



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

(Men only discussion - no offense to the ladies but I want male opinions on this only)

It has recently come to my attention that there's this new term called LMR - or Last Minute Resistance among the PUA crowd.

Some links:

How To Disarm Last Minute Resistance | Bristol Lair
PUA Freeze Outs - Using A Freeze Out To Overcome Last Minute Resistance
How to break a girl?s LMR ? Last Minute Resistance in bed

I will reserve my own opinion for later, I don't want to kill this discussion before it even starts with my own opinions, first I want to hear what you guys think of it.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

I think it'll be less than a page before a busybody with two X chromosomes feels obligated to chime in with a lecture.


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

Constable Odo said:


> I think it'll be less than a page before a busybody with two X chromosomes feels obligated to chime in with a lecture.


And one post in before someone's rude to women. Who'd have thunk it huh?


----------



## batsociety (Jan 23, 2015)

I want to find whoever wrote that BS and throw up on them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

Constable Odo said:


> I think it'll be less than a page before a busybody with two X chromosomes feels obligated to chime in with a lecture.


You are right again, but win no awards, as this was more predictable than a sunrise.

I don't see why people care and work themselves into a lather over what a bunch of goofy liars want to say, write or think. Maybe they are tasteless. So are bagels and putting in your two cents when you've been tactfully asked not to.

I mean, look at this stuff:

http://www.bestpuatraining.com/pea****ing

"Level 1: Have a few interesting rings, bracelets, or a pendant around your neck. Wear an interesting hat, or add at least one completely unnecessary item just because it looks cool or interesting. The idea is simply to give the women you meet some aspect of your appearance that they can notice, talk about, or touch."

Peac0cking? Either sex that is vulnerable to this stuff is pretty far gone.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

*LittleDeer* said:


> And one post in before someone's rude to women. Who'd have thunk it huh?


What is extra funny about this, is that we are apparently welcome in here in the mens lounge *if* we are someone's girlfriend, or *if* we agree with said poster. Otherwise, we are apparently busybodies giving a lecture. 

bwah hahah ahahaha hhaaa haha......oh the hypocrisy is so funny.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Forest said:


> You are right again, but win no awards, as this was more predictable than a sunrise.


I know... I know... But I couldn't resist pointing out the obvious, especially when the OP specifically asks for XY respondents only.

I'm guessing its like a car wreck on the highway... they just can't stop themselves from looking (and responding).


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

PUA techniques are a dishonest way to manipulate women using psychological exploits. So I find the PUA goal to be immoral. They are trying to get women to give up sex by tricking their brains. I bet a lot of the women end up feeling used and manipulated but can't figure out exactly what happened. LMR is just one example of this. 

PUA techniques can be used within an established relationship for positive purposes. MMSL and NMMNG are examples of how some of the same psychological principles are applied, but within a framework of love and honesty. Any man who is weak on dating and relationship skills certainly should seek to improve. It will result in finding better quality women and having better quality relationships, a win-win for men and women.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
A different take: I don't want to figure out a way to get a woman to agree to sex with me. I want her to find me irresistible. 

I feel the same way about alcohol. My ego couldn't stand the idea of a woman needing to be drunk to find me attractive. 


That aside - "overcoming resistance" seems to range from creepy to rapey to me.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Thor said:


> They are trying to get women to give up sex by tricking their brains.


How is that any different than a man (or woman) understanding evolutionary biology and using the tenets of such to make him/herself more attractive in the eyes of the opposite sex?

For example, we all know women love men with forearms the size of hams (especially if they have daryl dixon tattoos on them), so is it now immoral for me to spend an hour a day on my bowflex to ensure I have adequate muscle tone to make the ladies go ga-ga?

Sure, it is their lizard brain at work which is making them act like a teenage girl at a Bieber concert, but that's not my fault, is it?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

LMR in the PUA world is fvcking rapey! 

I'm not trying to pick on any men that have had a tough time in the sexual arena and I'm not boasting but if you can't get a woman excited enough to be making out with you like mad and start some sexual touching as well as doing her part in the activities, helping you out of your clothes, rubbing your unit, etc.. then get better at seduction or a different partner or both.

I have never pushed past any resistance, much less LMR.

There have been times when all I did was make out with clothes on because the young woman was uncomfortable with more but eager to explore things with clothes on. I never had any hard feelings towards them, it was still fun.

Resistance means no.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Constable Odo said:


> How is that any different than a man (or woman) understanding evolutionary biology and using the tenets of such to make him/herself more attractive in the eyes of the opposite sex?
> 
> For example, we all know women love men with forearms the size of hams (especially if they have daryl dixon tattoos on them), so is it now immoral for me to spend an hour a day on my bowflex to ensure I have adequate muscle tone to make the ladies go ga-ga?
> 
> Sure, it is their lizard brain at work which is making them act like a teenage girl at a Bieber concert, but that's not my fault, is it?


I have no idea who Daryl Dixon is or what his tattoos look like, but I can picture Popeye and his anchor tattoo.

The difference I think is in the context of how it is done as well as the level of psychological manipulation. Are you building muscles just to pick up women in a bar for a quickie ONS? If so then it is giving yourself an appearance to women in order to attract them, but you do in fact have those muscles. The PUA is using psychological trickery to fool the woman's instincts into thinking he is something he is not, and to break down her judgement. 

Your muscles might get some women to notice you, but you aren't deceiving them.

Also, I think if you do spend an hour a day at the gym, you really do have a solid body. It is who you are, at least in one way. You are a healthy fit man with good muscles. If spending an hour a day in the gym is not really you, you're not going to stick with it very long.

Maybe this is all shades of grey, but I think there is a difference.


