# Consent and responsibility



## RandomDude

After watching a scene from 13 reasons why I thought I'd ask for some opinions when it comes to consent and responsibility.






It raises some questions. For those who have seen the series, (SPOILER ALERT) you'll know that the character actually was a rapist. However the court scene as a first impression for me... I just thought the lawyer was pathetic and it raised some questions about consent and responsibility. In society today there's also this supposed myth of girls crying rape. In court it is troublesome because real rape victims miss out on justice because "cry rape" is a defense commonly used, especially by the rich and famous - which does admittedly make you wonder why the girls come forward only years after the event instead of when the event actually occurred. And there are many rather sinister, selfish and entitled women out there.

I've also known several real rape victims in my life some of which I was very close with and it sickens me to see how the justice system fails yet at the same time it angers me many times it still seems the justice system seems to put so much responsibility on the male, and none for the female. What can a man do after a consensual one-night-stand and the woman later regrets it and calls it rape? How far does a man have to go to seek consent, if a woman is very obviously into you, do you ask her permission to touch her here or there? It's quite understandable why guys these days are afraid of making sensual moves in fear that they sexually assault someone.

True, it should be obvious, and I asked my girlfriend about this too, who believes in some cases responsibility should fall on the woman too. At the same time, it is worrisome, because I know many women are simply afraid to say no, which poses another problem. She may act consensual but deep down despise the act. Many men, innocent men, may fall into that trap and end up having sex with a woman who didn't want it but was afraid to say no.

I also asked her because the scene made me paranoid as I never ask for sex, I simply make physical advances based on the consent I read from her body language - and come to think of it this may very well be dangerous. She said that when I made my advances I did ask her continually if she was fine, if it felt good etc. But looking back it's because she was quite shy at first. What do you think? Am I safe? Am I just paranoid? Or should I, and other men, seek strictly for verbal consent in all circumstances?


----------



## Maxwedge 413

Written consent.


----------



## RandomDude

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Written consent.


Lol :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

It sucks that there is all this worry for men and women. It really should be less complicated. But it is what it is.

For myself personally, it isn’t necessary to ask me for consent because I won’t be anywhere near a sexual situation that I’m not fully consenting to. A man I’m having sex with has my consent before we have had sex. That’s why we are having sex. I want it, he wants it, we do it.

If he asked me anyway because he just wants more confirmation of consent and wants me to verbalize it, then I would think it’s cute and give my “yes means yes”.

But this isn’t always as easy for some people. Especially when many men think that pushing for more and being coercive is the way it is supposed to be done. Because men were literally taught this for a long time. That the way to get sex is to keep pushing past all no’s and keep trying to “turn her on” so that in the heat of the moment she will say yes. Those are the times that get really murky. 

IMO, if you have to “push” or pressure or ask for more, then the answer is no. You don’t want her to be pushed into it. Let her want to do it on her own if she is going to. Let her express that she wants more if she does. If there is pressure for her to do more, then you are already not getting her consent, you know she doesn’t want more or else you wouldn’t be pressuring her. Wanting to change her mind is dangerous. Don’t try to change her mind ever. Just accept what it is and move on if you need more. Find a woman who wants it with no pressure.

Should be that easy for any man who isn’t actually a rapist which is almost all men.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

RandomDude said:


> Lol :rofl:


And notarized. With video testimony.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Written consent.


Get some carbon copy paper. The type that is white, yellow, and pink. Print out the contract on your line printer. *zzzzt zzzzzzt zzzzzt zzz zzz zzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzt zzzzzzzt zzzzzzt*

"Please sign and date by the X. I'll sign and date here. You keep the yellow copy. Let my just put this contract in my filing cabinet, and we can get down to business"


----------



## Maxwedge 413

I use Sex Panther...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

It's been ... well ... decades since I dated, so take this with a grain of salt if you think it's out of date.

When I was dating, I don't think I ever encountered a woman who had any trouble expressing her limits for a particular encounter, and I never had any trouble recognizing this and backing off (meanwhile I did make out with a few who got rather pushy, but that's another story). Whether it was actually the word "no" or "I think we should slow down a bit" or the simple movement of my hand back to a less sensitive area, there was never any doubt. 

I'm baffled that there can be true misunderstanding here. So I was pretty baffled when "no means no" changed to "yes means yes." All the women I know enough about to know what they think in this area find the idea of having him stop at each juncture to reobtain affirmative consent for the next step find that a total turnoff.


----------



## personofinterest

"IMO, if you have to “push” or pressure or ask for more, then the answer is no. "

Yep. Unless you KNOW the person's nuances pushing is stupid


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

There's a Daniel Tosh bit about no means no. Paraphrasing here but it was something like "no doesn't mean no. No means work on neck and the nipples and try again in 5 minutes"

Which I don't know a single guy who hasn't experienced that. "No, the kids are still awake!" And we respond with "ok" then continue to do what we need to do to unlock that door... Until you are racing over to lock the bedroom door. >


----------



## personofinterest

TheDudeLebowski said:


> There's a Daniel Tosh bit about no means no. Paraphrasing gere but it was something like "no doesn't mean no. no means work on neck and the nipples and try again in 5 minutes"
> 
> Which I don't know a single guy who hasn't experienced that. "No, the kids are still awake!" And we respond with "ok" then continue to do what we need to do to unlock that door... Until you are racing over to lock the bedroom door. <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/TAMarriage_2015/smilies/tango_face_devil.png" border="0" alt="" title="Devil" ></a>


That's great with your long term spouse. If it goes bad on the 4th date, I won't be bailing ya out lol


----------



## RandomDude

(SPOILER)

In the actual scene of the drama, the rapist was really pushing. He held her hand and didn't let her leave. Then she was like, dead as a rock as he had sex with her, so even if she consented, he would have been taking advantage of her. The court scene is troublesome too, because he omitted the truth of what he did, the lawyer could have done a better job but I guess it's drama, in the end he got off easy, which disturbed alot of viewers.

But damn the court scene - omitting the truth of what actually happened, if the guy wasn't lying, it's quite scary. As some women may even consent and regret it later, the guy wouldn't even be pushing or pressuring. Then they call it rape, and what defense does a guy who if we assume is innocent in it - have?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> That's great with your long term spouse. If it goes bad on the 4th date, I won't be bailing ya out lol


I'm a salesman. We never take the first "no." All an objection is is a sign that I haven't sold them on the value yet. 0


----------



## personofinterest

TheDudeLebowski said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's great with your long term spouse. If it goes bad on the 4th date, I won't be bailing ya out lol
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a salesman. We never take the first "no." All an objection is is a sign that I haven't sold them on the value yet. <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/TAMarriage_2015/smilies/tango_face_angel.png" border="0" alt="" title="Angel" ></a>
Click to expand...

Wow....do you have any clue how you sound?

I'm a little grossed out

Joking about consent and rape with a wink wink nudge...


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

RandomDude said:


> (SPOILER)
> 
> In the actual scene of the drama, the rapist was really pushing. He held her hand and didn't let her leave. Then she was like, dead as a rock as he had sex with her, so even if she consented, he would have been taking advantage of her. The court scene is troublesome too, because he omitted the truth of what he did, the lawyer could have done a better job but I guess it's drama, in the end he got off easy, which disturbed alot of viewers.
> 
> But damn the court scene - omitting the truth of what actually happened, if the guy wasn't lying, it's quite scary. As some women may even consent and regret it later, the guy wouldn't even be pushing or pressuring. Then they call it rape, and what defense does a guy who if we assume is innocent in it - have?


Mattress girl. Aziz Ansari...


----------



## RandomDude

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> And notarized. With video testimony.





TheDudeLebowski said:


> Get some carbon copy paper. The type that is white, yellow, and pink. Print out the contract on your line printer. *zzzzt zzzzzzt zzzzzt zzz zzz zzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzt zzzzzzzt zzzzzzt*
> 
> "Please sign and date by the X. I'll sign and date here. You keep the yellow copy. Let my just put this contract in my filing cabinet, and we can get down to business"


Lol someone should make a video about an actual date like that :rofl:


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> Wow....do you have any clue how you sound?
> 
> I'm a little grossed out
> 
> Joking about consent and rape with a wink wink nudge...


I'm joking about how no doesn't always mean no. You can be grossed out all you want, but I would bet the farm you as well as most women have given a playful no, that eventually turned into a yes. 

This subject is serious in that I really feel for men who are single these days. I honestly don't feel sorry for a woman who can't give a firm "NO!" I mean, are you an adult or not? I think much higher of women than to entertain the idea that they are powerless in these situations. There is a HUGE difference between "noooooo (with a playful smile)" and "No I'm not ready for that, lets please slow down" 

I know the difference. I also know that women and men all joke about how women don't say what they mean. There is another thread about that on this forum, filled with women joking about it, the same as men. So to sit here and suggest that women say no when they mean no 100% of the time is BS, and you damn well know it.


----------



## Diana7

The only way to be safe in these situations is to only have sex with someone you are in a long committed relationship/marriage with. Someone you know very well. Otherwise I don't see how anyone can really avoid these dangers.


----------



## RandomDude

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I'm joking about how no doesn't always mean no. You can be grossed out all you want, but I would bet the farm you as well as most women have given a playful no, that eventually turned into a yes.
> 
> This subject is serious in that I really feel for men who are single these days. I honestly don't feel sorry for a woman who can't give a firm "NO!" I mean, are you an adult or not? I think much higher of women than to entertain the idea that they are powerless in these situations. There is a HUGE difference between "noooooo (with a playful smile)" and "No I'm not ready for that, lets please slow down"
> 
> I know the difference. I also know that women and men all joke about how women don't say what they mean. There is another thread about that on this forum, filled with women joking about it, the same as men. So to sit here and suggest that women say no when they mean no 100% of the time is BS, and you damn well know it.


Yeah that's the thing too, like my girlfriend and I play all the time, she says no and I say no, but our smiles and hands and bodies say otherwise. It's called teasing. If even playful nos are off the table heck I don't know.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder why they push responsibility all on the men to get like super-consent, and heck the jokes about written consent and video testimony is freaking hilarious because what is disturbing is that it's almost like that's what it's leading to! lol


----------



## RandomDude

Diana7 said:


> The only way to be safe in these situations is to only have sex with someone you are in a long committed relationship/marriage with. Someone you know very well. Otherwise I don't see how anyone can really avoid these dangers.


Not really safe, as you do have to get to that stage first. Which means folks, especially men, have to initiate physical contact. Many women as mentioned would be turned off by men repeatedly asking for consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I remember being young enough that I was the one who was making the moves. Like as a teen when I was fairly uninhibited when I liked a guy, and we were dating or hanging out, and I’d suddenly want to make out and maybe more, so I’d jump him.

Some guys loved this, if they didn’t make the first move I just made it really easy for them. Other guys, either weren’t into me like that or just weren’t ready for that or didn’t want to go there at that time. I found that these boys just said a firm but simple no, and maybe with an explanation but I never asked for one after no. I just hopped up and went on with the date or dialed it back. 

Other times, boys were wanting more with me or wanting to go further than I wanted to at that time. I said a simple no, and I don’t recall ever being pressured after that. I mean, maybe they said “awwww really? Damn!” But it was light hearted and they dialed right back. 

All of my adult sex life has been free of pressure and only consensual. 

Since this has been my experience, consent seems so easy to me. But then I read and hear about others and why it gets murky.

Question for anyone: if you are in a situation where your partner is reluctant, do you think it is ok to try to convince them to move out of reluctance? Let’s assume there is not already a consensual non consent type of thing or that vibe. (I’d love to address that topic too, but separately). 

I just would like to hear people’s honest thoughts if they do think it is ok because my experience has been such that I can’t imagine trying to change anyone’s mind about sex stuff with me. 

I have had negotiations with partners about what we would and wouldn’t try. Sometimes one of us was like “oh pleeeeeese can we try that, come on, pleeeeeese!” said with laughter and in a sexual way. Maybe with a tackle at the end. Some of those things did eventually get worked into our schedule. Some were things the reluctant one didn’t think they wound like but now they do. Some things made us understand that our reluctance was based on nonsense and we grew from that understanding. 

This to me is not the same thing. We were both always consenting in the moment, there was never any trying for things that were not already on the table at a “weak” moment. We were growing and expanding our sex life but it sometimes had to come in sections. We were both fully participating in wanting to learn and grow together.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Question for anyone: if you are in a situation where your partner is reluctant, do you think it is ok to try to convince them to move out of reluctance? Let’s assume there is not already a consensual non consent type of thing or that vibe. (I’d love to address that topic too, but separately).


Hmmm, I don't know if this qualifies, but here goes:

Our first sexual encounter was during shopping when she pulled me to the change rooms. I didn't expect that, and then she told me to strip. I said no, if she wanted me to strip, she has to be fair. She laughs and says no, so I tell her then I am keeping my clothes on. She says she's not the one trying on clothes, and I told her I can try it on without stripping, she says no I'm being retarded, I laugh, and then tell her again if she wants me to strip she has to be fair. She did, we were there 30 minutes. We walked out and staff asked us "was everything alright in there?". I held up one piece of clothing and said yes. We laugh about it to this day.

Sure she was reluctant, but happy with the outcome, was it wrong what I did?


----------



## RandomDude

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Mattress girl. Aziz Ansari...







Gotta love Whoopi "What happened to 'Stop or I'll knock you in the nuts'?"

Still alot of women as I mentioned can't say no, but is it the man's responsibility then in that case?


----------



## Red Sonja

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I'm joking about how no doesn't always mean no. You can be grossed out all you want, but I would bet the farm you as well as most women have given a playful no, that eventually turned into a yes.


And this right here is the attitude that I encounter all the time in the dating world ... it's maddening and forces me to be rude and sometimes semi-violent in order to convince these clowns that "No" means back off immediately.

Do I have to channel Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction and follow my "No" with "English, mother****er, do you speak it?"

BTW, mature adult women do not give "playful no's" outside of an established relationship, so it's actually very simple ... assume "No" _does_ mean "No" and you'll keep your "farm".


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for anyone: if you are in a situation where your partner is reluctant, do you think it is ok to try to convince them to move out of reluctance? Let’s assume there is not already a consensual non consent type of thing or that vibe. (I’d love to address that topic too, but separately).
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, I don't know if this qualifies, but here goes:
> 
> Our first sexual encounter was during shopping when she pulled me to the change rooms. I didn't expect that, and then she told me to strip. I said no, if she wanted me to strip, she has to be fair. She laughs and says no, so I tell her then I am keeping my clothes on. She says she's not the one trying on clothes, and I told her I can try it on without stripping, she says no I'm being retarded, I laugh, and then tell her again if she wants me to strip she has to be fair. She did, we were there 30 minutes. We walked out and staff asked us "was everything alright in there?". I held up one piece of clothing and said yes. We laugh about it to this day.
> 
> Sure she was reluctant, but happy with the outcome, was it wrong what I did?
Click to expand...

Sounds like fun playful banter to me.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

FW, of course there are different types of turn downs. Humans are much too nuanced to boil it down to a simple black and white answer to your question. This is what I can't stand about the whole "no means no" saying. The truth is as we have seen, no means no, no means sometimes, no means maybe, no means later, no means yes, yes means yes, and apparently yes means no. 

So sure, sometimes I would try to convince them. Sometimes not. 

If we were all robots, life would be pretty simple eh?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Red Sonja said:


> And this right here is the attitude that I encounter all the time in the dating world ... it's maddening and forces me to be rude and sometimes semi-violent in order to convince these clowns that "No" means back off immediately.
> 
> Do I have to channel Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction and follow my "No" with "English, mother****er, do you speak it?"
> 
> BTW, mature adult women do not give "playful no's" outside of an established relationship, so it's actually very simple ... assume "No" _does_ mean "No" and you'll keep your "farm".


Horse ****. You can be a mature adult woman who likes to tease men and get them all hot and bothered before the final yes, because that is simply what turns them on. Unless you believe all women are the exact same as you? If they aren't, that automatically means they must not be mature adult women then. They must be something lesser than you obviously.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> FW, of course there are different types of turn downs. Humans are much too nuanced to boil it down to a simple black and white answer to your question. This is what I can't stand about the whole "no means no" saying. The truth is as we have seen, no means no, no means sometimes, no means maybe, no means later, no means yes, yes means yes, and apparently yes means no.
> 
> So sure, sometimes I would try to convince them. Sometimes not.
> 
> If we were all robots, life would be pretty simple eh?


But even if no means sometimes, wouldn’t it just feel gross to you to try to “convince” her otherwise? I mean men all the time here say they do not want an unenthusiastic partner who doesn’t really want it. Isn’t that what you would get if you ignore no and hope it means maybe?