----------



## Phil Anders (Jun 24, 2015)

I won't have sex with any but a willing and enthusiastic partner...and certainly not with someone who's giving me OFF signals. However, if we accept and respect that a woman can change her mind and say NO at the last second, however inconvenient, it's also reasonable to anticipate that she may change her mind in the other direction. 

I read the linked stuff. The rationales are stereotyped and patronizing, but I don't disagree that anyone's desire and instinct in the moment can be at odds with objective thought and societal conditioning. That impasse is unlikely to resolve through logical argument and/or displays of petulance (the "But why won't you/Here's why you should sleep with me" discussion).

Some of the techniques are manipulative: laying verbal traps and calling her out later ("I thought you were spontaneous!") is slimy. And some are outright coercive: Pulling off clothing or persistently touching areas again 5 seconds after being asked not to is crossing the line. 

Other strategies, I have no issue with. If a woman is OK doing A through E when I'd really like to F, and she communicates this, _I am obliged to stop, but there is no requirement for me to continue doing E etc as before to make her happy at her comfort level_. 

Stopping entirely in favor of some nonsexual yet rapport-building activity conveys calm & outcome-independence, which is way more attractive than frustrated entitlement. It turns the tables by making her re-initiate to get back to her comfort level, while also demonstrating that you have self-control and will indeed stop when asked. That makes her relax and worry less, which makes it more likely you'll both get to F and enjoy it. Nothing "rapey" about that.

So: if a guy is frustrated at stopping short (LMR), but conceals this emotion as per the above, and meets with enthusiastic success on the second try, is this immoral psychological trickery? Are men with less-than-perfect attitudes not allowed to "fake it until they make it"?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

The PUA who is faking it when he pulls away but is in fact using a manipulation technique is deceiving her using a psychological exploit. He in fact does have an attachment to a particular outcome, in this case F, but is pretending not to. He in no way is interested in building rapport, but pretends that is what they are doing when he stops and does some other activity. This is worlds different than a man who genuinely is ok with shifting to another activity, even if he does still want to get to F. He isn't manipulating her by pretending anything.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> There have been times when all I did was make out with clothes on because the young woman was uncomfortable with more but eager to explore things with clothes on.* I never had any hard feelings* towards them, it was still fun.


Maybe that is why she kept her clothes on :wink2:


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

Does all this mean that a pack of lies, convertible and a credit card are no longer enough bait?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Forest said:


> Does all this mean that a pack of lies, convertible and a credit card are no longer enough bait?


I prefer to stick with a tight white t shirt with a pack of cigs under the right sleeve


----------



## Phil Anders (Jun 24, 2015)

Thor said:


> The PUA who is faking it when he pulls away but is in fact using a manipulation technique is deceiving her using a psychological exploit. He in fact does have an attachment to a particular outcome, in this case F, but is pretending not to. He in no way is interested in building rapport, but pretends that is what they are doing when he stops and does some other activity. This is worlds different than a man who genuinely is ok with shifting to another activity, even if he does still want to get to F. He isn't manipulating her by pretending anything.


And if a real-world man (one who is neither utterly cynical nor supremely confident) finds himself both acutely frustrated with stopping and genuinely interested in building additional rapport, what then? If he consciously shifts gears while affecting indifference, knowing that this is a shrewd move, is that still deceitful and exploitative? Should he instead continue doing A thru E, still masking frustration, until she shuts him down? Or be transparent about his feeling in a way that will likely prove self-defeating?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Human sexual interactions are very complex, there are not going to be simple actions as to what is OK. Clearly doing something you have been asked not to do is NOT OK. Its less clear how long it is before you can do the same thing again - depends on the circumstances and strength of the "no". For instance, if I grab my wife and start kissing her, if she is busy she will tell me to cut it out. A reasonable person would not interpret that to mean never kiss her again, just not to kiss her right now.

OTOH if a guy grabs a girl on a date and she tells him "no', that would likely mean no for the entire date, but not so clear whether it means no at any point in the future. It really depends on very subtle interaction details.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Phil Anders said:


> And if a real-world man (one who is neither utterly cynical nor supremely confident) finds himself both acutely frustrated with stopping and genuinely interested in building additional rapport, what then? If he consciously shifts gears while affecting indifference, knowing that this is a shrewd move, is that still deceitful and exploitative? Should he instead continue doing A thru E, still masking frustration, until she shuts him down? Or be transparent about his feeling in a way that will likely prove self-defeating?


I think we're exploring the different shades of grey at this point.

A PUA clearly only wants one thing, F. A man in a long term relationship always wants F but also desires emotional intimacy and good rapport.

So the PUA only has one reason for any move he makes. He has strategies and tactics memorized. When he makes such a move it is for the sole purpose of getting to F.

A husband or bf may make such a move, but the context is not to pump and dump the woman. I am sure my wife sweet talks me sometimes to get me to do something, and that is fine. But she isn't being malicious about it. The PUA is being malicious and deceitful.


----------



## capri7204 (Aug 16, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> LMR in the PUA world is fvcking rapey!
> 
> I'm not trying to pick on any men that have had a tough time in the sexual arena and I'm not boasting but if you can't get a woman excited enough to be making out with you like mad and start some sexual touching as well as doing her part in the activities, helping you out of your clothes, rubbing your unit, etc.. then get better at seduction or a different partner or both.
> 
> ...


I know this was for MEN ONLY.. I just wanted to say I liked what you had to say. If you have to work that hard to get that persons attention why bother.


----------



## Phil Anders (Jun 24, 2015)

PUAs are easily disdained; it's the shades of grey I think are interesting :smile2: From your first response, I wasn't sure if you were condemning the use of guile _per se_, or cynically shallow motives. I do agree with your analysis!