I’m imagining this is very confusing, and some women may be playful and tease and hope that you change her mind. It just seems like in that case you could still not go further after no or the first push off, and just either stop or dial back and stay there. If it is too hot to handle for you, it seems you could stop the action so you won’t be all frustrated. Even excuse yourself to masturbate or take a breather. Then, if her no was really going to be a maybe, let her initiate it or at least yourself initiate a talk about it and establish what she wants as she wants more, assuming like you said, sometimes they are actually open to more but initially said no.

In other scenarios, like in marriages where the husband knows for sure that she never means maybe, I can’t imagine he keeps trying. It would just be demoralizing. 

Isn’t the best sex when a woman openly wants what you want? Or is open to new things as you discuss them and do them? Or is there something good or sexy about getting from a no to a maybe to a yes? I mean, I honestly don’t know the answer, it is so foreign to me. Is the escalating fun for it’s own sake, when you really don’t know for sure how far she will go but you’re gonna go for home base?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Alright, here is an example of "no means sometimes" anal sex. For some women, that is a strict no. For some women, that is a no 9 times out of 10. Anal sex is like a nice bottle of champagne. You only break it out on special occasions, you know?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

I'll give another example. My wife was very reluctant to bring toys into our sex life. Well I eventually got a small vibrator anyway after a year or two of talking about it. Just said "f it" and picked one up on the way home one day. She was reluctant the first time we used it. Now its a staple in our sex life and she loves it. She was used to gspot orgasms during piv. Her first experience with a clitoral stimulation orgasm. She loved it. We haven't looked back. So yes, sometimes it is worth it to sort of give a little nudge. If she didn't like it after that first try, I would have tossed it. It was a $10 gamble that paid off big for her. Its not even really for me. I could get her to orgasm just fine anyway. The only thing in it for me is I like her to feel pleasure during sex. Now she sometimes says to "go get my little friend" and other times, wants a gspot O. 

Was it wrong for me to continue to pursue this then?


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Alright, here is an example of "no means sometimes" anal sex. For some women, that is a strict no. For some women, that is a no 9 times out of 10. Anal sex is like a nice bottle of champagne. You only break it out on special occasions, you know?


Ok I don’t really understand this example. To me, it would just seem better to wait for her yes which you know will occur sometimes, then keep the pressure on after a “no, not this time.” 

I would think that a partner would find it so much hotter for her to be begging for it on that 10th time, than to get it one time more than she actually wanted to by pressure and have her possibly unhappy about it. She may not feel assaulted but she may feel gross and unhappy. Why have sex with anyone who is going to feel gross about it after or during? Especially when you could have just waited for the 10th time you know will come? 

If a guy is really frustrated and confused on when the 10th will be and just needs direction from her about it, then he can talk to her and open up the communication to seek more information. If she won’t open up, then you probably do have reason to be worried about what your position is. I definitely think these things should be discussed openly. 

In this example specifically, you are offering a scenario where it does happen sometimes. It’s not never. Why not just wait for the magic? I’m not saying don’t try I’m just saying accept no because you know only 9 more times until yes. Not literally of course but you get the gist.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I'll give another example. My wife was very reluctant to bring toys into our sex life. Well I eventually got a small vibrator anyway after a year or two of talking about it. Just said "f it" and picked one up on the way home one day. She was reluctant the first time we used it. Now its a staple in our sex life and she loves it. She was used to gspot orgasms during piv. Her first experience with a clitoral stimulation orgasm. She loved it. We haven't looked back. So yes, sometimes it is worth it to sort of give a little nudge. If she didn't like it after that first try, I would have tossed it. It was a $10 gamble that paid off big for her. Its not even really for me. I could get her to orgasm just fine anyway. The only thing in it for me is I like her to feel pleasure during sex. Now she sometimes says to "go get my little friend" and other times, wants a gspot O.
> 
> Was it wrong for me to continue to pursue this then?


To me it was not wrong to pursue this because I believe you should be able to purchase a sex toy out of your own curiosity whether she wanted to play too or not. If she honestly didn’t want to, she wouldn’t. If you kept it for yourself (because a vibe feels great for men too) that would be cool. It is different to me because sex toys as a curiosity are objects that people either like or they don’t but those who do should have as many as they want.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Red Sonja said:


> TheDudeLebowski said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm joking about how no doesn't always mean no. You can be grossed out all you want, but I would bet the farm you as well as most women have given a playful no, that eventually turned into a yes.
> 
> 
> 
> And this right here is the attitude that I encounter all the time in the dating world ... it's maddening and forces me to be rude and sometimes semi-violent in order to convince these clowns that "No" means back off immediately.
> 
> Do I have to channel Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction and follow my "No" with "English, mother****er, do you speak it?"
> 
> BTW, mature adult women do not give "playful no's" outside of an established relationship, so it's actually very simple ... assume "No" _does_ mean "No" and you'll keep your "farm".
Click to expand...

I agree there are not playful no’s at this stage.

But wow, what’s with all the octopus stuff? Yuck. Who are these guys, or do you know why this keeps happening? I’m getting at something like culture or geography. Maybe this is way more normal where you are. 

I’m sure it happens all the time everywhere, I just haven’t heard many women say it’s been the majority of them.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Faithful Wife said:


> Isn’t the best sex when a woman openly wants what you want? Or is open to new things as you discuss them and do them? Or is there something good or sexy about getting from a no to a maybe to a yes? I mean, I honestly don’t know the answer, it is so foreign to me. Is the escalating fun for it’s own sake, when you really don’t know for sure how far she will go but you’re gonna go for home base?


Yes and yes. Imagine you ask your SO for a particular position or anal or whatever. The no is said a bunch of times. Mayne 100. Then suddenly you are having that hot drunken monkey sex in a hotel on vacation somewhere. That crazy good sex where you are both insane with desire. Let's get one thing straight here, there's good sex, great sex, amazing sex, then there is that hot monkey love pure animal instinct all inhibitions are out of the window anything goes because ive never been more turned on in my life sex. So I'm talking THAT sex. You know the ones you've had. You are replaying an image of that "one time in Vegas" right now I'm sure. Where She doesn't really say yes, she tells you to she wants it.

Now, would she have told you she wanted that if she didn't know you wanted it? If you hadn't been asking for it for years? I don't think so. So you turned a no into a yes. Which has its own level of excitement added in. Even if you didn't really ask for it, she did. It still feels like you got a yes. 

So yes, it is best when everyone wants it. And yes, it is great to finally get that "yes" even if its sort of unspoken, or you didn't happen to really ask for it when you finally got the yes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t the best sex when a woman openly wants what you want? Or is open to new things as you discuss them and do them? Or is there something good or sexy about getting from a no to a maybe to a yes? I mean, I honestly don’t know the answer, it is so foreign to me. Is the escalating fun for it’s own sake, when you really don’t know for sure how far she will go but you’re gonna go for home base?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and yes. Imagine you ask your SO for a particular position or anal or whatever. The no is said a bunch of times. Mayne 100. Then suddenly you are having that hot drunken monkey sex in a hotel on vacation somewhere. That crazy good sex where you are both insane with desire. Let's get one thing straight here, there's good sex, great sex, amazing sex, then there is that hot monkey love pure animal instinct all inhibitions are out of the window anything goes because ive never been more turned on in my life sex. So I'm talking THAT sex. You know the ones you've had. You are replaying an image of that "one time in Vegas" right now I'm sure. Where She doesn't really say yes, she tells you to she wants it.
> 
> Now, would she have told you she wanted that if she didn't know you wanted it? If you hadn't been asking for it for years? I don't think so. So you turned a no into a yes. Which has its own level of excitement added in. Even if you didn't really ask for it, she did. It still feels like you got a yes.
> 
> So yes, it is best when everyone wants it. And yes, it is great to finally get that "yes" even if its sort of unspoken, or you didn't happen to really ask for it when you finally got the yes.
Click to expand...

Ok I’m getting there.

To me, asking for it 100 times, as long as you accept no, isn’t a problem. If the 100 times of no were met with “ok can’t blame me for trying and I am going to try again”, to me that’s fair. Those actual words don’t need to be used, even just an attitude can express “I accept your no but I reserve the right to keep asking”.

Now here is the catch. If she wants you to stop asking for real and feels pressured and doesn’t want to feel that anymore, she doesn’t want you to ask again at all, then she should tell you that. And then you should stop asking. 

But If she playfully accepts your continued asking, and you graciously but in a sexy way accept her no and keep asking, then this is all good.

It depends on what you do after the no’s and what she does after the continued asking. In the way you’ve described I’ve found wonderful new things to try. I’ve also shared new things with others that I waited patiently for them to be ready for and everyone was happy at the end.

Continued negotiations are helpful when everyone is clear and accepts the others position.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok I don’t really understand this example. To me, it would just seem better to wait for her yes which you know will occur sometimes, then keep the pressure on after a “no, not this time.”
> 
> I would think that a partner would find it so much hotter for her to be begging for it on that 10th time, than to get it one time more than she actually wanted to by pressure and have her possibly unhappy about it. She may not feel assaulted but she may feel gross and unhappy. Why have sex with anyone who is going to feel gross about it after or during? Especially when you could have just waited for the 10th time you know will come?
> 
> If a guy is really frustrated and confused on when the 10th will be and just needs direction from her about it, then he can talk to her and open up the communication to seek more information. If she won’t open up, then you probably do have reason to be worried about what your position is. I definitely think these things should be discussed openly.
> 
> In this example specifically, you are offering a scenario where it does happen sometimes. It’s not never. Why not just wait for the magic? I’m not saying don’t try I’m just saying accept no because you know only 9 more times until yes. Not literally of course but you get the gist.


Well there's times where I've turned it down. Not really saying no, I just decided I was already enjoying what we were doing and finished up with that. She does it for me, not for her own pleasure. By her own choice. Seems like this is a touchy subject for women anymore these days. Imagine that, a woman doing something sexual for her man that does nothing for her or that she doesn't particularly enjoy all that much. There's likewise some things she likes me to do that do nothing for me and I don't particularly enjoy that much either. We do it for each other happily. 

I guess that means we are both abusive or something


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I don’t really understand this example. To me, it would just seem better to wait for her yes which you know will occur sometimes, then keep the pressure on after a “no, not this time.”
> 
> I would think that a partner would find it so much hotter for her to be begging for it on that 10th time, than to get it one time more than she actually wanted to by pressure and have her possibly unhappy about it. She may not feel assaulted but she may feel gross and unhappy. Why have sex with anyone who is going to feel gross about it after or during? Especially when you could have just waited for the 10th time you know will come?
> 
> If a guy is really frustrated and confused on when the 10th will be and just needs direction from her about it, then he can talk to her and open up the communication to seek more information. If she won’t open up, then you probably do have reason to be worried about what your position is. I definitely think these things should be discussed openly.
> 
> In this example specifically, you are offering a scenario where it does happen sometimes. It’s not never. Why not just wait for the magic? I’m not saying don’t try I’m just saying accept no because you know only 9 more times until yes. Not literally of course but you get the gist.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there's times where I've turned it down. Not really saying no, I just decided I was already enjoying what we were doing and finished up with that. She does it for me, not for her own pleasure. By her own choice. Seems like this is a touchy subject for women anymore these days. Imagine that, a woman doing something sexual for her man that does nothing for her or that she doesn't particularly enjoy all that much. There's likewise some things she likes me to do that do nothing for me and I don't particularly enjoy that much either. We do it for each other happily.
> 
> I guess that means we are both abusive or something <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)" ></a>
Click to expand...

Consensually doing something for purely someone else’s pleasure isn’t abuse or assault. Its awesome and typical. 

Do you really mean the “imagine that” part after you’ve read all of us talk about being nyphos and ho’s the past few days? You don’t see the dozens of posts by women talking about how we like playing with balls and other awesome one way things, plus all the two way things? Maybe it was a joke but I don’t get it given all the sexy *****es around here.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Question for anyone: if you are in a situation where your partner is reluctant, do you think it is ok to try to convince them to move out of reluctance? Let’s assume there is not already a consensual non consent type of thing or that vibe.


I have been in situations in which my partner seemed reluctant. I have never tried to convince her to go further. I stop.

What I would worry about is situations where she WAS reluctant but she didn't SAY it and I didn't interpret her body language as such, so I might have continued unknowingly.

Requiring the other person to accurately determine how their partner feels is prone to error.

Only one of the two people KNOWS that they are reluctant. Why not just ask them to say that?

So why no put the responsibility on the person who KNOWS rather that the person who has to guess?

I have no idea why "No means no" wasn't enough.

I think it was changed to accommodate women who are uncomfortable saying no. 

But to remove this responsibility from the woman and, instead, require mind reading skills of the man seems like it's guaranteed to make the situation worse.


----------



## 269370

RandomDude said:


> (SPOILER)
> 
> In the actual scene of the drama, the rapist was really pushing. He held her hand and didn't let her leave. Then she was like, dead as a rock as he had sex with her, so even if she consented, he would have been taking advantage of her. The court scene is troublesome too, because he omitted the truth of what he did, the lawyer could have done a better job but I guess it's drama, in the end he got off easy, which disturbed alot of viewers.
> 
> But damn the court scene - omitting the truth of what actually happened, if the guy wasn't lying, it's quite scary. As some women may even consent and regret it later, the guy wouldn't even be pushing or pressuring. Then they call it rape, and what defense does a guy who if we assume is innocent in it - have?


You don't get convicted just because someone said you raped them. They have to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that you did and her word against your word is not proof. At least this is my understanding. I may be wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for anyone: if you are in a situation where your partner is reluctant, do you think it is ok to try to convince them to move out of reluctance? Let’s assume there is not already a consensual non consent type of thing or that vibe.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been in situations in which my partner seemed reluctant. I have never tried to convince her to go further. I stop.
> 
> What I would worry about is situations where she WAS reluctant but she didn't SAY it and I didn't interpret her body language as such, so I might have continued unknowingly.
> 
> Requiring the other person to accurately determine how their partner feels is prone to error.
> 
> Only one of the two people KNOWS that they are reluctant. Why not just ask them to say that?
> 
> So why no put the responsibility on the person who KNOWS rather that the person who has to guess?
> 
> I have no idea why "No means no" wasn't enough.
> 
> I think it was changed to accommodate women who are uncomfortable saying no.
> 
> But to remove this responsibility from the woman and, instead, require mind reading skills of the man seems like it's guaranteed to make the situation worse.
Click to expand...

This all makes sense but why can’t it just be discussed? 

“Honey I love you and you know I’d love more x,y,z sex stuff and I know that you are reluctant. But I honestly don’t know what you want because I need some direction and you are kind of a brick wall. I also need a yes sometimes or indications that we have worked out in advance that mean yes, or yes but go slowly, or whatever.”

You can use safe words or gestures for whatever you want, including establishing boundaries.

To me safe words are not necessary at all, because no or stop is all I need. But yes those who are reluctant to be so direct can benefit from a little shift in wording to something easier for them to say.

Yes means yes, that responsibility would be on your wife in this case. She should be required to offer enough information that you are clear on her boundaries and what room you have on either side. Yes means yes falls square on her shoulders and she should use it. At least she can use it during discussion and boundaries. 

I understand some partners just will not have these discussions and will stone wall you. I don’t know what to do in that case. I guess keep trying to talk, ask for counseling, the usual.

I admire though that your stance has been not to push. I don’t know if that has worked well in your marriage or not but to me, it’s the only thing anyone should do. Pushing past no is just, ew. I think she should have to be more communicative. But I don’t remember your details so I may be way off.


----------



## 269370

Diana7 said:


> The only way to be safe in these situations is to only have sex with someone you are in a long committed relationship/marriage with. Someone you know very well. Otherwise I don't see how anyone can really avoid these dangers.


While it is less likely to result in rape charges, a LTR is no guarantee and doesn't prevent rape.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Faithful Wife said:


> Consensually doing something for purely someone else’s pleasure isn’t abuse or assault. Its awesome and typical.
> 
> Do you really mean the “imagine that” part after you’ve read all of us talk about being nyphos and ho’s the past few days? You don’t see the dozens of posts by women talking about how we like playing with balls and other awesome one way things, plus all the two way things? Maybe it was a joke but I don’t get it given all the sexy *****es around here.


Doesn't change what other things I've read. So yeah, the imagine that part was half joking, which means it was half not joking too.

That last paragraph was a joke in reference to some women saying no always means no. Which is BS. We've both said no, and had our minds changed. Ive even gotten some pretty hard nos from her. I backed off, and played the long slow game with it, until I got the yes about an hour or more later. Not just a yes, but a "take me now!" The first time my wife heard that song "Slow Hands" she just looked at me and smiled and said "this song must be about you" because yes, I will stay at it with these slow hands. 