Thor said:


> I think we're exploring the different shades of grey at this point.
> 
> A PUA clearly only wants one thing, F. A man in a long term relationship always wants F but also desires emotional intimacy and good rapport.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Pushing past LMR is rapey.

However, I don't think this is done primarily by guys that have a hard time finding sexual partners.

I'd imagine it's more prevalent among frat boys and athletes who have a hard time believing women actually don't want to have sex with them.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Personally I find this is sick. At first I thought all this PUA crap is already messed up by making folks compromise on their own personality; aka the whole "alpha/beta" bullsh-t, but now it's crossing the line. 

I tried to read with it an open mind, but in the end, I can't endorse it. I also agree that this is probably more common among the folks who reckon they are God's gift to women, however it seems that these same "alphas" are preaching their crap to other men believing it to be a strategy for success. Disrespecting a woman's boundaries makes the whole scenario one-sided for the man's pleasure and I highly doubt any self-respecting woman comes back for seconds after having their boundaries compromised with a feeling of being raped - no wonder there's so much crap going with AC and all that thanks to these folks. 

But I guess it doesn't matter to them, the whole "fk 'em and dump 'em" mentality; seconds? Nah, they move on to new women like predators. I don't see how any of this can even be used in a context of a committed relationship, disrespecting your spouse's boundaries isn't going to win you any points in the long run. FFS I divorced my wife for it! She was protected with the whole societal belief that "men can't be raped, men always enjoy sex" that my boundaries meant nothing to her. But that's another story.

In all my years of seduction I have never advanced unless it's green lights all the way, I don't understand how folks can justify pushing past what they call LMR when the woman has made it clear what she's comfortable with at the time. Nah, personally in my conclusion this is sexual coercion and rape.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Disrespecting a woman's boundaries makes the whole scenario one-sided for the man's pleasure and I highly doubt any self-respecting woman comes back for seconds after having their boundaries compromised with a feeling of being raped - *no wonder there's so much crap going with AC and all that thanks to these folks*.


Yep. This is why.

Thank you for taking the time to read all that LMR crap to see the real point behind why AC came into existence, and why it is now necessary, thanks to these dooooosh bags.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

What is AC?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Affirmative consent.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Ok, well I disagree then. When she says "no", "stop", or "not that" then she has withdrawn consent for anything further in that direction. In the LMR article it says to ignore such things and press on. Maybe wait 5 seconds and touch again, or use a psychological manipulation to coerce her to continue. Those actions are in violation of her withdrawal of consent when she said some version of "no", and that is what makes it rapey.

AC with a PUA would go like this:
PUA: "Hey babe, can I touch you there?"
Her: "No"
PUA: "I though you said you were adventurous? I'm going to touch you there."
Her: "Not that"
PUA: waits 5 seconds then touches her there again.

AC doesn't stop the scumbag PUA.

Non-AC with a respectful man:
Him: "You're so hot" as he moves to touch her there.
Her: "No, not that"
Him: backs off and doesn't go there.

jmho, ymmv.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

What a joke.

If she says "no" at the last minute, respect it and walk the hell away.

I've had it happen. Mostly it was because she was unsure about the relationship, or was attracted with her body but hesitant with her mind, if that makes sense. I can understand that. So back the hell off and let her tell you if and when she was ready.

I did have one girl who did this over and over, though. She would always try to get me into bed, get naked, and then not do the deal.

She would even sleep over a few times. Left a toothbrush at my house like she was going to make it a habit. And still... no sex.

So after this happened a handful of times... I asked her to leave. She was shocked. I said "listen, we're both adults here. You keep climbing into my bed naked and then after making out with me, shut the whole thing down. Either you're not ready, you're not really into me, or you're just getting something out of teasing me. Either way, I'm no longer interested in playing house without being adults about it."

She was of course shocked, but I was pissed off and pent up. We took some time off, then talked, and we just petered out.

What did piss me off was she had a ONS a few months later. I guess she was just more attracted to him than me. Although, we actually tried to remain somewhat friends and we talked about it once -- she actually said that she was coming out of a really bad relationship and in a dark place when we met, and she really wanted me, but was really afraid, too -- I can be pretty intense. And then when I threw her out in the middle of the night she felt like she had been jerking me around, and that kinda helped enable her ONS because she didn't want to feel like a tease. I don't really understand.

Sigh. Women.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Thor said:


> Ok, well I disagree then.


Sorry Thor, it is going to be law, even though you disagree.

Too many rapey LMR idiots have poisoned the well.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

FW, this topic is to be a discussion amongst MEN darn it!

Reason: I don't want this discussion to be a gender war, we already have 2 AC threads on the ladies lounge/men's clubhouse where it's in full swing.

For the record, as I already posted on your thread, I believe your views are overkill and if that's to be law that verbal consent is to be the only acceptable form of AC then you are punishing all men due to these idiots who can't/refuse to take a hint. But that's that.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

RandomDude said:


> But I guess it doesn't matter to them, the whole "fk 'em and dump 'em" mentality; seconds?


And it differs from women who decide to ride the c0ck carousel... how?


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

You misunderstand, I am not criticising ONSs even though I've always been more for FWBs for casual sex rather than one offs.

My problem is that these guys coerce/rape their targets and move on to the next, and the next, possibly knowing full well that what they did was messed up.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> FW, this topic is to be a discussion amongst MEN darn it!
> 
> Reason: I don't want this discussion to be a gender war, we already have 2 AC threads on the ladies lounge/men's clubhouse where it's in full swing.
> 
> For the record, as I already posted on your thread, I believe your views are overkill and if that's to be law that verbal consent is to be the only acceptable form of AC then you are punishing all men due to these idiots who can't/refuse to take a hint. But that's that.