I think you have a hard time understanding because you are typically ready to go anyway. So when you aren't, a no is a solid no. 

I'm an outdoorsman so I'll put it like this. They make this stuff called wetfire. It's basically a fire starter that you light. Touch a flame to it, and its burning super hot. You are wetfire. Even in the rain it will light and burn hot enough to get a fire going. Unless there is a seriously crazy downpour. (your no.)

My wife is like getting a fire started in the rain from scratch. I can't just pick up some grass and pine needles, some twigs and have a roaring fire going a minute later. I have to search around for dead standing. Then chop and split the wood to get to the stuff still dry in the center if the log. I have to build a platform to keep the fire out of the mud and water. I have to take my dry wood and cut fine shavings to create tender. I have to find an area protected from the rain long enough to get my fuel wood burning red hot. There's lots of steps, but once the fire is going, it will keep me warm all night. I might make a mistake or two and get a little water on my tender bundle, get my kindling wet, maybe I left the fuel wood in the wrong spot and they sat in a puddle while I wasn't looking (all the "nos"). Then I have to start that process again. But eventually, I can get the fire going in most downpours. Some are too great to manage and the materials are no good. But most days, I can get that sucker lit. These hands can get things done.


----------



## Red Sonja

Faithful Wife said:


> I agree there are not playful no’s at this stage.
> 
> But wow, what’s with all the octopus stuff? Yuck. Who are these guys, or do you know why this keeps happening? I’m getting at something like culture or geography. Maybe this is way more normal where you are.
> 
> I’m sure it happens all the time everywhere, I just haven’t heard many women say it’s been the majority of them.


IDK ... in college and before marriage I just put it down to the guys being "young and stupid", maybe entitled or perhaps they thought "why not try, it might work and I'll get laid". Back in those days I would get accosted even if I was out with my current boyfriend.

Now that I'm older and back in the the dating world (after 35 years) it's the men from dating sites, that's why I quit using them because the _vast_ majority were octopus-men.

Seriously, I'm not anything to swoon over, as my sisters always say ... I look like a Scandinavian farm girl who should be herding sheep somewhere (with a dog) ... it's the family joke. I don't dress provocatively, ever. I am very physically fit but that can't be it? I do have what most consider traditionally "masculine interests" and am therefore around men more often than most women? 

The same thing happens to my two best girlfriends here so maybe something about Los Angeles?


----------



## Red Sonja

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Horse ****. You can be a mature adult woman who likes to tease men and get them all hot and bothered before the final yes, because that is simply what turns them on. Unless you believe all women are the exact same as you? If they aren't, that automatically means they must not be mature adult women then. They must be something lesser than you obviously.


Nope not horse**** ... it's my RL experience and that of my girlfriends. I think what you are missing is that we are talking about different contexts.

I am talking about dating; you and the examples you give are inside a marriage or other established relationship.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Red Sonja said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there are not playful no’s at this stage.
> 
> But wow, what’s with all the octopus stuff? Yuck. Who are these guys, or do you know why this keeps happening? I’m getting at something like culture or geography. Maybe this is way more normal where you are.
> 
> I’m sure it happens all the time everywhere, I just haven’t heard many women say it’s been the majority of them.
> 
> 
> 
> IDK ... in college and before marriage I just put it down to the guys being "young and stupid", maybe entitled or perhaps they thought "why not try, it might work and I'll get laid". Back in those days I would get accosted even if I was out with my current boyfriend.
> 
> Now that I'm older and back in the the dating world (after 35 years) it's the men from dating sites, that's why I quit using them because the _vast_ majority were octopus-men.
> 
> Seriously, I'm not anything to swoon over, as my sisters always say ... I look like a Scandinavian farm girl who should be herding sheep somewhere (with a dog) ... it's the family joke. I don't dress provocatively, ever. I am very physically fit but that can't be it? I do have what most consider traditionally "masculine interests" and am therefore around men more often than most women?
> 
> The same thing happens to my two best girlfriends here so maybe something about Los Angeles?
Click to expand...

Um, Scandinavian farm girls are hot as hell. 

Not that being hot as hell ever makes octopus-ing ok. Ugh, jerks. 

I hope the guys here know what we mean by octopus because it’s kind of a different thing and happens usually right away. Friends have described it to me and I’ve seen it out in public. Definitely thinking LA has to do with it being more common. Entitled kind of thing. 

My BFF is from LA so I have a tiny bit of insight from her perspective on the goings on down there.


----------



## RandomDude

TheDudeLebowski said:


> FW, of course there are different types of turn downs. Humans are much too nuanced to boil it down to a simple black and white answer to your question. This is what I can't stand about the whole "no means no" saying. *The truth is as we have seen, no means no, no means sometimes, no means maybe, no means later, no means yes, yes means yes, and apparently yes means no. *
> 
> So sure, sometimes I would try to convince them. Sometimes not.
> 
> If we were all robots, life would be pretty simple eh?


Exactly! And this is why this whole thing is so complex! lol


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

I have never heard this term "octopusing."


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I have never heard this term "octopusing."


See definition number 3 and 5.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=octopus


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> See definition number 3 and 5.
> 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=octopus


Thank you.

So how does this relate to consent? Are we saying these guys are just so self absorbed, they are above the need to know that what they are doing is consensual?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> See definition number 3 and 5.
> 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=octopus
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> So how does this relate to consent? Are we saying these guys are just so self absorbed, they are above the need to know that what they are doing is consensual?
Click to expand...

These guys clearly do not understand consent and they can end up being the date rape types because they don’t actually care if they have your consent. They will keep touching you and not accept your “no” until you basically have to shove them off your body and leave. They are not the typical guy, I suspect none around TAM. They are not the guys who will give any notice to what consent means or why it matters.

Sonja only mentioned this type of behavior because someone else mentioned pushing the envelope and she shared what pushing the envelope looks like to some men - - they think it means just grab her anywhere you can and keep doing it no matter what she says. 

So when we hear some guys talking about pushing the envelope, we don’t know if they are an octopus guy and mean it in that way, or if they are a normal guy and mean it in a consensual ongoing negotiations way. We can’t tell which guys know the difference, especially when guys who are talking about ongoing negotiations say something implying “well I’ll never know how far I can get if I don’t push for more will I?” Since an octopus would say this too, it sounds dangerous to us.


----------



## RandomDude

When I think of rapists I think of impalement and shoving them into a brazen bull, but cases like this trouble me as everything gets blurred. On one hand I see a victim, possibly unable to give consent due to shyness, expectation or even trauma - the freeze response. On the other I see the offender, who could simply have assumed he had consent and went forward, taking charge as men are expected to do on the dating scene anyway.

On a real world case:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...w/news-story/fa6ccf813fc22c4ad0c761b11a41aaed

Rather tragic story actually, the response for rape victims is many times; fight, flight or freeze. The freeze response to trauma is distressing.

However, reading the story carefully, the victim did mention she wanted to go back to her friend repeatedly, he refused. 



> And it was at that moment that I kind of went 'Oh. This isn't the VIP area'. So, I kind of made, I said, 'you know, I have to go back to my friend', sort of thing. And he said, 'no, no stay with me, stay here'* and I said, 'no, no, I'd really like to go back to my friend now'. And he was like 'no, it's fine' and I went to move away and he pulled me back and kind of pulled my stockings and my underwear down. So, I pulled them back up and I said, 'no I really have to go now'. And I went to turn and he pulled me back and said something... he said, 'put your ****ing hands on the wall'. And so I did. I mean, I didn't know him. And you know, when the few things he said to me before we went outside were just nice, calm, normal things and then all of a sudden, after I tried to leave, it was 'put your ****ing hands on the wall', it wasn't 'no, please, stay with me'. You know, there wasn't any request. It was a demand. From someone I had never met before. In a dark alley way. Alone. And I was scared.*


Erm, no. That's WAY too far. There should be a line drawn there. In my opinion that should be MORE than enough to tell him that she did not consent.

After that, it gets blurry:


> He said something like, 'oh ****, you're tight'. And I said, 'yeah, because I'm a ****ing virgin'. So he said, 'oh, ****, really?' He said, ah 'get on your hands and knees and arch your back'. And I just did it. At that point I was just kind of, you know, in auto-pilot a little bit. I just wanted to go. And this was kind of the quickest way I thought I could leave.


He crossed the line before the actual act IMO. Sadly, this guy was released when he should have been made an example of!

But then you get sh-t like this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405

But that was a clear cut case of false accusation and the woman should have suffered the same sentence she tried to pin on her partner.

Also this anonymous article along with the Aziz Ansari thing:
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/1/24/16925444/aziz-ansari-me-too-feminism-consent

Which is blurry as hell. I think the guy did right by realising that she's not into it and left it. But to call himself close to rape? No, the woman led him on IMO.

Also googled some stuff:
https://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/we_took_a_picture_because_we_t.html

What kind of rapist would take a photo of himself and his victim? Guy's an idiot and disrespectful sure, but rapist?

IMO, *Punishment for rape should be extremely severe but it must be exact.*


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> These guys clearly do not understand consent and they can end up being the date rape types because they don’t actually care if they have your consent. They will keep touching you and not accept your “no” until you basically have to shove them off your body and leave. They are not the typical guy, I suspect none around TAM. They are not the guys who will give any notice to what consent means or why it matters.
> 
> Sonja only mentioned this type of behavior because someone else mentioned pushing the envelope and she shared what pushing the envelope looks like to some men - - they think it means just grab her anywhere you can and keep doing it no matter what she says.
> 
> So when we hear some guys talking about pushing the envelope, we don’t know if they are an octopus guy and mean it in that way, or if they are a normal guy and mean it in a consensual ongoing negotiations way. We can’t tell which guys know the difference, especially when guys who are talking about ongoing negotiations say something implying “well I’ll never know how far I can get if I don’t push for more will I?” Since an octopus would say this too, it sounds dangerous to us.


Hmmm definitions 3 and 5 make sense. In other words your president 

Curious your opinion on this:
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/1/24/16925444/aziz-ansari-me-too-feminism-consent

IMO I reckon the guy is being too hard on himself. Bad sex is one thing, rape is another.


----------



## personofinterest

"Yeah that's the thing too, like my girlfriend and I play all the time, she says no and I say no, but our smiles and hands and bodies say otherwise. It's called teasing. If even playful nos are off the table heck I don't know."

You used a keyword here. GIRLFRIEND.

You know her. You are in a relationship here.

My post referred to the first few dates.

For a man with a brain bigger than his ego, that's is a whole different story.

Men who dint feel sorry for a woman who may feel too intimidated to say no?

Not men.


----------



## RandomDude

Discussing this with my girlfriend she says both men and women have to simply work together in this. We both have to take responsibility for our own actions as well as learn about boundaries. Yes, many men have to learn how to discern consent but many women also have to learn how to establish boundaries and take responsibility for her own actions that put her in situations that she would later regret. In some cases you can't just pin in all on the guy IMO.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> These guys clearly do not understand consent and they can end up being the date rape types because they don’t actually care if they have your consent. They will keep touching you and not accept your “no” until you basically have to shove them off your body and leave. They are not the typical guy, I suspect none around TAM. They are not the guys who will give any notice to what consent means or why it matters.
> 
> Sonja only mentioned this type of behavior because someone else mentioned pushing the envelope and she shared what pushing the envelope looks like to some men - - they think it means just grab her anywhere you can and keep doing it no matter what she says.
> 
> So when we hear some guys talking about pushing the envelope, we don’t know if they are an octopus guy and mean it in that way, or if they are a normal guy and mean it in a consensual ongoing negotiations way. We can’t tell which guys know the difference, especially when guys who are talking about ongoing negotiations say something implying “well I’ll never know how far I can get if I don’t push for more will I?” Since an octopus would say this too, it sounds dangerous to us.


Thank you.
I guess this is all rather foreign and incomprehensible to me. I get nothing out of coerced compliance or even the act itself on as purely physical level. To me, se is pointless, or worse, without bonding and togetherness. I see emotional intimacy as integral to physical intimacy. If her participation isn't willing and enthusiastic, then it ain't happening for me either.

I love pushing the envelope, but we gotta' do it together. I do feel entitled... entitled to a _healthy, mutually satisfying_ sexual relationship. Any I expect my partner so have the same expectation of me. 

I can't for the life of me see what these guys get out if such an encounter. Power trip, I guess, but it's rather pathetic. That's self delusion rather than real power. Real power is helping create a willing , enthusiastic participant with whom you can build something beautiful, not use dumb brute force to manifest something ugly.


----------



## personofinterest

"Nope not horse**** ... it's my RL experience and that of my girlfriends. I think what you are missing is that we are talking about different contexts.

I am talking about dating; you and the examples you give are inside a marriage or other established relationship."

EXACTLY

Though I suspect some fools really WOULD try this crap on a second or third date, think they are entitled to....cause a REAL woman should have given a former no...


----------



## RandomDude

personofinterest said:


> "Yeah that's the thing too, like my girlfriend and I play all the time, she says no and I say no, but our smiles and hands and bodies say otherwise. It's called teasing. If even playful nos are off the table heck I don't know."
> 
> You used a keyword here. GIRLFRIEND.
> 
> You know her. You are in a relationship here.
> 
> My post referred to the first few dates.
> 
> For a man with a brain bigger than his ego, that's is a whole different story.
> 
> Men who dint feel sorry for a woman who may feel too intimidated to say no?
> 
> Not men.


But is it really different? How about marital rape? It exists.

I guess for me I have a rule that it has to be good sex as bad sex isn't worth it. But I can't expect others to have this standard as many are happy with just vanilla bang and go. Ex-wife for instance was very forceful and demanding, not sure I should call it rape but it was definitely bad sex and in some jurisdictions that could be even considered rape. Not even about us now as now I'm thinking about society in general and expectations of men and the falling of responsibility on the genders whether it is indeed being fair.

Yes I do feel sorry for women in the freeze state of trauma, and it's quite distressing. Hence I mentioned the above story but she froze AFTER she tried to get away from the guy but he kept pushing beyond her boundaries *repeatedly* and finally *forcefully* even if verbal. 

Still, that case aside, many men can be content with deadfish and some relationships that's all the sex they have which blurs the hell outta this. Bad sex sure, but rape?

It's a very serious accusation and I reckon it should be taken more seriously.


----------



## RandomDude

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Thank you.
> I guess this is all rather foreign and incomprehensible to me. I get nothing out of coerced compliance or even the act itself on as purely physical level. To me, se is pointless, or worse, without bonding and togetherness. I see emotional intimacy as integral to physical intimacy. If her participation isn't willing and enthusiastic, then it ain't happening for me either.
> 
> I love pushing the envelope, but we gotta' do it together. I do feel entitled... entitled to a _healthy, mutually satisfying_ sexual relationship. Any I expect my partner so have the same expectation of me.
> 
> I can't for the life of me see what these guys get out if such an encounter. Power trip, I guess, but it's rather pathetic. That's self delusion rather than real power. Real power is helping create a willing , enthusiastic participant with whom you can build something beautiful, not use dumb brute force to manifest something ugly.


I agree, but many men don't. Yet I'm not sure about labelling them rapists for having low standards of sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys clearly do not understand consent and they can end up being the date rape types because they don’t actually care if they have your consent. They will keep touching you and not accept your “no” until you basically have to shove them off your body and leave. They are not the typical guy, I suspect none around TAM. They are not the guys who will give any notice to what consent means or why it matters.
> 
> Sonja only mentioned this type of behavior because someone else mentioned pushing the envelope and she shared what pushing the envelope looks like to some men - - they think it means just grab her anywhere you can and keep doing it no matter what she says.
> 
> So when we hear some guys talking about pushing the envelope, we don’t know if they are an octopus guy and mean it in that way, or if they are a normal guy and mean it in a consensual ongoing negotiations way. We can’t tell which guys know the difference, especially when guys who are talking about ongoing negotiations say something implying “well I’ll never know how far I can get if I don’t push for more will I?” Since an octopus would say this too, it sounds dangerous to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm definitions 3 and 5 make sense. In other words your president <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Stick Out Tongue" ></a>
> 
> Curious your opinion on this:
> https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/1/24/16925444/aziz-ansari-me-too-feminism-consent
> 
> IMO I reckon the guy is being too hard on himself. Bad sex is one thing, rape is another.
Click to expand...

I think this article is awesome and enlightened.


----------



## personofinterest

Look, I would never accuse any man on this forum of being a rapist or potential perpetrator. That would just be rude and harsh and uncalled for. I will say, however, that if I were a guy who was new to dating, trying to figure out consent, and trying to navigate the early phases of dating, I wouldn't listen to a word in some of these posts because I wouldn't want to end up a defendant.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> I think this article is awesome and enlightened.


I believe he is being too hard on himself and the woman should also bear responsibility for the situation she got herself in. Do you agree?


----------



## RandomDude

personofinterest said:


> Look, I would never accuse any man on this forum of being a rapist or potential perpetrator. That would just be rude and harsh and uncalled for. I will say, however, that if I were a guy who was new to dating, trying to figure out consent, and trying to navigate the early phases of dating, I wouldn't listen to a word in some of these posts because I wouldn't want to end up a defendant.


:scratchhead: Erm, I'm not accusing you of accusing anyone lol

I'm just saying like, rape is a serious accusation in general. And don't you think like in today's culture, responsibility when it comes to giving and acknowledging consent or no consent should be spread among both genders instead of just men?


----------



## personofinterest

RandomDude said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this article is awesome and enlightened.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he is being too hard on himself and the woman should also bear responsibility for the situation she got herself in. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

I believe I should bow out of this thread because my no to the family friend who repeatedly molested me wasn't "firm" enough, and it was probably my fault for "getting myself in that sutuation."


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Red Sonja said:


> Nope not horse**** ... it's my RL experience and that of my girlfriends. I think what you are missing is that we are talking about different contexts.
> 
> I am talking about dating; you and the examples you give are inside a marriage or other established relationship.


I dont discount your experiences. I'm questioning your descript of women being immature if they think and act differently from you on a date. 

I know what an octopus is, I'm certainly not one. I've never been in a situation while dating where I got a hard no. Because I can read people well enough to not need it. By the time I got handsy with a woman, she was sending the signals asking for it. 

I'm sorry you have so many jerks in your area. I dont understand these men or why they think it helps them. They've always seemed extremely pathetic to me.


----------



## RandomDude

personofinterest said:


> I believe I should bow out of this thread because my no to the family friend who repeatedly molested me wasn't "firm" enough, and it was probably my fault for "getting myself in that sutuation."


 

This is a very difficult topic I understand. I didn't mean to bring back memories and I apologise for doing so.

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the politics/religion section.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this article is awesome and enlightened.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he is being too hard on himself and the woman should also bear responsibility for the situation she got herself in. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

You said earlier that you understand the freeze response. But here you are saying she “got herself into a situation” that she should “bear responsibility” for. In the article, the way it was described sounds like she was pretty much frozen the whole time. 

I think it is pointless to focus on the fear of false accusations, or to focus on making women “take more responsibility”. The focus for everyone should be on having only consensual relations, and finding ways to ensure that happens. Since we each can only control our own behavior and understanding, we should just focus on always making sure there is clear consent. If that means you are a guy and you are not getting the clear consent you need during an encounter, then you should stop and ask for it. Anything that is murky, since you honestly just want to ensure consent, then you should ask for it and clear up the murkiness. You should not just keep going and expect her to give a clear no in that circumstance. If you sense reluctance, ask about it. Don’t assume she has the full wherewithal to be able to do this without being asked. Her murkiness that you sense is a huge signal that she may not be able to verbalize. But once you ask her straight up, she is going to express a no or strong hesitation. Just like the woman in the Vox article did when he did ask. 

If I were counseling that young woman, I would not have scolded her for not being more aggressive with her no. But I would have advised her that it can be dangerous not to be more vocal and that it is best practice to just get up and leave the scene when he keeps pushing you after you’ve said no. I would advise that she read about and understand the freeze response, so she won’t succumb to it in the future hopefully. Clearly the girl in the article has not had that kind of guidance before and most young girls don’t. So it is always best to assume to role of protecting your partner from things they may not be able to understand yet. Not to just figure “hey it’s her job to protect herself from me”. That’s what it sounds like when you say she got herself into a situation.

The author of the article did not have good guidance either obviously, and he now recognizes that he has been conditioned to push past no’s. Because men do tell each other that’s what is supposed to happen. That was actually the point of his article. That the way he had been conditioned was not to go for explicitly consensual sex, it was to coerce and pressure for sex. That type of conditioning says girls need or want to be pushed because they think the girl wants it and just needs to free herself from inhibitions. That’s how he kept justifying his ignoring of her saying no, which she said clearly. Being that he had no better guidance at the time, I’m really glad he realized at the last moment that she truly meant no and he stopped. 

I think his article was awesome. It does make me sad that the term toxic masculinity is the only way people tend to describe this stuff. Those words are offensive and counter productive. I don’t know what a better term would be that is productive and non offensive but I do wish someone would come up with one. It makes people not take in the message because they are too offended right out the gate.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

This is the first reply on the thread in the sex forum, "do women say what they mean"



JustTheWife said:


> No we do not always say what we mean. I don't know about your wife but I always liked to be "made" to do things and I don't really like talking about it with the guy or go around saying how much i like different things. I mean, i've had guys make me admit that I liked something when they were doing it to me but afterwards i'd probably say what your wife did. Part of me likes to think of myself as a good girl who would NEVER like to do dirty things. That's how I like it. I like to be led to do things and be submissive to it. And I'll only admit to liking it in the heat of the moment when forced to admit it.
> 
> This might be hard to understand and I'm probably not explaining it very well but that's kind of how I think of it. Really - I'm a good girl.


Men absolutely have gotten this response before from lots of women. Where lots of others would say this is completely unlike them and they can be open and honest right up front. That when they say no, they mean no. 

The point is this isn't a black and white issue. We are much to nuanced as humans. Unfortunately some of that nuance includes creeps and rapists, and some of it includes women who would make false rape claims amd destroy a man's life. With those execrables in the mix, everyone simply has to be very careful. 

For women, pepper spray. For men, in your wallet where you keep your condoms, you have a couple printed out contracts. When you go to get that condom, grab a contract with it that says "I (write in name) am fully aware of my actions and I consent to having sex with John Doe. I will not later claim I was forced into this or couldn't say no, or that yes means no, or otherwise claim any sort of rape as this is 100% consensual on both our parts to participate in sexual acts of pleasure with one another" they write in their name, and sign and date at the bottom.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys clearly do not understand consent and they can end up being the date rape types because they don’t actually care if they have your consent. They will keep touching you and not accept your “no” until you basically have to shove them off your body and leave. They are not the typical guy, I suspect none around TAM. They are not the guys who will give any notice to what consent means or why it matters.
> 
> Sonja only mentioned this type of behavior because someone else mentioned pushing the envelope and she shared what pushing the envelope looks like to some men - - they think it means just grab her anywhere you can and keep doing it no matter what she says.
> 
> So when we hear some guys talking about pushing the envelope, we don’t know if they are an octopus guy and mean it in that way, or if they are a normal guy and mean it in a consensual ongoing negotiations way. We can’t tell which guys know the difference, especially when guys who are talking about ongoing negotiations say something implying “well I’ll never know how far I can get if I don’t push for more will I?” Since an octopus would say this too, it sounds dangerous to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> I guess this is all rather foreign and incomprehensible to me. I get nothing out of coerced compliance or even the act itself on as purely physical level. To me, se is pointless, or worse, without bonding and togetherness. I see emotional intimacy as integral to physical intimacy. If her participation isn't willing and enthusiastic, then it ain't happening for me either.
> 
> I love pushing the envelope, but we gotta' do it together. I do feel entitled... entitled to a _healthy, mutually satisfying_ sexual relationship. Any I expect my partner so have the same expectation of me.
> 
> I can't for the life of me see what these guys get out if such an encounter. Power trip, I guess, but it's rather pathetic. That's self delusion rather than real power. Real power is helping create a willing , enthusiastic participant with whom you can build something beautiful, not use dumb brute force to manifest something ugly.
Click to expand...

I think these guys are the type who simply see nothing but their own pleasure or gratification as the “reason” to be sexual. And they see the woman as the supplier of his pleasure and arousal, nothing more. They vary between mostly harmless to rapists. Any mindset that includes ignoring people’s boundaries is the mindset of a person who lacks empathy. Lacking empathy is a huge problem since it means you can’t understand the feelings of others and implies you won’t have any problem making the other person feel bad or causing them harm, since their feelings just don’t register with you. 

No one like this around these parts that I can tell.


----------



## personofinterest

If you cant see the difference between playing the no game with your wife and playing it on the third date with a girl you met on match.....I'm not sure what to say.


----------



## personofinterest

Wow.....my post about being molested disappeared. That sends a pretty clear message...........


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> You said earlier that you understand the freeze response. But here you are saying she “got herself into a situation” that she should “bear responsibility” for. In the article, the way it was described sounds like she was pretty much frozen the whole time.


Well kissing him back doesn't seem like freezing to me yet reading it again, and more clearly, I can see when it started becoming sexual after the kissing. She froze.

Yeah, can see what you mean.

I read it wrong. Ok, tell me then, what if the article wrote like the girl was moaning, arching her back, pushing her hips towards his fingers and saying "no"?



> I think it is pointless to focus on the fear of false accusations, or to focus on making women “take more responsibility”. The focus for everyone should be on having only consensual relations, and finding ways to ensure that happens. Since we each can only control our own behavior and understanding, we should just focus on always making sure there is clear consent. If that means you are a guy and you are not getting the clear consent you need during an encounter, then you should stop and ask for it. Anything that is murky, since you honestly just want to ensure consent, then you should ask for it and clear up the murkiness. You should not just keep going and expect her to give a clear no in that circumstance. If you sense reluctance, ask about it. Don’t assume she has the full wherewithal to be able to do this without being asked. Her murkiness that you sense is a huge signal that she may not be able to verbalize. But once you ask her straight up, she is going to express a no or strong hesitation. Just like the woman in the Vox article did when he did ask.


Reminds me when I asked my girlfriend if I ever pushed boundaries and she said that I've always asked her how she felt, and that I don't remember it but she does. And that I should stop overthinking and being paranoid and asked me "you think if you had pushed my boundaries without my consent I would still be with you?" heh

Still, I'm scared I guess. I wouldn't want to be the type of guy that I despise enough to want to torture and murder if I ever had the chance to get away with it. Especially when I'm a flirty type and I don't know how I am to ask for sex, it's not within me. I simply like to play and tease and seduce, which can be dangerous the more I think about it. But I guess if you sense something could be wrong, like a freeze or even tension, it's best to ask like what I did - it's not exactly asking for sex but making sure both are on the same page, proactive communication during sex I guess. 

In our case my girlfriend seemed quite tense, still kissing me, didn't stop my wandering hands, but didn't push back either or tell me or show me straight out 'yes'. Hence why I had to seek affirmation I guess. My girlfriend admitted she was tense because of her own insecurities, in others it could have been trauma. Guess that's one way to be safe. Don't need to ask for sex, but maintain proactive communication. Regardless of consent communication is important for good sex anyway.



> If I were counseling that young woman, I would not have scolded her for not being more aggressive with her no. But I would have advised her that it can be dangerous not to be more vocal and that it is best practice to just get up and leave the scene when he keeps pushing you after you’ve said no. I would advise that she read and understand the freeze response, so she won’t succumb to it in the future hopefully. Clearly the girl in the article has not had that kind of guidance before and most young girls don’t. So it is always best to assume to role of protecting your partner from things they may not be able to understand yet. Not to just figure “hey it’s her job to protect herself from me”. That’s what it sounds like when you say she got herself into a situation.


You wouldn't have, my girlfriend would have lol. However she did have guidance, and always was mature for her age. Most young girls don't have that guidance and that's true. Something to think about when raising my daughter.



> The author of the article did not have good guidance either obviously, and he now recognizes that he has been conditioned to push past no’s. Because men do tell each other that’s what is supposed to happen. That was actually the point of his article. That the way he had been conditioned was not to go for explicitly consensual sex, it was to coerce and pressure for sex. That type of conditioning says girls need or want to be pushed because they think the girl wants it and just needs to free herself from inhibitions. That’s how he kept justifying his ignoring of her saying no, which she said clearly. Being that he had no better guidance at the time, I’m really glad he realized at the last moment that she truly meant no and he stopped.
> 
> I think his article was awesome. It does make me sad that the term toxic masculinity is the only way people tend to describe this stuff. Those words are offensive and counter productive. I don’t know what a better term would be that is productive and non offensive but I do wish someone would come up with one. It makes people not take in the message because they are too offended right out the gate.


Yeah think I should have found a better article lol


----------



## RandomDude

personofinterest said:


> Wow.....my post about being molested disappeared. That sends a pretty clear message...........


This topic encountered a database error, I noticed it too. We are missing a few posts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> This is the first reply on the thread in the sex forum, "do women say what they mean"
> 
> 
> 
> JustTheWife said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we do not always say what we mean. I don't know about your wife but I always liked to be "made" to do things and I don't really like talking about it with the guy or go around saying how much i like different things. I mean, i've had guys make me admit that I liked something when they were doing it to me but afterwards i'd probably say what your wife did. Part of me likes to think of myself as a good girl who would NEVER like to do dirty things. That's how I like it. I like to be led to do things and be submissive to it. And I'll only admit to liking it in the heat of the moment when forced to admit it.
> 
> This might be hard to understand and I'm probably not explaining it very well but that's kind of how I think of it. Really - I'm a good girl.
> 
> 
> 
> Men absolutely have gotten this response before from lots of women. Where lots of others would say this is completely unlike them and they can be open and honest right up front. That when they say no, they mean no.
> 
> The point is this isn't a black and white issue. We are much to nuanced as humans. Unfortunately some of that nuance includes creeps and rapists, and some of it includes women who would make false rape claims amd destroy a man's life. With those execrables in the mix, everyone simply has to be very careful.
> 
> For women, pepper spray. For men, in your wallet where you keep your condoms, you have a couple printed out contracts. When you go to get that condom, grab a contract with it that says "I (write in name) am fully aware of my actions and I consent to having sex with John Doe. I will not later claim I was forced into this or couldn't say no, or that yes means no, or otherwise claim any sort of rape as this is 100% consensual on both our parts to participate in sexual acts of pleasure with one another" they write in their name, and sign and date at the bottom.
Click to expand...

I don’t recall, but was that response from a woman in a relationship? I don’t think she was talking about being on a date. She was talking about being asked about sex in a relationship.

I agree her message is confusing. I just don’t think you or anyone should try to take it out of context. 

The woman speaking is a submissive. Yes that gets confusing because many women are. I think men and women should educate themselves and become self aware. If you are a sub and your desire is to have your man just take you whenever he wants and not talk about it or seek consent, I think it is only wise to be able to communicate this. At least communicate it once at the beginning and say until or unless I say otherwise, just take me. Then he has blanked consent unless she changes it.

And so in the case of a deep sub who has specific preferences about not wanting to give consent but you already have her consent to just take her - It is best practice to state explicitly what and how she wants it. Then hand him her leash. Or keys to the cage. Or written instructions giving direction if she can’t say the words.

But the deep sub experience, while not uncommon, should not be the example for which men try to understand consent. If he’s in a relationship with a sub, he can learn more about submission. But if he’s not or he’s with someone new he doesn’t know well yet, then the sub female is not the frame of reference they should use to “understand” women’s desires and boundaries.

It is best to assume nothing and to ask questions for clarification on anything you aren’t sure of. If you encounter a woman who says “honestly I don’t like talking about it” I would not recommend that you just push anyway. You may have a sub like in the post you quoted above, but most likely you don’t. 

Again though - in a relationship where all of that consensual non consent is already hammered out? These couples have their own rules and guidelines that don’t apply outside of their relationship. Unless you are in that type of relationship (and if you are, you know you are) then you really shouldn’t focus on learning about it at all. Study it if it is your own desire or if you end up in a relationship with that element and you are enjoying it. Otherwise, it is irrelevant to the majority of people.


----------



## RandomDude

TheDudeLebowski said:


> This is the first reply on the thread in the sex forum, "do women say what they mean"
> 
> Men absolutely have gotten this response before from lots of women. Where lots of others would say this is completely unlike them and they can be open and honest right up front. That when they say no, they mean no.
> 
> The point is this isn't a black and white issue. We are much to nuanced as humans. Unfortunately some of that nuance includes creeps and rapists, and some of it includes women who would make false rape claims amd destroy a man's life. With those execrables in the mix, everyone simply has to be very careful.
> 
> For women, pepper spray. For men, in your wallet where you keep your condoms, you have a couple printed out contracts. When you go to get that condom, grab a contract with it that says "I (write in name) am fully aware of my actions and I consent to having sex with John Doe. I will not later claim I was forced into this or couldn't say no, or that yes means no, or otherwise claim any sort of rape as this is 100% consensual on both our parts to participate in sexual acts of pleasure with one another" they write in their name, and sign and date at the bottom.