Oh Random...you should know me better than that. 

I'll participate where I want to, when I want to.

Also...you really don't know what my "views" are, you just think you do, but that's ok, doesn't stop me or change them at all. 

It wasn't MY choice to make AC law....yet it will be law, thanks to actual rapey crap that has occurred far too often.

So anyway...sorry but you don't get to tell me where to post. Just like you are free to post on any thread of mine whether I want you to or like what you say or not. :x


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I can only ask that when I explicitly state I wish a men-only discussion, I mean it. I don't make such threads often - threads that encourage male opinions strictly.

Obviously respecting someone's request is too much to ask for it seems. *sigh*


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I agree with most of that except the "sigh women", and "throwing her out in the middle of the night". This was one woman who gave really annoying mixed signals. You have every right to dump a woman who repeatedly gets into bed naked with you, then decides she doesn't want sex. Its absolutely her right to act that way, but it is absolutely your right to not want to deal with someone who acts that way. 

I wouldn't have "thrown her out" in the middle of the night, but telling her to sleep on the couch is certainly within bounds. 







marduk said:


> What a joke.
> 
> If she says "no" at the last minute, respect it and walk the hell away.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I agree with most of that except the "sigh women", and "throwing her out in the middle of the night". This was one woman who gave really annoying mixed signals. You have every right to dump a woman who repeatedly gets into bed naked with you, then decides she doesn't want sex. Its absolutely her right to act that way, but it is absolutely your right to not want to deal with someone who acts that way.
> 
> I wouldn't have "thrown her out" in the middle of the night, but telling her to sleep on the couch is certainly within bounds.


Why not ask her to leave?

We weren't living together. We were just dating. Her car was right outside, and it was about 10 or 11 at night. 

Go home, lady!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> I can only ask that when I explicitly state I wish a men-only discussion, I mean it. I don't make such threads often - threads that encourage male opinions strictly.
> 
> Obviously respecting someone's request is too much to ask for it seems. *sigh*


Having made many similar threads and asked for such accommodation and never gotten it, I don't feel sorry for you, honey.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Hell I would tell her to ****** off too, make room for someone else! Bah!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening FW
I'm happy to have you post here but I think there is value in not making this a duplicate of the AC thread. 

I think there is a lot of range between not "pushing past resistance" and requiring "affirmative consent". I think you will find a lot of people who believe the correct position is in that range. I know you believe in AC and that's fine, pushing that too hard may just loose the people who are arguing for "pushing". 

The great majority of the posts here are against "pushing". 

I think its not a simple question - what forms of "pushing" are legitimate is not easy to define. Seduction, the act of causing someone to find you sexually attractive covers a wide range of activities, some acceptable, some not.

Few people would object to a candle-lit dinner in a romantic location, with interesting but flattering conversation. Then there is the question of boundaries. Is an offered hand when someone gets out of the car OK - while polite, it is an excuse for physical touch. Helping off someone's coat, or offering yours on a cold night? - again an excuse for a touch. 

There are a lot of tricky things to discuss here - a lot of subtleties in human behavior. A lot of range between verbal AC, and physically groping an unwilling person.





Faithful Wife said:


> Oh Random...you should know me better than that.
> 
> I'll participate where I want to, when I want to.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening FW
> *I'm happy to have you post here but I think there is value in not making this a duplicate of the AC thread*.
> 
> I think there is a lot of range between not "pushing past resistance" and requiring "affirmative consent". I think you will find a lot of people who believe the correct position is in that range. I know you believe in AC and that's fine, pushing that too hard may just loose the people who are arguing for "pushing".
> ...


Are you telling me all of this in order to have a dialog? I don't get it. I'm not actually trying to make separate dialog here. I actually just thanked RD for reading the LMR stuff, and then answered a question by Thor, and then responded to Thor's response which he made directly TO ME.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> I'm happy to have you post here but I think there is value in not making this a duplicate of the AC thread.


Damn right!

*sigh* There's already THREE threads with the gender war on, at this rate this will be #4!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'm interested in having a several different discussions on different parts of a complex topic. Maybe the topic is best described as "seduction" - a term that can be positive or negative .

At one extreme are people who believe in AC - that every act needs to be verbally requested and approved.

At the other extreme are people who believe that anything other than a explicit and repeated "no" is a sign of consent.

I think there is room in-between. There is already a discussion on AC that is covering one end of the spectrum. I see this discussion as covering the other. 


Personally I'm in the middle. I do not see the need for verbal consent, but believe it is never OK to proceed beyond any indication of non-consent. I think the question of "trying again" later after an indication to stop is very complex - "stop" can mean "stop now", or it can mean "never do that again". 







Faithful Wife said:


> Are you telling me all of this in order to have a dialog? I don't get it. I'm not actually trying to make separate dialog here. I actually just thanked RD for reading the LMR stuff, and then answered a question by Thor, and then responded to Thor's response which he made directly TO ME.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

richardsharpe said:


> I think there is room in-between. There is already a discussion on AC that is covering one end of the spectrum. I see this discussion as covering the other.
> 
> Personally I'm in the middle. I do not see the need for verbal consent, but believe it is never OK to proceed beyond any indication of non-consent. I think the question of "trying again" later after an indication to stop is very complex - "stop" can mean "stop now", or it can mean "never do that again".


Agreed.

The question is how to combat this, without issuing some law that blankets all men along with these rapists.

Quite frankly I'm shocked that these PUAs would go this far, and not to mention I was shocked when I saw some of these LMR videos which FW posted in her thread and they were liked by the majority of viewers on youtube. It's quite disturbing.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

RandomDude said:


> I can only ask that when I explicitly state I wish a men-only discussion, I mean it. I don't make such threads often - threads that encourage male opinions strictly.
> 
> Obviously respecting someone's request is too much to ask for it seems. *sigh*


Don't bother RD ... better luck talking to a 5yr old.

I still think TAM would benefit from having a true Mens/Womens section. Basically as soon as you sign up you are required to put in your gender which you can no longer change (sorry Jenner) and this will be used to determine what is visible to you. This is similar to what is done when new people sign up where I believe you need a certain # of posts before one of the sub forums is visible to you. Of course this method isn't foolproof, and if someone really wants to be a big loser and sign up under a fake account to infiltrate the other gender, so be it.

I think this would be beneficial to both males and females.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I'm interested in having a several different discussions on different parts of a complex topic. Maybe the topic is best described as "seduction" - a term that can be positive or negative .
> 
> At one extreme are people who believe in AC - that every act needs to be verbally requested and approved.
> ...


Again...I don't know why you are addressing me if you don't want to have a dialog here.

If you want to share your opinion with me but expect me not to respond, then don't address me. This is confusing.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

EllisRedding said:


> Don't bother RD ... better luck talking to a 5yr old.
> 
> I still think TAM would benefit from having a true Mens/Womens section. Basically as soon as you sign up you are required to put in your gender which you can no longer change (sorry Jenner) and this will be used to determine what is visible to you. This is similar to what is done when new people sign up where I believe you need a certain # of posts before one of the sub forums is visible to you. Of course this method isn't foolproof, and if someone really wants to be a big loser and sign up under a fake account to infiltrate the other gender, so be it.
> 
> I think this would be beneficial to both males and females.


Yeah a sub-forum would be good, besides these gender wars can be entertaining but it can make it difficult to gather gender-specific opinions for various topics.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Answered you on my AC thread in ladies....


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

K, OMW.

And FWIW I don't care if you respond in the men's section. I always thought it had a focus on questions for or about men, not excluding women.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

marduk said:


> K, OMW.
> 
> And FWIW I don't care if you respond in the men's section. I always thought it had a focus on questions for or about men, not excluding women.


In general, responses are welcome in both, but I also don't think it's beyond reasonable to respect the OPs wishes since there is no other way of getting a single gender response. 

I personally will read but won't post on a topic that has a "Ladies only please" request. YMMV. If that's not sufficient, then just start talking about feminine hygiene and I'll be gone so fast you'll think Hank Azaria died.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I don't get the reference, but I *LOVE* Hank Azaria.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Cletus said:


> In general, responses are welcome in both, but I also don't think it's beyond reasonable to respect the OPs wishes since there is no other way of getting a single gender response.
> 
> I personally will read but won't post on a topic that has a "Ladies only please" request. YMMV. If that's not sufficient, then just start talking about feminine hygiene and I'll be gone so fast you'll think Hank Azaria died.


Just because you create a thread doesn't mean you get to control who (or what) kinds of responses you get.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

marduk said:


> Just because you create a thread doesn't mean you get to control who (or what) kinds of responses you get.


All the more reason why a true male/female subforum would be a good addition to TAM.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

EllisRedding said:


> All the more reason why a true male/female subforum would be a good addition to TAM.


Why?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

marduk said:


> Why?


Why not? For example, a guy may come here with a problem (lets say ED) that he doesn't feel comfortable discussing with females. Likewise, I have seen guys post in the Men's clubhouse looking for what appears to be male advice, only to get attacked by some females (I am sure the same can and does happen in t he ladies lounge, I just don't frequent there to know).


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I DO want to have a dialog. Actually I want to have several. I'm discussing AC on the AC thread. I was just suggesting that we try to keep this thread to a different aspect of the problem. This was in response the the original poster who wanted men only. That is NOT what I want, but I do understand the OPs desire to have a different conversation.




Faithful Wife said:


> Again...I don't know why you are addressing me if you don't want to have a dialog here.
> 
> If you want to share your opinion with me but expect me not to respond, then don't address me. This is confusing.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

EllisRedding said:


> Why not? For example, a guy may come here with a problem (lets say ED) that he doesn't feel comfortable discussing with females. Likewise, I have seen guys post in the Men's clubhouse looking for what appears to be male advice, only to get attacked by some females (I am sure the same can and does happen in t he ladies lounge, I just don't frequent there to know).


If I had ED, I'd want advice from females.

The problem isn't gender. The problem is people derailing threads and being a-holes.

That isn't gender specific.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

marduk said:


> If I had ED, I'd want advice from females.
> 
> The problem isn't gender. The problem is people derailing threads and being a-holes.
> 
> That isn't gender specific.


Just b/c you want to talk to other females about ED doesn't mean every other guy does. To imply that there aren't topics that some guys would only feel comfortable talking about with guys (and vice versa females) is not realistic (once again, it may not apply to you).

Keep in mind, this would all be optional as a suggestion, you are acting as if you would be forced to post in the Guys or Girls only section which is far from the point.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

So what is the current topic of this thread?
Is it AC?
Is it the need for a gender specific Forum?
Or is it last minute resistance?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

marduk said:


> Just because you create a thread doesn't mean you get to control who (or what) kinds of responses you get.


See? That's the difference between a beta response and an alpha response.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> So what is the current topic of this thread?
> Is it AC?
> Is it the need for a gender specific Forum?
> Or is it last minute resistance?


It's pretty clearly the need to overcome last minute resistance to affirming the need for a gender specific forum.