Tricky thing really, because my style has its own issues. The way I sought to seek my girlfriend's affirmation that she was enjoying it, may have been seen by other women as not confident, insecure, not taking charge. You know how it is. If she was very obviously enjoying it - and obvious could be my perception alone. I don't think I would have asked. And that's what frightens me.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> I think these guys are the type who simply see nothing but their own pleasure or gratification as the “reason” to be sexual. And they see the woman as the supplier of his pleasure and arousal, nothing more. They vary between mostly harmless to rapists. Any mindset that includes ignoring people’s boundaries is the mindset of a person who lacks empathy. Lacking empathy is a huge problem since it means you can’t understand the feelings of others and implies you won’t have any problem making the other person feel bad or causing them harm, since their feelings just don’t register with you.
> 
> No one like this around these parts that I can tell.


That makes sense. The presence of absence of empathy seems to be the crux.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I admire though that your stance has been not to push. I don’t know if that has worked well in your marriage or not but to me, it’s the only thing anyone should do. Pushing past no is just, ew. I think she should have to be more communicative. But I don’t remember your details so I may be way off.


This hasn't been an issue in my marriage. My wife will speak up, as long as she actually knows what she wants / doesn't want, so I don't have to guess much. 

If I want to do something that we haven't done and it's far enough away from "the usual", I'd tell her what I want and observe her response.

Never push was more my attitude in my dating days (and would be again if I were ever dating again) when I'm in a new situation with someone I didn't already know well.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> I think these guys are the type who simply see nothing but their own pleasure or gratification as the “reason” to be sexual. And they see the woman as the supplier of his pleasure and arousal, nothing more. They vary between mostly harmless to rapists. Any mindset that includes ignoring people’s boundaries is the mindset of a person who lacks empathy. Lacking empathy is a huge problem since it means you can’t understand the feelings of others and implies you won’t have any problem making the other person feel bad or causing them harm, since their feelings just don’t register with you.
> 
> No one like this around these parts that I can tell.


Yes there are guys like that, but what I'm trying to bring up are the misunderstandings that occur when a girl isn't clear enough. Now I believe what I said about women taking responsibility for their own actions was too harsh and insensitive. But in some cases, the guy wouldn't have a clue.


----------



## RandomDude

Argh, what is up with this thread, posts are not showing up/disappearing.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I think it is pointless to focus on the fear of false accusations,


Any man today that doesn't focus on the possibility of false accusations is risking his reputation and career. Sure, it may me unlikely, but it *could* happen. 



Faithful Wife said:


> If I were counseling that young woman, I would not have scolded her for not being more aggressive with her no. But I would have advised her that it can be dangerous not to be more vocal and that it is best practice to just get up and leave the scene when he keeps pushing you after you’ve said no. I would advise that she read about and understand the freeze response, so she won’t succumb to it in the future hopefully. Clearly the girl in the article has not had that kind of guidance before and most young girls don’t. So it is always best to assume to role of protecting your partner from things they may not be able to understand yet. Not to just figure “hey it’s her job to protect herself from me”. That’s what it sounds like when you say she got herself into a situation.


This is wonderful advice. I've often thought that what's needed is assertiveness training for young women (especially when entering college).

Unfortunately, if you were a well know person writing this as an Op-Ed, you'd probably be accused or being a rape apologist.

That's what happened to Emily Yoffe when she suggested to college women that it might not be a good idea to get blind drunk before going to frat parties.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Argh, what is up with this thread, posts are not showing up/disappearing.


The whole site is having this issue. Hopefully they are working on it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RD... based on your descriptions of your interactions, you sound like you are on firmly solid ground with your lady and you should proceed in the same manner. Whatever you are doing, it is the right thing. She’s totally into you and wants you to stop worrying.

I liked your descriptions of asking for more clarity along the way with her. It sounds like you did it perfectly and naturally. She appreciates that she knew you were far more concerning for her well being than for gratification or whatever. That means you did it very well.

It’s great that you want to educate yourself more. I think we all should know more about consent even if it doesn’t apply to us. Also we should all become as self aware as we can so that we feel responsible for our own actions, boundaries, and fulfillment. 

As a parent with two adult kids who are awesome well adjusted folks, there was a lot to know and consider during the time they became sexually active. It helped me immensely to have studied up on talking with them and by being self aware and consensual myself. I was able to talk to my kids about everything (without being gross or graphic, just factual and light hearted). They learned boundaries and consent and guidelines and porn dangers and acceptance of diversity and lots more from me. If I had not expanded my mind beyond my youthful ideas about sex, I would have steered them wrong for sure.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Look, I would never accuse any man on this forum of being a rapist or potential perpetrator. That would just be rude and harsh and uncalled for. I will say, however, that if I were a guy who was new to dating, trying to figure out consent, and trying to navigate the early phases of dating, I wouldn't listen to a word in some of these posts because I wouldn't want to end up a defendant.



Yep. But that’s why I also think that to really explore, get better and have a lot more adventurous sex is actually more likely within a LTR rather than bouncing from one partner to another. I would always be worried if I’m doing something not right (ok, I’m still sometimes worry with my wife but it’s easier to figure this out without going to prison). Does she like it? Will I get arrested if I spank her? Every girl will have very different preferences or hang ups and you clearly need a very different approach at the beginning, than when you are at the ‘advanced’ level, where it’s more about pushing & exploring it, so her sexuality can unfold to the maximum.

Until you get on the same wave length, sex-wise, with someone, it takes months if not years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

TheDudeLebowski said:


> For men, in your wallet where you keep your condoms, you have a couple printed out contracts. When you go to get that condom, grab a contract with it that says "I (write in name) am fully aware of my actions and I consent to having sex with John Doe. I will not later claim I was forced into this or couldn't say no, or that yes means no, or otherwise claim any sort of rape as this is 100% consensual on both our parts to participate in sexual acts of pleasure with one another" they write in their name, and sign and date at the bottom.



Yeah....this will be more creepy than just leaning over for some boob attention and hoping you won’t be met with a smack.

That’s the kind of contract I used to carry around in my wallet when I began dating my wife. Biology cannot keep up with societal developments. Does it have to?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

If I were advising women, I would simply advised them not to come within 10 miles of a man who actually thinks there is no middle ground between not thinking she really meant her no "so I'll sell it to her anyway" or having contracts ready. There it's lots of middle ground in between these 2 ridiculous extremes. An intelligent man who understands that would probably be a safer bet for a boyfriend.

This isnt that hard when our focus is on trying to understand instead of trying to prove no means yes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

By not focusing on the potential of false accusations, I mean instead everyone should just focus on the well being of your partner. That is the entire reason for consent. If you work on your own self awareness first, then just sincerely only desire to enter consensual relations, and your partners well being is a higher priority than your lust or passion, then you are the least likely to be “accused” - falsely or otherwise.

When you really get into consent as a sexual play tool, if both parties are self aware and on board together, it becomes like second nature. Consent becomes sexy. It becomes a power you have and also a privilege. You feel respect for everyone’s consent and their privilege to it. It is not a shield against false “accusations” because you won’t be in that position. 

Your intent is what is important. And if your intent is to always protect both yourself and your partner, and you always err on the safe side, then you will not feel that fear of the unknown. It will be like fearing that you may get in a car accident, which is statistically quite common, but why walk around worried about that kind of unknowns if you are not a wreckless driver?


----------



## JustTheWife

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t recall, but was that response from a woman in a relationship? I don’t think she was talking about being on a date. She was talking about being asked about sex in a relationship.
> 
> I agree her message is confusing. I just don’t think you or anyone should try to take it out of context.
> 
> The woman speaking is a submissive. Yes that gets confusing because many women are. I think men and women should educate themselves and become self aware. If you are a sub and your desire is to have your man just take you whenever he wants and not talk about it or seek consent, I think it is only wise to be able to communicate this. At least communicate it once at the beginning and say until or unless I say otherwise, just take me. Then he has blanked consent unless she changes it.
> 
> And so in the case of a deep sub who has specific preferences about not wanting to give consent but you already have her consent to just take her - It is best practice to state explicitly what and how she wants it. Then hand him her leash. Or keys to the cage. Or written instructions giving direction if she can’t say the words.
> 
> But the deep sub experience, while not uncommon, should not be the example for which men try to understand consent. If he’s in a relationship with a sub, he can learn more about submission. But if he’s not or he’s with someone new he doesn’t know well yet, then the sub female is not the frame of reference they should use to “understand” women’s desires and boundaries.
> 
> It is best to assume nothing and to ask questions for clarification on anything you aren’t sure of. If you encounter a woman who says “honestly I don’t like talking about it” I would not recommend that you just push anyway. You may have a sub like in the post you quoted above, but most likely you don’t.
> 
> Again though - in a relationship where all of that consensual non consent is already hammered out? These couples have their own rules and guidelines that don’t apply outside of their relationship. Unless you are in that type of relationship (and if you are, you know you are) then you really shouldn’t focus on learning about it at all. Study it if it is your own desire or if you end up in a relationship with that element and you are enjoying it. Otherwise, it is irrelevant to the majority of people.


Sorry if I caused confusion. I don't really identify with things like "deep sub". Maybe that's what I am according to the terminology, I don't know. I'm not into any "scene", nor have I ever been. I don't call myself "a sub". I've always been submissive but it's not like a sex game. I just like to be dominated in sex and I like it rough. Pretty simple. No props or leashes or cages, etc. I mean sometimes I fantasize about stuff like that but I've never really been into some big scene around this. My husband is very passive so I don't see us getting into that kind of thing anyway.

I am not saying that people should assume everyone is like me and I'm certainly not saying that guys should force themselves on women because they might be "a sub" or whatever.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JustTheWife said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t recall, but was that response from a woman in a relationship? I don’t think she was talking about being on a date. She was talking about being asked about sex in a relationship.
> 
> I agree her message is confusing. I just don’t think you or anyone should try to take it out of context.
> 
> The woman speaking is a submissive. Yes that gets confusing because many women are. I think men and women should educate themselves and become self aware. If you are a sub and your desire is to have your man just take you whenever he wants and not talk about it or seek consent, I think it is only wise to be able to communicate this. At least communicate it once at the beginning and say until or unless I say otherwise, just take me. Then he has blanked consent unless she changes it.
> 
> And so in the case of a deep sub who has specific preferences about not wanting to give consent but you already have her consent to just take her - It is best practice to state explicitly what and how she wants it. Then hand him her leash. Or keys to the cage. Or written instructions giving direction if she can’t say the words.
> 
> But the deep sub experience, while not uncommon, should not be the example for which men try to understand consent. If he’s in a relationship with a sub, he can learn more about submission. But if he’s not or he’s with someone new he doesn’t know well yet, then the sub female is not the frame of reference they should use to “understand” women’s desires and boundaries.
> 
> It is best to assume nothing and to ask questions for clarification on anything you aren’t sure of. If you encounter a woman who says “honestly I don’t like talking about it” I would not recommend that you just push anyway. You may have a sub like in the post you quoted above, but most likely you don’t.
> 
> Again though - in a relationship where all of that consensual non consent is already hammered out? These couples have their own rules and guidelines that don’t apply outside of their relationship. Unless you are in that type of relationship (and if you are, you know you are) then you really shouldn’t focus on learning about it at all. Study it if it is your own desire or if you end up in a relationship with that element and you are enjoying it. Otherwise, it is irrelevant to the majority of people.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if I caused confusion. I don't really identify with things like "deep sub". Maybe that's what I am according to the terminology, I don't know. I'm not into any "scene", nor have I ever been. I don't call myself "a sub". I've always been submissive but it's not like a sex game. I just like to be dominated in sex and I like it rough. Pretty simple. No props or leashes or cages, etc. I mean sometimes I fantasize about stuff like that but I've never really been into some big scene around this. My husband is very passive so I don't see us getting into that kind of thing anyway.
> 
> I am not saying that people should assume everyone is like me and I'm certainly not saying that guys should force themselves on women because they might be "a sub" or whatever.
Click to expand...

I was hoping you would chime in. Thank you for clarification. Would love you to share more thoughts on this discussion.


----------



## personofinterest

Exactly. I mean, if your "sales pitch" is coercive enough to get you arrested, I dint think saying, "my women friends told me no sometimes means yes" will work as a defense. 

aybe just dont view sex with a woman like selling a car....


----------



## 269370

JustTheWife said:


> Sorry if I caused confusion. I don't really identify with things like "deep sub". Maybe that's what I am according to the terminology, I don't know. I'm not into any "scene", nor have I ever been. I don't call myself "a sub". I've always been submissive but it's not like a sex game. I just like to be dominated in sex and I like it rough. Pretty simple. No props or leashes or cages, etc. I mean sometimes I fantasize about stuff like that but I've never really been into some big scene around this. My husband is very passive so I don't see us getting into that kind of thing anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that people should assume everyone is like me and I'm certainly not saying that guys should force themselves on women because they might be "a sub" or whatever.



Yes, I understand this very well. The psychological aspect in domination is the most important one. Scenes or accessories can actually be a distraction sometimes and only do ‘the job’ up to a point (but some people need them). I don’t think everyone is like you but I would guess that more than half of women have some type of submissive tendencies (some more than others obviously).

Now this has to somehow come into balance with today’s society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

JustTheWife said:


> My husband is very passive so I don't see us getting into that kind of thing anyway.



Can I ask you what stops you from telling him how you feel / what you want of him, as your lover?

This is the only part I cannot get my head around and would love an honest answer.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Faithful Wife said:


> I don’t recall, but was that response from a woman in a relationship? I don’t think she was talking about being on a date. She was talking about being asked about sex in a relationship.
> 
> I agree her message is confusing. I just don’t think you or anyone should try to take it out of context.
> 
> The woman speaking is a submissive. Yes that gets confusing because many women are. I think men and women should educate themselves and become self aware. If you are a sub and your desire is to have your man just take you whenever he wants and not talk about it or seek consent, I think it is only wise to be able to communicate this. At least communicate it once at the beginning and say until or unless I say otherwise, just take me. Then he has blanked consent unless she changes it.
> 
> And so in the case of a deep sub who has specific preferences about not wanting to give consent but you already have her consent to just take her - It is best practice to state explicitly what and how she wants it. Then hand him her leash. Or keys to the cage. Or written instructions giving direction if she can’t say the words.
> 
> But the deep sub experience, while not uncommon, should not be the example for which men try to understand consent. If he’s in a relationship with a sub, he can learn more about submission. But if he’s not or he’s with someone new he doesn’t know well yet, then the sub female is not the frame of reference they should use to “understand” women’s desires and boundaries.
> 
> It is best to assume nothing and to ask questions for clarification on anything you aren’t sure of. If you encounter a woman who says “honestly I don’t like talking about it” I would not recommend that you just push anyway. You may have a sub like in the post you quoted above, but most likely you don’t.
> 
> Again though - in a relationship where all of that consensual non consent is already hammered out? These couples have their own rules and guidelines that don’t apply outside of their relationship. Unless you are in that type of relationship (and if you are, you know you are) then you really shouldn’t focus on learning about it at all. Study it if it is your own desire or if you end up in a relationship with that element and you are enjoying it. Otherwise, it is irrelevant to the majority of people.



Again, I think this is sort of a binary thought process. Where women wouldn't act a certain way, or be turned on by certain things outside of a LTR. I disagree with that. So even if this is a married women, that doesn't mean her post only applies to married women. I also don't think it is very fair to judge other women (not saying you did) about their sexual preferences regarding being a sub. If a single woman is a sub, and she's looking for a dominant man, she isn't going to want a man who asks, she wants a man who takes. That doesn't make her some sort of lesser woman, or an immature woman. It is just part of who she is and what she finds sexually arousing. 

Again, you could list out a 100 different types, and put them on paper. This is what men are faced with. Now add in the fact that if you make the wrong move, you lose the woman. Or worse, you make the wrong move with the wrong woman, and you lose your life and career. I'm not suggesting men have it harder than women either. From my perspective, the biggest issue women have is men certainly aren't as intuitive as women are. So you essentially have a lot of women throwing out signals, positive and negative, that lots of men simply lack the ability to pick up on in any way shape or form. Thus making these waters difficult to navigate for everyone equally. That, and I tend to think to often both men and women like to try and fit each other in a nice neat box, as if we all think, act, and feel the same. That if we don't, something must be wrong with that person.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> Exactly. I mean, if your "sales pitch" is coercive enough to get you arrested, I dint think saying, "my women friends told me no sometimes means yes" will work as a defense.
> 
> aybe just dont view sex with a woman like selling a car....


Conversely, I shouldn't think that "yes means no" would stand up to the courts of public opinion. That "yes means no" would work well enough to destroy a man's life. But obviously men have been wrong on this front. No means no, no means yes, yes means yes, and yes means no. This is the lesson being taught to men. You can't figure out why this is such a difficult issue for men to try and navigate?