Do try to keep up.


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

Mr. Nail said:


> So what is the current topic of this thread?
> Is it AC?
> Is it the need for a gender specific Forum?
> Or is it last minute resistance?


Yeah, this thing is screwed. However, for all these situations, you can guard yourself by watching out and avoiding these type of people, because they sneak up on you when you least expect it:

From BPD Central, some of the Hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance

Has a sense of entitlement

Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

Requires excessive admiration

Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Believes that he or she is "special" and unique


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Last minute resistance is a pretty poor plan (assuming it was planned) and a rotten place to be if you didn't plan it. Here is how you overcome last minute resistance.

Get dressed and drive home, or get dressed and drive her home. If you need gender equality get dressed and kick him out.

This will prevent sexual assault. It could also prevent follow up dates. That could be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint. It should prevent a recurrence of the last minute resistance.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Cletus said:


> See? That's the difference between a beta response and an alpha response.


Huh?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

For those who want a boy's club house that has a 'NO GIRLS" sign, why not create your own social group...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/groups/


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I only wanted to start one discussion on a very specific topic, not to create a bloody male-only social club EleGirl!

Not to mention you and I both know the traffic for responses would be minimal even if I create a social club just to get male opinions on LMR, bah!


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> For those who want a boy's club house that has a 'NO GIRLS" sign, why not create your own social group...
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/groups/


Random Dude explained why. The idea is that it would be open to every male (or female) when they join as part of the forum. Not something they need to search out for, get added, etc...


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> Random Dude explained why. The idea is that it would be open to every male (or female) when they join as part of the forum. Not something they need to search out for, get added, etc...


And why should that be necessary when there is an existing forum called The Men's Clubhouse? Then you add on a nice, polite request, yet still....

Oh I forgot.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

I swear all this LMR/MMSLP/MRA/Red Pill crap is directed toward pimply faced, adolescent boys. What I find flabbergasting is that some grown men actually embrace this garbage.


----------



## Ripper (Apr 1, 2014)

_Public Service Announcement:
Guys at this point, acquainting yourself with the "Ignore" function is the best bet.

There is a small handful of posters (of both genders) that simply thrive on drama. If you haven't noticed yet, it is always the same cast of characters. 

They come on to a thread, belittle or insult the people/groups that conflict with their viewpoints, and then either lash out or act wound when some challenges their opinions. This is then followed by the forum wide proclamation of "being done with TAM" and storming off only to end up slinking back later.

Are you really interested in the opinion of someone who behaves in such a manner?
End of Public Service Announcement._

I haven't had any real issues with LMR. If I sense any hesitation on the woman's part, I'm done. I'm sure that policy means I have missed out on some opportunities before, but I also don't have to worry about being considered "rapey" either. 

I don't accept duty/starfish like sex, which is what you are likely to get if you have to negotiate your way into her pants. 

Sitting here typing this got me thinking about all the times I've had women actually push thru my LMR. Well, "push" may be too strong a word, "nudge" is more like it. Still it happens all the time, especially as I get older and less interested.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Oh gosh I'm just absolutely GUTTED by this post that is clearly directed at me (and a handful of other posters)....oh dear however will I get over the fact that some people see me this way and don't like me, I just care soooo much that some of these people don't liiiiiiiiikkkkkeee meeeeeee.....

....


....


....


........


:rofl:


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

Ripper said:


> _Public Service Announcement:
> Guys at this point, acquainting yourself with the "Ignore" function is the best bet.
> 
> There is a small handful of posters (of both genders) that simply thrive on drama. If you haven't noticed yet, it is always the same cast of characters.
> ...



Very wise advice. Attention seeking is nothing new, I thought it diminished with maturity, but sometimes it just twists, I guess. In kids its annoying, but expected. In adults? Pitiable?
We can all remember someone so desperate for attention, they're willing to humiliate themselves to get it. Trying to understand them is more difficult.

Now, someone out there must be able to throw out a scenario in which the "LMR" thing could be related?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Forest said:


> Now, someone out there must be able to throw out a scenario in which the "LMR" thing could be related?


The entire AC concept is based on a theory which should be repugnant to women. Radical progressive feminists should be ashamed of themselves. Apparently they believe a woman is incapable of saying no when a man makes a move. Somehow, though, when the man asks can he make the move she *will* be able to say no. The theory further proposes that a dishonorable man, the rapey guy, will honor her saying no when he asks, but he would not have honored her saying no when he made the move without asking.

Does anyone believe the PUA guy is not going to try again when he gets LMR?

If I were a single young man, I'd seriously consider recording all my sexual interactions for my own legal defense. Get that AC recorded. And when a false accusation is made, I would make sure the sex tape made it into the public arena to clear my name. 

We're going to see a whole new area of law out of this. If she says no, LMR, and the guy then pushes her again, is he guilty because he didn't stop at her first no? 

LMR is a human trait. Sometimes it is real, and she does not want to continue. But many times it is just part of the script, game, or social expectations. Normal non PUA guys bump up against this all the time. The manipulations of the PUA are disturbing in their maliciousness and disrespect for the woman.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

The stereotype of Gladys Kravitz exists for a reason; oftentimes demostrated in this very forum.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Thor said:


> The entire AC concept is based on a theory which should be repugnant to women. Radical progressive feminists should be ashamed of themselves. Apparently they believe a woman is incapable of saying no when a man makes a move. Somehow, though, when the man asks can he make the move she *will* be able to say no.