Also, do you think you close a sale every time you first speak with a customer? Or that a good salesman is all or nothing? No, we can asses a customers needs independently from one another. Some want to be closed that day. Some take months to close. You seem to be taking MY words to the extreme yourself there lady.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> RD... based on your descriptions of your interactions, you sound like you are on firmly solid ground with your lady and you should proceed in the same manner. Whatever you are doing, it is the right thing. She’s totally into you and wants you to stop worrying.
> 
> I liked your descriptions of asking for more clarity along the way with her. It sounds like you did it perfectly and naturally. She appreciates that she knew you were far more concerning for her well being than for gratification or whatever. That means you did it very well.
> 
> It’s great that you want to educate yourself more. I think we all should know more about consent even if it doesn’t apply to us. Also we should all become as self aware as we can so that we feel responsible for our own actions, boundaries, and fulfillment.
> 
> As a parent with two adult kids who are awesome well adjusted folks, there was a lot to know and consider during the time they became sexually active. It helped me immensely to have studied up on talking with them and by being self aware and consensual myself. I was able to talk to my kids about everything (without being gross or graphic, just factual and light hearted). They learned boundaries and consent and guidelines and porn dangers and acceptance of diversity and lots more from me. If I had not expanded my mind beyond my youthful ideas about sex, I would have steered them wrong for sure.


Thanks FW, I have a habit of overthinking things as you know. Regardless of my own experiences however, I'm also concerned for others in general who may end up in much trickier situations like the events portrayed by the drama or in real life cases as I mentioned in this thread.



Faithful Wife said:


> By not focusing on the potential of false accusations, I mean instead everyone should just focus on the well being of your partner. That is the entire reason for consent. If you work on your own self awareness first, then just sincerely only desire to enter consensual relations, and your partners well being is a higher priority than your lust or passion, then you are the least likely to be “accused” - falsely or otherwise.
> 
> When you really get into consent as a sexual play tool, if both parties are self aware and on board together, it becomes like second nature. Consent becomes sexy. It becomes a power you have and also a privilege. You feel respect for everyone’s consent and their privilege to it. It is not a shield against false “accusations” because you won’t be in that position.
> 
> Your intent is what is important. And if your intent is to always protect both yourself and your partner, and you always err on the safe side, then you will not feel that fear of the unknown. It will be like fearing that you may get in a car accident, which is statistically quite common, but why walk around worried about that kind of unknowns if you are not a wreckless driver?


What I'm getting at is like, a man could be led to believe what he is doing is for the well being of his partner. He could have read the signals incorrectly and thought she wanted it. Only to find out later that she didn't. Honestly if I was Aziz Ansari (assuming he is speaking the truth), it would tear me apart at how horrible I am I would probably hang myself off the bridge.

The story on babe.net was quite incriminating however. I dunno, I always found it very obvious if a girl really wants you or not. Even when she plays hard to get. I never liked women coming onto me either, I liked the chase and the tease. But I wasn't there in Aziz's story - so how can I judge?

What I read on babe.net is my own imagination and I can see two scenes playing out in my mind at the same time, on one hand he's forceful and aggressive perhaps not out intent but out of stupidity/inexperience/expectations of what he considers 'game', on the other she could have been smiling, laughing, teasing with her tone of voice, very possibly misleading him, maybe even out of shyness and perhaps also out of societal expectations (not to be a *****, mean, etc) - both cases leading to the outcome. It makes me wonder if it was just bad sex or rape.

The issue I have with rape and false accusations, is that false accusations makes rape cases THAT MUCH harder to resolve. Hence why I bring up responsibility, not to shame real victims but because there is a difference between bad sex and rape, with rape being a crime that must be punished to the fullest extent of the law and wrongful convictions of it is just as terrible in my opinion and jumbles the whole damn system.


----------



## RandomDude

Also the conviction rate is very low, like 10% I think in my state. The attorney-general believes in upping the numbers which IMO is also so bloody stupid focusing on the numbers. Yes, the low stats could mean that rapists are getting away with it, and the justice system is failing. My first girlfriend's dad went to jail for 20 years over extrajudicial justice (rightful but unlawful justice) over her rapist who they knew was him but couldn't prove it. But it could also mean that the system has become too bloody complicated with he said she said and too much misunderstanding resulting from all this bullcrap when in the end, why can't we just work together in this and both take responsibility?


----------



## Faithful Wife

RD, the only responsibility we have control over is our own. If we are focused on our partners well being, the rest will not seem so nefarious. I’m unsure why you would still be questioning yourself? Something you said in your post about hanging yourself if you were one of “those”. Do you really not know for sure what is within you?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Infinite combinations for infinite diversity in actions/reactions/results. 
😊 very Spock.

Historically for data purposes I've encountered a couple first dates and then "not now but next week" because of cycles, but was explained. And later all was good.

And two i recall who would want to come alone to my apt and during necking would say no, and that was it. But the same ones came back more than a couple times to make out some more again say no, and that was ok. There was a line to stop at and once they knew I'd respect it, it seemed to make them comfortable around me. Go figure. 

And:
I've said no a few times when propositioned because of existing relationships and kudos to the women who accepted that. All but a three or four who apparently then took the no as a challenge. I always thought they were almost ruthless in creating alone time they could like extort me and I eventually gave in. *I was in my early 20s.

Their tact was your GF wouldn't see you tonight, so let me help you get past it, she'll break your heart, let me help you.
While pressing in zipper to zipper.

My point is women can be ruthless too in pursuit of sex.

*not taking anything away from the tragedy of a woman being raped. My heart goes out to any who've had that happen. 

I have two handsome sons and have taught them their manners in dealing with the opposite sex. Both are happily married with children. I'm thankful they turned out to be outstanding young men. 😎 you should have heard some of those conversations. 

All in all, gotta love women. Treat them with respect and caution and passion. Read the signs. They're there.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> RD, the only responsibility we have control over is our own. If we are focused on our partners well being, the rest will not seem so nefarious. I’m unsure why you would still be questioning yourself? Something you said in your post about hanging yourself if you were one of “those”. Do you really not know for sure what is within you?


I'm human FW, even though I've never had the problem of consent, I've dealt with enough rape victims and sexual assault victims to want to make sure I'll never ever, be 'that guy'. But I'm not arrogant enough to say that I'm flawless. Look at Aziz Ansari for example, he thought he was a feminist, or in that article you read, he thought he was one of the 'good guys'.

As men, we need help from our partners too, we can't be all mind-readers. Sure, I made it easy for my girlfriend to say no anytime she wanted as I made sure she was enjoying every step of the way. Other guys may miss this step but not out of maliciousness at all, and they need to be taught, and what better teacher is there than a kick to the balls? Exaggerating sure but do you get what I mean?


----------



## 269370

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Conversely, I shouldn't think that "yes means no" would stand up to the courts of public opinion. That "yes means no" would work well enough to destroy a man's life. But obviously men have been wrong on this front. No means no, no means yes, yes means yes, and yes means no. This is the lesson being taught to men. You can't figure out why this is such a difficult issue for men to try and navigate?
> 
> Also, do you think you close a sale every time you first speak with a customer? Or that a good salesman is all or nothing? No, we can asses a customers needs independently from one another. Some want to be closed that day. Some take months to close. You seem to be taking MY words to the extreme yourself there lady.


Selling a car is a valid analogy but perhaps not in the best taste (women don't like being compared to objects that you can sell). There must be a reason for this I am sure 

How about flying on a magic carpet? Your woman will not go on it herself; she might be afraid she may fall down or that she may not like the speed but it takes a tiny bit of persuasion for the princess to trust Aladdin and step onto the carpet. Without his persuasion she would not have done it herself. Does it mean she wanted to or not in the first place? Technically, you can say she didn't want to but perhaps she wanted Aladdin to persuade her and not have to make that choice herself?
(Again, we are not talking about first dates here; although in the cartoon, if I remember correctly it was their first date; so perhaps Aladdin has always been a bit rapey...:wink2:


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

When you go on a date, you are essentially trying to make a sale while simultaneously trying to be sold to by the other. This doesn't necessarily mean anyone is being fake either. But a date is a sales pitch. As are most other things in life.


----------



## 269370

TheDudeLebowski said:


> When you go on a date, you are essentially trying to make a sale while simultaneously trying to be sold to by the other. This doesn't necessarily mean anyone is being fake either. But a date is a sales pitch. As are most other things in life.


Correct. But woman is not really a car. Although it can take you for the most amazing ride of your life, on occasion.


----------



## Red Sonja

TheDudeLebowski said:


> When you go on a date, you are essentially trying to make a sale while simultaneously trying to be sold to by the other. This doesn't necessarily mean anyone is being fake either. But a date is a sales pitch. As are most other things in life.


What?!

Maybe for you but for most of us it amounts to being social, you know going out and enjoying activities together and getting to know that particular date/person.


----------



## 269370

Red Sonja said:


> What?!
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for you but for most of us it amounts to being social, you know going out and enjoying activities together and getting to know that particular date/person.




Yes, but are you not weighing up pros and cons for the future too at some point? (I.e. suitability of the mate). So at the end of the day, you take the ‘deal’ or walk away.
I don’t like looking at it that way myself, but I gather that’s how it is at first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

One aspect of consent and responsibility still eludes me. That is the influence of, and legal response to, intoxication.

I say all this as a purely academic exercise as I was never in danger of, and never will be in danger of, a misunderstanding in this area as I find intoxication very unattractive. I'd never be inclined to dip my wick in a pickled kitty.

But speaking in general terms, some things are hard to reconcile.

1: How drunk does one need to be to be unable to give consent? There is black and white of course. Stone cold sober is clearly okay. Passed out is clearly not (which is why that fella in Cali should have received the max, not a slap on the wrist). But there's a whole lot of grey in between. 

I never was much of a drinker, but on the few occasions I got pretty sauced up in college, there were women who would try to take advantage of me. Even when unable to stand without the aid of a wall or chair, or even form a coherent sentence, I was fully capable of saying no (and I did). 

Also, I've known women who could drink me under the table. Even though I wasn't much of a drinker, depressants of any kind, including alcohol, didn't generally have much effect, but on at least one rare occasion where I got sloppy (actually got kicked out of the club), the woman who I was playing quarters with had drunk a similar amount, and was only about 60% of my weight. But she could have passed a field sobriety test with flying colors. Her BAC would have measured higher than mine, but her physiological response at that time was much more solid than mine. If we had had sex, would I have been guilty of rape? Legally in some jurisdictions, probably so, but logically and morally?

And what of a couple when both parties are incompetent; when they have sex, who raped whom?

2: What if sex was your intent before getting sloshed? I've known a few who would begin their evening with the specific goals of getting sauced and then getting laid... in that order. Now, once having achieved the first goal, are they no longer able to make the decision to follow through on the second goal? They made the original decision to do so when stone cold sober. 

3(and this, again from a logical/intellectual point of view, is the biggie): How can the idea of inability to give consent when drunk jive with the assessment of responsibility in operating a motor vehicle? When a woman (or any person for that matter) is drunk and chooses to drive, they are legally liable for that decision and any consequences arising from that decision. Drunkenness will not save you from a vehicular manslaughter conviction. The law holds you fully responsible for your decision and the outcome in the automobile, no matter how drunk you are. And this can be a momentous decision, as it has the potential for truly tragic consequences, not only for yourself, but also for innocent bystanders. So how can the law not treat your as responsible for having made the decision to have sex under the exact same circumstances?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

inmyprime said:


> Yes, but are not weighing up pros and cons for the future too at some point? (I.e. suitability of the mate). So at the end of the day, you take the ‘deal’ or walk away.
> I don’t like looking at it that way myself, but I gather that’s how it is at first.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As are most things in life. Even if you don't look at it that way, it doesn't change this. When my kids want to stay up late, they are trying to sell me on something. When my friends want to go out to a bar, they are trying to sell me on something. Most of your life is you selling something, or being sold on something. Weather you mean to do it or not. Weather it feels like a sale, or a simple suggestion, a question, advice, back and forth conversation. Just look through this thread with that thought in mind and see if you cant make sense of my statement, most things in life are a sales pitch. This is basically how we communicate as humans. 

If you don't buy my statement, you are probably trying to sell me on the idea that I'm wrong. :wink2:


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Selling a car is a valid analogy but perhaps not in the best taste (women don't like being compared to objects that you can sell). There must be a reason for this I am sure
> 
> How about flying on a magic carpet? Your woman will not go on it herself; she might be afraid she may fall down or that she may not like the speed but it takes a tiny bit of persuasion for the princess to trust Aladdin and step onto the carpet. Without his persuasion she would not have done it herself. Does it mean she wanted to or not in the first place? Technically, you can say she didn't want to but perhaps she wanted Aladdin to persuade her and not have to make that choice herself?
> (Again, we are not talking about first dates here; although in the cartoon, if I remember correctly it was their first date; so perhaps Aladdin has always been a bit rapey...:wink2:


Heh well Jasmine never said 'no' specifically, but yes she was reluctant and he was persuasive.

Before the actual ride Aladdin was pestering her though, she told him to leave he still persisted, only to get the tigers on him lol

That sent the message, so like, why can't women be just as straight forward too on their boundaries? So there won't be confusion.


----------



## 269370

TheDudeLebowski said:


> As are most things in life. Even if you don't look at it that way, it doesn't change this. When my kids want to stay up late, they are trying to sell me on something. When my friends want to go out to a bar, they are trying to sell me on something. Most of your life is you selling something, or being sold on something. Weather you mean to do it or not. Weather it feels like a sale, or a simple suggestion, a question, advice, back and forth conversation. Just look through this thread with that thought in mind and see if you cant make sense of my statement, most things in life are a sales pitch. This is basically how we communicate as humans.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't buy my statement, you are probably trying to sell me on the idea that I'm wrong. :wink2:




No, I’m very familiar with this view point (that life is a negotiation). But I don’t let it dominate my mind that much in day to day interaction. You will end up frustrated (‘Cos you can’t always get the ‘deal’ you want). I would find it stressful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

RandomDude said:


> Heh well Jasmine never said 'no' specifically, but yes she was reluctant and he was persuasive.
> 
> Before the actual ride Aladdin was pestering her though, she told him to leave he still persisted, only to get the tigers on him lol
> 
> That sent the message, so like, why can't women be just as straight forward too on their boundaries? So there won't be confusion.




Because where the **** would be the fun in it?

No, it’s evolutionary. Most males have a strong drive to pursue and women have a strong drive to resist.
But sometimes resistance is futile  (Star Trek reference, it’s when the Borg went all BDSM on Picard).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

inmyprime said:


> No, I’m very familiar with this view point (that life is a negotiation). But I don’t let it dominate my mind that much in day to day interaction. You will end up frustrated (‘Cos you can’t always get the ‘deal’ you want). I would find it stressful.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Its not frustrating at all when you know not everyone is going to buy what you are selling going in. Its like a major League baseball player. Even the best in the world are going to fail 7 out of 10 times when they step up to the plate. That is a great microcosm for life, and a good way to keep negative thoughts at bay. You may get into a slump, but you keep going to bat and you will eventually hit your way out of it. Then some months you are batting .500 and feel untouchable. In the end you will average out at about .300. Ymmv


----------



## RandomDude

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> One aspect of consent and responsibility still eludes me. That is the influence of, and legal response to, intoxication.
> 
> I say all this as a purely academic exercise as I was never in danger of, and never will be in danger of, a misunderstanding in this area as I find intoxication very unattractive. I'd never be inclined to dip my wick in a pickled kitty.
> 
> But speaking in general terms, some things are hard to reconcile.
> 
> 1: How drunk does one need to be to be unable to give consent? There is black and white of course. Stone cold sober is clearly okay. Passed out is clearly not (which is why that fella in Cali should have received the max, not a slap on the wrist). But there's a whole lot of grey in between.
> 
> I never was much of a drinker, but on the few occasions I got pretty sauced up in college, there were women who would try to take advantage of me. Even when unable to stand without the aid of a wall or chair, or even form a coherent sentence, I was fully capable of saying no (and I did).
> 
> Also, I've known women who could drink me under the table. Even though I wasn't much of a drinker, depressants of any kind, including alcohol, didn't generally have much effect, but on at least one rare occasion where I got sloppy (actually got kicked out of the club), the woman who I was playing quarters with had drunk a similar amount, and was only about 60% of my weight. But she could have passed a field sobriety test with flying colors. Her BAC would have measured higher than mine, but her physiological response at that time was much more solid than mine. If we had had sex, would I have been guilty of rape? Legally in some jurisdictions, probably so, but logically and morally?
> 
> And what of a couple when both parties are incompetent; when they have sex, who raped whom?
> 
> 2: What if sex was your intent before getting sloshed? I've known a few who would begin their evening with the specific goals of getting sauced and then getting laid... in that order. Now, once having achieved the first goal, are they no longer able to make the decision to follow through on the second goal? They made the original decision to do so when stone cold sober.
> 
> 3(and this, again from a logical/intellectual point of view, is the biggie): How can the idea of inability to give consent when drunk jive with the assessment of responsibility in operating a motor vehicle? When a woman (or any person for that matter) is drunk and chooses to drive, they are legally liable for that decision and any consequences arising from that decision. Drunkenness will not save you from a vehicular manslaughter conviction. The law holds you fully responsible for your decision and the outcome in the automobile, no matter how drunk you are. And this can be a momentous decision, as it has the potential for truly tragic consequences, not only for yourself, but also for innocent bystanders. So how can the law not treat your as responsible for having made the decision to have sex under the exact same circumstances?