I guess for me the issue is of most importance when a person CAN'T say no. A person should not have to PROVE incapacitation. A person guilty of drinking too much, stupid as it is, should not be responsible for their rape. The trial should not be focused on how drunk s/he might have been and whether that rendered him or her truly incpacitated... Etc.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Constable Odo said:


> How is that any different than a man (or woman) understanding evolutionary biology and using the tenets of such to make him/herself more attractive in the eyes of the opposite sex?
> 
> For example, we all know women love men with forearms the size of hams (especially if they have daryl dixon tattoos on them), so is it now immoral for me to spend an hour a day on my bowflex to ensure I have adequate muscle tone to make the ladies go ga-ga?
> 
> Sure, it is their lizard brain at work which is making them act like a teenage girl at a Bieber concert, but that's not my fault, is it?


Yes, of course it is your fault! Haven't you been listening to the relationship experts with two X chromosomes?

Men are NOT supposed to learn how to do anything to get women excited! That might make it possible for icky beta males to get women excited to the point where the women would voluntarily have SEX with them. Then when the women find out what actually happened, it is retroactive rape!

So stop doing that! 0


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Phil Anders said:


> I won't have sex with any but a willing and enthusiastic partner...and certainly not with someone who's giving me OFF signals. However, if we accept and respect that a woman can change her mind and say NO at the last second, however inconvenient, it's also reasonable to anticipate that she may change her mind in the other direction.
> 
> I read the linked stuff. The rationales are stereotyped and patronizing, but I don't disagree that anyone's desire and instinct in the moment can be at odds with objective thought and societal conditioning. That impasse is unlikely to resolve through logical argument and/or displays of petulance (the "But why won't you/Here's why you should sleep with me" discussion).
> 
> ...


Yes, that is immoral psychological trickery! Why? Because it allows men who aren't real alphas to improve their success with women, which leads to retroactive rape!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
incapacitation is tricky. Clearly if someone is passed out or incoherent, they cannot give consent and sex with them is rape (except possibly by some prior arrangement).

There is an intermediate state though where someone is very drunk, and semi-coherent. Personally I have absolutely no interest in having sex with someone who is more than slightly tipsy, but I think that there are broad grey lines. 

A very drunk person can be encouraged to say and do things that they would never do sober. That may not really be rape, but I still find it objectionable. 






NobodySpecial said:


> I guess for me the issue is of most importance when a person CAN'T say no. A person should not have to PROVE incapacitation. A person guilty of drinking too much, stupid as it is, should not be responsible for their rape. The trial should not be focused on how drunk s/he might have been and whether that rendered him or her truly incpacitated... Etc.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Phil Anders said:


> And if a real-world man (one who is neither utterly cynical nor supremely confident) finds himself both acutely frustrated with stopping and genuinely interested in building additional rapport, what then? If he consciously shifts gears while affecting indifference, knowing that this is a shrewd move, is that still deceitful and exploitative? Should he instead continue doing A thru E, still masking frustration, until she shuts him down? Or be transparent about his feeling in a way that will likely prove self-defeating?


No, he must be transparent about his feelings, so that the woman knows he really isn't an alpha. Otherwise there will be retroactive rape(TM).


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> incapacitation is tricky.


It really isn't if people actually care to know whether or not their partner is interested in an affirmative way.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Thor said:


> Ok, well I disagree then. When she says "no", "stop", or "not that" then she has withdrawn consent for anything further in that direction. In the LMR article it says to ignore such things and press on. Maybe wait 5 seconds and touch again, or use a psychological manipulation to coerce her to continue. Those actions are in violation of her withdrawal of consent when she said some version of "no", and that is what makes it rapey.
> 
> AC with a PUA would go like this:
> PUA: "Hey babe, can I touch you there?"
> ...


Right, so the respectful man doesn't get laid, and the PUA does.
Which is exactly the purpose of AC.
Oh, and if the woman changes her mind later? Retroactive rape!


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Constable Odo said:


> And it differs from women who decide to ride the c0ck carousel... how?


Oh, that's easy: because women are good and men are bad!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Well its simple for me. I'm never drunk and have no interest in sleeping with someone who isn't currently able to carry on a complex conversation. I do understand though that other people have different criteria. 






NobodySpecial said:


> It really isn't if people actually care to know whether or not their partner is interested in an affirmative way.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Thor said:


> The entire AC concept is based on a theory which should be repugnant to women. Radical progressive feminists should be ashamed of themselves. Apparently they believe a woman is incapable of saying no when a man makes a move. Somehow, though, when the man asks can he make the move she *will* be able to say no. The theory further proposes that a dishonorable man, the rapey guy, will honor her saying no when he asks, but he would not have honored her saying no when he made the move without asking.
> 
> Does anyone believe the PUA guy is not going to try again when he gets LMR?
> 
> ...


Yes, he is guilty if she decides later that it was retroactive rape. So the solution is just to be so alpha that she never does that!

Note: this won't work if, for example, he *is* alpha enough but then doesn't call her again and she decides to ruin his life for that reason. Or any other reason, for that matter...


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Well its simple for me. I'm never drunk and have no interest in sleeping with someone who isn't currently able to carry on a complex conversation. I do understand though that other people have different criteria.


Which has exactly nothing to do with the law. Wait. I am in the wrong thread. Someone else must have brought up AC here?

Cheers. Sorry for the thread jack.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

technovelist said:


> Yes, of course it is your fault! [...] So stop doing that! 0


Ok. I'm sorry.

I will find a tattoo artist today to convert Daryl Dixon to Barbara Streisand on my forearms. 

I bet I'll score way more trim that way by showing what a kind, sensitive, beta male I am, right?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess for me the issue is of most importance when a person CAN'T say no. A person should not have to PROVE incapacitation. A person guilty of drinking too much, stupid as it is, should not be responsible for their rape. The trial should not be focused on how drunk s/he might have been and whether that rendered him or her truly incpacitated... Etc.