Simply don't get piss drunk. I've done alot of dumb sh-t when I was drunk in the past as well but I hold only myself accountable.

IMO and my girlfriend's opinion too (as we discussed this), it's about not putting yourself in situations that you would later regret. She gets invitations to parties all the time, and some of these parties include sex, drugs, alcohol. She goes to those where she's sure she can control the situation, and is somewhat a 'big sister' to her friends. She will leave if the situation seemed treacherous. She was sexually assaulted in one party already where her instincts felt that the environment was off and she wasn't comfortable with it but played too nice and although she did remove herself from the situation before it got serious she was still touched inappropriately. When she told me for ten minutes I only asked for who and where. I was in a murderous mood but she calmed me down, and took responsibility for putting herself in such a situation. But she's just that type of woman. Strong and responsible.

Also why I guess I maybe coming across as harsh to some women here on this thread when I say "take responsibility", not all cases are like my girlfriend's which I understand, but many unwanted situations can be avoided if responsibility is taken for one's own actions instead of the blame game. Alcohol is one of them.


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Because where the **** would be the fun in it?
> 
> No, it’s evolutionary. Most males have a strong drive to pursue and women have a strong drive to resist.
> But sometimes resistance is futile  (Star Trek reference, it’s when the Borg went all BDSM on Picard).


Haha yeah but the problem is that there is two types of resistance, one: "Persuade me", and two: "Leave me alone!"

When a girl acts and talks like type #1, but really wants #2, that's when it becomes a problem!

Jasmine did go type #2 on Aladdin, and sicced her tigers on him! Loud and clear lol

The carpet ride reluctance was type #1


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

RandomDude said:


> Haha yeah but the problem is that there is two types of resistance, one: "Persuade me", and two: "Leave me alone!"
> 
> When a girl acts and talks like type #1, but really wants #2, that's when it becomes a problem!
> 
> Jasmine did go type #2 on Aladdin, and sicced her tigers on him! Loud and clear lol
> 
> The carpet ride reluctance was type #1


Wow. First time I've seen a Disney movie reference used to describe the difference between "no means no" and "no means yes."

I'd always heard there was all sorts of hidden innuendo in those wholesome cartoons!


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Wow. First time I've seen a Disney movie reference used to describe the difference between "no means no" and "no means yes."
> 
> 
> 
> I'd always heard there was all sorts of hidden innuendo in those wholesome cartoons!




They are all now against today’s norms and it seems to me that they will all have to be remade to fit into today’s society norms.

What about Beauty and the Beast? That’s just domestic violence and anger management issues 101.

Don’t get me started on the dwarves, grooming and inappropriate touching of the Snow White. This filthy club of old and dirty dwarves,,.there are definitely some very dark undertones there.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

RandomDude said:


> Haha yeah but the problem is that there is two types of resistance, one: "Persuade me", and two: "Leave me alone!"
> 
> When a girl acts and talks like type #1, but really wants #2, that's when it becomes a problem!
> 
> Jasmine did go type #2 on Aladdin, and sicced her tigers on him! Loud and clear lol
> 
> The carpet ride reluctance was type #1


Guy goes on 12 different dates with 12 different women. 

3 were flirty and nice to him. Only 1 wants sex.
3 were nice, but not flirtatious. Only 1 wants sex.
3 were cordial, but a little standoffish. 1 wants sex.
3 were standoffish and a little cold. 1 wants sex.

That is basically how it goes IRL.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> They are all now against today’s norms and it seems to me that they will all have to be remade to fit into today’s society norms.
> 
> What about Beauty and the Beast? That’s just domestic violence and anger management issues 101.
> 
> Don’t get me started on the dwarves, grooming and inappropriate touching of the Snow White. This filthy club of old and dirty dwarves,,.there are definitely some very dark undertones there.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep, and the Little Mermaid changed everything about herself all for the sake of being able to subjugate herself to a man. (as a new father of two young girls at the time, even I was concerned with that one). 

Oh, well, we can still watch Mulan. And I'm never giving up Hercules!


----------



## uhtred

Its both so simple, yet so complex. 

For people who are able to correctly read their partners, its easy: Is my partner actively enjoying what we are doing: If yes, continue and possibly move to other things. If no, then stop / back off, etc depending on the level of non-enjoyment. There is constant feedback and so no one is going to feel unhappy.

Unfortunately there are some people who *think* that they can read their partners, when in fact they cannot: "she said no, but I know she is really hot for me". I don't know how many people really believe that, as opposed to using it as an after the fact excuse, but I know people who are unaware of how terrible they are at reading other people in general, so I expect it happens.

For people who are bad at reading others, its complicated. There is a LOT of non-verbal human communication in sexual situations - body positioning, expressions, tone of voice are all critical. For someone who can't read this, it all seems confusing. The one fixed point is that a clear "no" or "stop" is an absolute. 

Alcohol greatly confuses things because it causes people to both be bad at reading non-verbal communication and to be bad at providing that communication. This is one of the primary reasons I never drink - it is very important to me to be aware of the reactions and behavior of people around me. I think that excessive drinking in potential sexual situations has all sorts of risks of negative consequences. 

Another part is the important difference between "not now" ,and "no". It is possible for someone to turn down some sexual activity in a permanent sort of way, but they can also indicate that they don't want that activity at the moment, but are open to being asked again in the future. How long in the future, is not always well defined. Someone who is good at communicating will give better hints "no I don't like that', vs. "not this time". 

Finally there is the complex issue of "assumed consent" in relationships. If I walk up behind a female co-worker and grab her and kiss her on the ear, I'm guilty of assault. If I do that to my wife its a romantic gesture. This has never been discussed, we've never listed what sorts of physical contact are allowed without asking for permission - we have just discovered what is OK based on the others reactions. I think most people in relationships do that, but it is still possible for there to be items that were never discussed and where the two are making different assumptions. Its alos of course not clear early in dating what sorts of behavior are not on the "OK" list.

But all that said, I think its still not that hard. If you can read your partner, its really not hard to learn how they indicate what they want and act appropriately. Sometimes that may mean moving more slowly than they might want, but if so, they can tell you. 

I object to the small minority of people who will say "no" when they actually mean "yes" and get unhappy when their partner stops. To me, unless there has been a clear discussion before, it is completely unreasonable and harmful to expect your partner to ignore a "no". If you have a fantasy along those lines, then you have to tell them first.


----------



## JustTheWife

inmyprime said:


> Can I ask you what stops you from telling him how you feel / what you want of him, as your lover?
> 
> This is the only part I cannot get my head around and would love an honest answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We're both very religious and he has very conservative ideas about sex and the role of sex. He treats me like a delicate flower. He "respects" me too much when we're intimate. That's the way he is. He's a strong leader in many ways and old fashioned when it comes to being the male leader and he would protect me to the end but in our sex life, he is not dominant. I've tried many things to try to spice things up and make myself mildly submissive to him. For example I got down on my knees in front of him...

He's not into anything, not even that. I'll do whatever he wants to do to me. I just want him to take charge and do it. I don't want him to be all "respectful" to me in bed. i don't want him to treat me like his loving wife.  I want to be treated like a wh***. I think that for various reasons he's just not confident and sure of himself when it comes to sex. I've had sex with lots of guys and I never really was with a guy who was like this.


----------



## RandomDude

uhtred said:


> Unfortunately there are some people who *think* that they can read their partners, when in fact they cannot: "she said no, but I know she is really hot for me". I don't know how many people really believe that, as opposed to using it as an after the fact excuse, but I know people who are unaware of how terrible they are at reading other people in general, so I expect it happens.
> 
> For people who are bad at reading others, its complicated. There is a LOT of non-verbal human communication in sexual situations - body positioning, expressions, tone of voice are all critical. For someone who can't read this, it all seems confusing. The one fixed point is that a clear "no" or "stop" is an absolute.
> 
> Alcohol greatly confuses things because it causes people to both be bad at reading non-verbal communication and to be bad at providing that communication. This is one of the primary reasons I never drink - it is very important to me to be aware of the reactions and behavior of people around me. I think that excessive drinking in potential sexual situations has all sorts of risks of negative consequences.
> 
> Another part is the important difference between "not now" ,and "no". It is possible for someone to turn down some sexual activity in a permanent sort of way, but they can also indicate that they don't want that activity at the moment, but are open to being asked again in the future. How long in the future, is not always well defined. Someone who is good at communicating will give better hints "no I don't like that', vs. "not this time".
> 
> Finally there is the complex issue of "assumed consent" in relationships. If I walk up behind a female co-worker and grab her and kiss her on the ear, I'm guilty of assault. If I do that to my wife its a romantic gesture. This has never been discussed, we've never listed what sorts of physical contact are allowed without asking for permission - we have just discovered what is OK based on the others reactions. I think most people in relationships do that, but it is still possible for there to be items that were never discussed and where the two are making different assumptions. Its alos of course not clear early in dating what sorts of behavior are not on the "OK" list.
> 
> But all that said, I think its still not that hard. If you can read your partner, its really not hard to learn how they indicate what they want and act appropriately. Sometimes that may mean moving more slowly than they might want, but if so, they can tell you.
> 
> I object to the small minority of people who will say "no" when they actually mean "yes" and get unhappy when their partner stops. To me, unless there has been a clear discussion before, it is completely unreasonable and harmful to expect your partner to ignore a "no". If you have a fantasy along those lines, then you have to tell them first.


Alot of it takes experience and/or honed instincts / developed emotional intelligence that no one is perfect in. Perhaps culture plays a part in all this with sex being more 'liberated' and taken less seriously these days and hence people become less responsible with it including how they deal with the opposite sex.



JustTheWife said:


> We're both very religious and he has very conservative ideas about sex and the role of sex. He treats me like a delicate flower. He "respects" me too much when we're intimate. That's the way he is. He's a strong leader in many ways and old fashioned when it comes to being the male leader and he would protect me to the end but in our sex life, he is not dominant. I've tried many things to try to spice things up and make myself mildly submissive to him. For example I got down on my knees in front of him...
> 
> He's not into anything, not even that. I'll do whatever he wants to do to me. I just want him to take charge and do it. I don't want him to be all "respectful" to me in bed. i don't want him to treat me like his loving wife. I want to be treated like a wh***. I think that for various reasons he's just not confident and sure of himself when it comes to sex. I've had sex with lots of guys and I never really was with a guy who was like this.


Some people just don't have it. I know I don't. I'm dominant but there's a line that I won't cross that actually turns me off.

Perhaps there's a middle ground, where you can feel dominated but he won't feel like he's putting you in pain or a bad position.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Another issue I see faily often enough is there is group of men out there that think just because a woman is nice to you, and even mildly flirty just because she is a flirtatious woman by nature, that means she is totally in to him and wants him. Which is a big problem for nice and naturally flirtatious women when they encounter those type of guys. "She's nice to me, that must mean she wants me!" Yeah, No ****face! She's that way to everybody.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Yep, and the Little Mermaid changed everything about herself all for the sake of being able to subjugate herself to a man. (as a new father of two young girls at the time, even I was concerned with that one).
> 
> Oh, well, we can still watch Mulan. And I'm never giving up Hercules!


Moana was really good! Add that one to your watch list.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

inmyprime said:


> How about flying on a magic carpet? Your woman will not go on it herself; she might be afraid she may fall down or that she may not like the speed but it takes a tiny bit of persuasion for the princess to trust Aladdin and step onto the carpet. Without his persuasion she would not have done it herself. Does it mean she wanted to or not in the first place? Technically, you can say she didn't want to but perhaps she wanted Aladdin to persuade her and not have to make that choice herself?
> (Again, we are not talking about first dates here; although in the cartoon, if I remember correctly it was their first date; so perhaps Aladdin has always been a bit rapey...:wink2:


This is a good analogy, because:

Once on the carpet, if the woman decides she's had enough flying, she is trapped there at the mercy of Aladdin. She can't flee or she'll fall to her death. She can't fight, or she could be knocked off. She has to freeze and endure the flight until Aladdin is finished. However, Aladdin may not listen to her words "I don't want to do this" but keep flying because she was still clutching his hand, or he could tell her heart was pounding with excitement, or just plain ignoring her because he was having a great time.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

RandomDude said:


> When I think of rapists I think of impalement and shoving them into a brazen bull, but cases like this trouble me as everything gets blurred. On one hand I see a victim, possibly unable to give consent due to shyness, expectation or even trauma - the freeze response. On the other I see the offender, who could simply have assumed he had consent and went forward, taking charge as men are expected to do on the dating scene anyway.
> 
> On a real world case:
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...w/news-story/fa6ccf813fc22c4ad0c761b11a41aaed
> 
> Rather tragic story actually, the response for rape victims is many times; fight, flight or freeze. The freeze response to trauma is distressing.
> 
> However, reading the story carefully, the victim did mention she wanted to go back to her friend repeatedly, he refused.
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, no. That's WAY too far. There should be a line drawn there. In my opinion that should be MORE than enough to tell him that she did not consent.
> 
> After that, it gets blurry:
> 
> He crossed the line before the actual act IMO. Sadly, this guy was released when he should have been made an example of!
> 
> But then you get sh-t like this:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405
> 
> But that was a clear cut case of false accusation and the woman should have suffered the same sentence she tried to pin on her partner.
> 
> Also this anonymous article along with the Aziz Ansari thing:
> https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/1/24/16925444/aziz-ansari-me-too-feminism-consent
> 
> Which is blurry as hell. I think the guy did right by realising that she's not into it and left it. But to call himself close to rape? No, the woman led him on IMO.
> 
> Also googled some stuff:
> https://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/we_took_a_picture_because_we_t.html
> 
> What kind of rapist would take a photo of himself and his victim? Guy's an idiot and disrespectful sure, but rapist?
> 
> IMO, *Punishment for rape should be extremely severe but it must be exact.*


In a lot of those links, there is one common thread I'm seeing. Women passively expect men to act on what she says even when her behaviour doesn't change. Ie, the woman who says "I don't want to do this" but then doesn't leave. And the problem is women think their words should be enough, but men go by the actions, not the words. When a man says "I don't want to do this" he follows it up immediately with appropriate action. When a woman says "I don't want to do this" they expect the man to follow up with the appropriate action.

It goes back to classic socialization differences between men and women. Men are taught to be active and direct to get what they want, and if someone else is hurt (physically or emotionally), too bad. Women are taught to be passive and indirect, and that if someone is going to be hurt, it should be them and not the other person. It's why (generalizing) men get more raises, are more competitive, are more decisive, etc. When men interact with men, or women interact with women, it gets reinforced. When they interact with each other, they expect the other to behave they way they would. And things go wrong.

A woman saying "I don't want to do this" to another woman would lead to a conversation in which they mutually decide what to do instead. A man saying "I don't want to do this" not actively following up with doing something else (like leaving) would lead to the other man being fine with continuing as obviously the man didn't hate it that badly because he stuck around. In all these nonconsenting sexual scenarios, the woman expected the man to take charge of "not doing this" after her words, while the man figured the woman was okay with what was happening because she didn't back up her words with action.

And yes, the 'freeze' response is real, and something common to women who are being raped. When it's consciously done, they fear being overpowered and hurt worse, or even murdered, if they react at all. But mostly it's unconsciously done, the body and mind just shut down, enduring till it's over and they can get away.

Both men and women need to learn these differences early on, but aren't taught at all.


----------



## 269370

JustTheWife said:


> We're both very religious and he has very conservative ideas about sex and the role of sex. He treats me like a delicate flower. He "respects" me too much when we're intimate. That's the way he is. He's a strong leader in many ways and old fashioned when it comes to being the male leader and he would protect me to the end but in our sex life, he is not dominant. I've tried many things to try to spice things up and make myself mildly submissive to him. For example I got down on my knees in front of him...
> 
> 
> 
> He's not into anything, not even that. I'll do whatever he wants to do to me. I just want him to take charge and do it. I don't want him to be all "respectful" to me in bed. i don't want him to treat me like his loving wife. I want to be treated like a wh***. I think that for various reasons he's just not confident and sure of himself when it comes to sex. I've had sex with lots of guys and I never really was with a guy who was like this.