But that has nothing to do with AC. If a person is too intoxicated to speak consent, they are incapacitated. It is then legally sexual assault to continue under our current laws.

A person who is going to take advantage of someone who is so intoxicated they cannot speak coherently is someone who has planned to do so. AC isn't even going to be a passing thought in their mind.

These situations are a tiny fraction of all sexual encounters. AC doesn't solve this situation, but it does intrude on all the others.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
maybe, but getting laid really isn't the goal for some of us.

My goal is to have a woman I slept with a couple of times 30 years ago tell me when we happen to meet again that it was the best sex she ever had. (This happened, I'm sure it was a lie, but I'm still flattered that she thought highly enough of me after all those years that she wanted to flatter me). 

If I just wanted sex with some woman who would be so unsatisfied that she would consider accusing me later, I'd just buy it. 

Then again my favorite sin is pride, not lust. Pride is the best sin. 




technovelist said:


> Right, so the respectful man doesn't get laid, and the PUA does.
> Which is exactly the purpose of AC.
> Oh, and if the woman changes her mind later? Retroactive rape!


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> getting laid really isn't the goal for some of us.


Here's a good article to help you with your problem.


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> Which has exactly nothing to do with the law. Wait. I am in the wrong thread. Someone else must have brought up AC here?
> 
> Cheers. Sorry for the thread jack.


The AC law is ridiculous. Anyone it seeks to control will never even know it exists. 

The LMR thing, is a non-issue too for nearly any responsible, intelligent, non-desperate man.

The natural arc of this particular thread should morph toward what happens AFTER all these things. How to handle the inevitable curtain shopping, attention mongering, and and lawn resentment.
Yes, she hates that lawn.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
seriously - if the goal is to get laid, the internet will let you find attractive women of negotiable virtue in your area. Why bother with all the fuss and muss and expense of dating if you just want to get laid. 

Nothing wrong with wanting to get laid, I just think that if it is your goal, there are much more efficient ways to get there.



Constable Odo said:


> Here's a good article to help you with your problem.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> I want to hear what you guys think of it.


Creepy and manipulative. --Conjures up a very punchable mental image of the author.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

In the words of Michael in "The Big Chill":

Everyone does everything just to get laid.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Some folks believe AC is the only way to combat this, and quite frankly to me such a law condemns all men like criminals including those who are respectful towards women.

What do you guys think is a better solution?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Some folks believe AC is the only way to combat this, and quite frankly to me such a law condemns all men like criminals including those who are respectful towards women.
> 
> What do you guys think is a better solution?


Taping every romantic encounter you have until you're married.

I only half jest. The reasons for the paucity of rape convictions in this country have little to do with "No means yes, yes means anal". The real problems are the inability of victims to provide a case that doesn't hinge on he said/she said. If women had a better way of proving rape, rape would get proven more in a court of law. 

I'm sure that DAs around the country would love such a tool.


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

RandomDude said:


> Some folks believe AC is the only way to combat this, and quite frankly to me such a law condemns all men like criminals including those who are respectful towards women.
> 
> What do you guys think is a better solution?


Personal responsibility? On both sides of the argument. Obviously, too much to ask for, as personal responsibility has been in dismantling stages for years. Its gaining more and more momentum all the time.

People need to understand what consequences come from their actions, and failures to act. For some, it should be prosecution. The problem is agreeing what other consequences can be accepted in this "no responsibility" society we're creating.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> It really isn't if people actually care to know whether or not their partner is interested in an affirmative way.


Even if the aforementioned partner is interested in an affirmative way, if said partner cannot legally drive said partner cannot legally boink. I have no problem with that part of the law. 

On to another more thread concurrent note: Any one who actually wants to go to the edge, more than one time, should have prior arrangement and a safe word. It's a whole different game and it needs different rules. A safe continue word may need to be added.
MN


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I don't think AC actually changes anything. Rapists can still lie, and I don't know how to convince them to stop raping.

For people who actively want to avoid doing bad things, I think its easy: Get out of the mind set that sex is the goal. If you are dating someone then sex is just one part of a lot of things you are trying to enjoy together. Sex is something you should both be actively enjoying - if you are both enjoying, then stop. 

Its fine if both enjoy just casual fcking. Again if you are both enjoying then great.

If you want sex, and don't care if the other person enjoys, then hire of prostitute. If you don't want another person but just want the physical sensation, then buy a fleshlight.

If you can't afford a prostitue then put your effort into getting a better job. 



RandomDude said:


> Some folks believe AC is the only way to combat this, and quite frankly to me such a law condemns all men like criminals including those who are respectful towards women.
> 
> What do you guys think is a better solution?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> Some folks believe AC is the only way to combat this, and quite frankly to me such a law condemns all men like criminals including those who are respectful towards women.
> 
> What do you guys think is a better solution?


:iagree:

I discussed this topic with my college student son. They have an informal policy on campus of AC, but it is not mandatory. My guess is the school knows it is unenforcible unless one party records the tryst.

Anyhow, the students have to sit through a presentation about AC. Apparently a significant component to the concept of AC (on their campus at least) is reinforcing to the women that it is ok to say No. AC then gives the woman the explicit right to say No, whereas implied consent might make her hesitant to say No even though she always does have the right to say No.

IMO it would just be better to concentrate on that part of it, that it is always ok to say No at any time for any reason. If the No is not respected, it becomes sexual assault.

Which male college student has never run into LMR? Heck, I had a close male friend who for religious reasons would not have sex or even let a girl give him a bj, and numerous girls tried. So even the women can run into LMR.


----------