I do think it can be learned. I am the same as your husband outside of bedroom with my wife. But very different when it comes to sex.
Buy him a book about submission or watch 60 shades together or something and just say casually “I wouldn’t mind trying it”.

Unless you tell him what you like and how you like it, he may not even suspect it. I know it’s unsexy to tell a guy what to do but he has to start somewhere. Eventually it becomes second nature. It was for me anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Hopeful Cynic said:


> This is a good analogy, because:
> 
> 
> 
> Once on the carpet, if the woman decides she's had enough flying, she is trapped there at the mercy of Aladdin. She can't flee or she'll fall to her death. She can't fight, or she could be knocked off. She has to freeze and endure the flight until Aladdin is finished. However, Aladdin may not listen to her words "I don't want to do this" but keep flying because she was still clutching his hand, or he could tell her heart was pounding with excitement, or just plain ignoring her because he was having a great time.



Isn’t the original story something to do with Aladdin tricking Jasmine into going with him for a carpet ride and then flying her to genie’s cave where they both (plus the monkey) have their way with her? At least, that’s how I remember it: A Hole New World.

Moral: never go on carpet rides with strangers. It may end in tears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Another issue I see faily often enough is there is group of men out there that think just because a woman is nice to you, and even mildly flirty just because she is a flirtatious woman by nature, that means she is totally in to him and wants him. Which is a big problem for nice and naturally flirtatious women when they encounter those type of guys. "She's nice to me, that must mean she wants me!" Yeah, No ****face! She's that way to everybody.



No way! I am 100% certain that any woman that ever smiled at me wanted to have anal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> TheDudeLebowski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another issue I see faily often enough is there is group of men out there that think just because a woman is nice to you, and even mildly flirty just because she is a flirtatious woman by nature, that means she is totally in to him and wants him. Which is a big problem for nice and naturally flirtatious women when they encounter those type of guys. "She's nice to me, that must mean she wants me!" Yeah, No ****face! She's that way to everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way! I am 100% certain that any woman that ever smiled at me wanted to have anal.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

She does, Prime! You just gotta keep "selling" until she let's you. It's not coercion, its marketing!


----------



## JustTheWife

inmyprime said:


> I do think it can be learned. I am the same as your husband outside of bedroom with my wife. But very different when it comes to sex.
> Buy him a book about submission or watch 60 shades together or something and just say casually “I wouldn’t mind trying it”.
> 
> Unless you tell him what you like and how you like it, he may not even suspect it. I know it’s unsexy to tell a guy what to do but he has to start somewhere. Eventually it becomes second nature. It was for me anyway.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No way he's watching 50 Shades!!! He was just chosen to be one of the "bigwigs" in our church. That's a really big deal, especially as we've only been here a short while. Now I must try even harder to be a "perfect wife". I am very proud of him though. He speaks in front of the whole church all the time and I'm so shy I could never do that. 

I have asked for different things. A few weeks ago I got my courage up (helps with a few drinks) and asked him to do different things to me. I tried not to demand so I said things like "why don't you ..." and "I would really like you to...". They weren't like super crazy things. just stuff like doggy style and pulling my hair or oral (on me or him) or stuff like that. Or like doing me really hard. Whatever. I guess he's not interested in any of this with me. I think most guys would like it. You can't say i didn't try.


----------



## 269370

JustTheWife said:


> No way he's watching 50 Shades!!! He was just chosen to be one of the "bigwigs" in our church. That's a really big deal, especially as we've only been here a short while. Now I must try even harder to be a "perfect wife". I am very proud of him though. He speaks in front of the whole church all the time and I'm so shy I could never do that.
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked for different things. A few weeks ago I got my courage up (helps with a few drinks) and asked him to do different things to me. I tried not to demand so I said things like "why don't you ..." and "I would really like you to...". They weren't like super crazy things. just stuff like doggy style and pulling my hair or oral (on me or him) or stuff like that. Or like doing me really hard. Whatever. I guess he's not interested in any of this with me. I think most guys would like it. You can't say i didn't try.




Don’t give up easily. If you guys are meant to be together, he’ll figure it out, with your help.

You don’t think BigWigs can do it 60 shades style?  Once the wig comes off, it’s humiliation all the way! 🤸🏼*♀

How did he react to your requests?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TJW

JustTheWife said:


> A few weeks ago I got my courage up (helps with a few drinks)


The same feelings of reluctance may also be in your husband. It may take him a while to get his courage up, too. But the suggestions are planted.

He may have never thought about these things. His sexual experience has been completely in fantasy, up to the point at which you two married. His fantasies may not have included the things you suggested. I know that my fantasies, prior to marriage, did contain oral but none of the others you asked about. I had never even heard of "doggie style", and pulling my wife's hair was an act I considered violent and despicable. It never occurred to me that there was an acceptable sexual context for this, and my thoughts about doing it "hard" were similar, I thought this would be painful for her.

There would have to be time for these suggestions to "mature" in his thought life before he could bring them into the real physical interface with you.
You may be surprised to find him "experimenting".....

When it comes to sexuality, you have lived in the penthouse, and your husband has just entered the building on the ground floor.
But, you are now "well doing".....

Galatians 6:9 King James Version (KJV):

_And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not._


----------



## JustTheWife

inmyprime said:


> Don’t give up easily. If you guys are meant to be together, he’ll figure it out, with your help.
> 
> You don’t think BigWigs can do it 60 shades style?  Once the wig comes off, it’s humiliation all the way! 🤸🏼*♀
> 
> How did he react to your requests?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No interest and he got upset with me. not in an arousing way. He could even be the pious man and i the dirty one. I'm ok if he wants to call me names or tell me how much of a filthy sinner i am while he punishes me for being dirty!

OMG if he only knew what other guys did to to and lots of them. I need him to punish me for it. I just don't want to ruin my marriage and hurt him.


----------



## 269370

JustTheWife said:


> No interest and he got upset with me. not in an arousing way. He could even be the pious man and i the dirty one. I'm ok if he wants to call me names or tell me how much of a filthy sinner i am while he punishes me for being dirty!
> 
> 
> 
> OMG if he only knew what other guys did to to and lots of them. I need him to punish me for it. I just don't want to ruin my marriage and hurt him.




I know. It sucks being treated with respect and love sometimes 

No seriously, I think he may not realise how much it means to you. The problem is that in traditional Christian marriages, it used to be the case that the woman had very little say. I don’t know if it is still like this and hope things have evolved since.

I think just keep trying for now. Getting defensive/upset is just his coping mechanism to deal with an uncertain situation. If he’s smart, he will get the point eventually. He can’t be living in a vacuum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TJW

inmyprime said:


> Getting defensive/upset is just his coping mechanism to deal with an uncertain situation.


Christian marriages are not so victorian anymore. Most modern-day christian literature includes very well-thought-out fairness to both men and women, and is careful to promote equality of both partners in every aspect, including sex.

Agree with the "coping mechanism".


----------



## RandomDude

Hopeful Cynic said:


> In a lot of those links, there is one common thread I'm seeing. Women passively expect men to act on what she says even when her behaviour doesn't change. Ie, the woman who says "I don't want to do this" but then doesn't leave. And the problem is women think their words should be enough, but men go by the actions, not the words. When a man says "I don't want to do this" he follows it up immediately with appropriate action. When a woman says "I don't want to do this" they expect the man to follow up with the appropriate action.
> 
> It goes back to classic socialization differences between men and women. Men are taught to be active and direct to get what they want, and if someone else is hurt (physically or emotionally), too bad. Women are taught to be passive and indirect, and that if someone is going to be hurt, it should be them and not the other person. It's why (generalizing) men get more raises, are more competitive, are more decisive, etc. When men interact with men, or women interact with women, it gets reinforced. When they interact with each other, they expect the other to behave they way they would. And things go wrong.
> 
> A woman saying "I don't want to do this" to another woman would lead to a conversation in which they mutually decide what to do instead. A man saying "I don't want to do this" not actively following up with doing something else (like leaving) would lead to the other man being fine with continuing as obviously the man didn't hate it that badly because he stuck around. In all these nonconsenting sexual scenarios, the woman expected the man to take charge of "not doing this" after her words, while the man figured the woman was okay with what was happening because she didn't back up her words with action.
> 
> And yes, the 'freeze' response is real, and something common to women who are being raped. When it's consciously done, they fear being overpowered and hurt worse, or even murdered, if they react at all. But mostly it's unconsciously done, the body and mind just shut down, enduring till it's over and they can get away.
> 
> Both men and women need to learn these differences early on, but aren't taught at all.


Golden post, bingo, and I think that's the main problem with this, it should be taught in schools actually come to think of it.


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Isn’t the original story something to do with Aladdin tricking Jasmine into going with him for a carpet ride and then flying her to genie’s cave where they both (plus the monkey) have their way with her? At least, that’s how I remember it: A Hole New World.
> 
> Moral: never go on carpet rides with strangers. It may end in tears.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Argh, thanks for destroying my childhood! I think I like the Disney version better 

I think A Hole New World was modern porn, not the original lol, same with Snow White and the Horny Dwarves.


----------



## EleGirl

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Thank you.
> I guess this is all rather foreign and incomprehensible to me. I get nothing out of coerced compliance or even the act itself on as purely physical level. To me, se is pointless, or worse, without bonding and togetherness. I see emotional intimacy as integral to physical intimacy. If her participation isn't willing and enthusiastic, then it ain't happening for me either.
> 
> I love pushing the envelope, but we gotta' do it together. I do feel entitled... entitled to a _healthy, mutually satisfying_ sexual relationship. Any I expect my partner so have the same expectation of me.
> 
> I can't for the life of me see what these guys get out if such an encounter. *Power trip,* I guess, but it's rather pathetic. That's self delusion rather than real power. Real power is helping create a willing , enthusiastic participant with whom you can build something beautiful, not use dumb brute force to manifest something ugly.


That's part of what rape is. Rape is about the rapist have power over the victim. So yes, when it gets to that point, it's about power. And its about having the power to hurt someone. Some people are just sick in the head and get off on this. To them, it's not about the sex.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> :scratchhead: Erm, I'm not accusing you of accusing anyone lol
> 
> I'm just saying like, rape is a serious accusation in general. And don't you think like in today's culture, responsibility when it comes to giving and acknowledging consent or no consent should be spread among both genders instead of just men?


Yes it should, and is, the responsibility of both genders. For that reason, when a woman (or a man) says no it would be taken as a "NO". 

People are bringing up that some women say "no" when they really mean "yes". Well, why would a guy want to be involved with a woman who cannot even state what she really means?

If the woman wants sex, she needs to learn to give clear consent. Don't encourage "No means yes" games by playing them.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

EleGirl said:


> That's part of what rape is. Rape is about the rapist have power over the victim. So yes, when it gets to that point, it's about power. And its about having the power to hurt someone. Some people are just sick in the head and get off on this. To them, it's not about the sex.


I understand. I guess it just surprises me that somebody considers this to be "power." Feeling the need to rape someone seems to me to be an open admission of a total lack of power. It despays impotence in life. It displays impotence as a man. 

There are many forms of power. A man being able to physically overwhelm a woman is not one of them. Nor would any man feel the need to resort to that if he had any _real _power in his life. 

As much as rapists are despicable, they are also equally pathetic.


----------



## EleGirl

personofinterest said:


> I believe I should bow out of this thread because my no to the family friend who repeatedly molested me wasn't "firm" enough, and it was probably my fault for "getting myself in that sutuation."


How old were you at the time? How old was he?


----------



## EleGirl

personofinterest said:


> Wow.....my post about being molested disappeared. That sends a pretty clear message...........


@personofinterest ;

No your post did not disappear. It's there right now. There has been a bit of a problem with the TAM database being slow, that might be why you did not see your post for a bit. But it's there.


----------



## EleGirl

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I understand. I guess it just surprises me that somebody considers this to be "power." Feeling the need to rape someone seems to me to be an open admission of a total lack of power. It despays impotence in life. It displays impotence as a man.
> 
> There are many forms of power. A man being able to physically overwhelm a woman is not one of them. Nor would any man feel the need to resort to that if he had any _real _power in his life.
> 
> As much as rapists are despicable, they are also equally pathetic.


I agree. A person has to be very broken to see rape someone. But in their sick minds, it somehow fills void, but only for the moment. Which is my most rapists are serial rapists. They have to do it over and over to get what they consider 'power'. Serial killers have the same type of broken mental processing.

Basically the sane cannot truly understand what goes on in the mind of the insane. And I do believe that rapists, serial killers, etc are insane. I now that this does not fit the current definition of insanity, but I think it should.


----------



## Diana7

inmyprime said:


> I know. It sucks being treated with respect and love sometimes
> 
> No seriously, I think he may not realise how much it means to you. The problem is that in traditional Christian marriages, it used to be the case that the woman had very little say. I don’t know if it is still like this and hope things have evolved since.
> 
> I think just keep trying for now. Getting defensive/upset is just his coping mechanism to deal with an uncertain situation. If he’s smart, he will get the point eventually. He can’t be living in a vacuum.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thats not a description of Christian marriages that I know of today. Certainly not in mine.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> I agree. A person has to be very broken to see rape someone. But in their sick minds, it somehow fills void, but only for the moment. Which is my most rapists are serial rapists. They have to do it over and over to get what they consider 'power'. Serial killers have the same type of broken mental processing.
> 
> Basically the sane cannot truly understand what goes on in the mind of the insane. And I do believe that rapists, serial killers, etc are insane. I now that this does not fit the current definition of insanity, but I think it should.


I won't speak to serial killers as I know nothing about it. This board is awash with people who think that rape is some kind of super aberration of the twisted. I don't think that. In my own experience, of the attempted rapes I beat off, one was a well respected person of authority (directly over me in fact) and one was just a regular person in the neighborhood. I was very young in both instances. The second one I knew pretty well. We was definitely was of the mindset that sex was something to get. And I had heard a bunch of the push past the No more than once. It was sheer accident that I found myself alone with him without my brother there. The successful rapist thought no more of it than if he was going to the bathroom. 

The attitudes about assault are changing, but meaningfully only somewhat recently. When I was assaulted by the person in authority, I was lucky that my parents believed me. No one at the school believed my mother. They wanted the incident rug swept. Said person in authority, I found out later, was likely accused of such behavior before and no action taken since he was protected by the school. (Catholic school, btw, if that matters.) My mother is a bad ass and was having none of that. The only reason she did not go to law was to protect me. The law was involved not in criminal proceedings but to ensure he never taught again.

I look at my daughter's social interaction and I see risk for her, not from some creepy sick dude in the corner (though they exist too) but from her own peers. The message to boys continues to be that their sexual urges are beyond their control. Many of them continue to use very aggressive means of getting some or putting "*****es" who don't bend to their attention down. Not because they are evil or insane kids but because they were not raised any differently (if at all on this topic). 

A very close friend of mine works in a rape crisis center in a big city. She deals in shattered lives every day. Many, many shattered lives. (Thankfully in part because of her good work and the good work of others many recover from victim to survivor and have very happy and successful lives, Yay!) But the number one reaction she gets on the street is concern for false accusation. When I went to a fundraising march with her, we were yelled at because of our t-shirts. Feminizi, *****, *****... You get the drill.

I think people want to have hope in humanity, and it is easier to think of these things as an aberration something that lurks in the psyche of the truly sick. It is a safe and happy fiction. But it is a fiction. There are many safe places on the internet and the world that support and encourage this happy fiction, including TAM. This would be a place that drives any woman who actually wanted advice who did not fall into the part line away pretty quickly. I won't lie, I stick a round because reddit is blocked on my work pipe. When I need a brain break and to goof around, this is available.

But every once in a while, I decide to open my mouth and say something. I am not sure why. The blocks to hearing another view are big walls with years of mortar in place.


----------



## personofinterest

Rape is not about sex. Rate is about power. Every psychologist worth their salt will tell you this period and it's all over television, so there's really no excuse for anyone to not know this period that's why whatever idiot suggested sex bots would be a good outlet for our rapist is stupid. It's about over powering a human being. It's not about having a high sex drive SMH

I will take it farther. In a sense, for the rapist, rape is about winning. Think about that for a moment. The rapist wins the fight over whether or not no means no. Now think about some of the comments you have read on this very thread in the context of who wins. That should sober you up, and if it offends you, perhaps look in the mirror.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> Rape is not about sex. Rate is about power. Every psychologist worth their salt will tell you this period and it's all over television, so there's really no excuse for anyone to not know this period that's why whatever idiot suggested sex bots would be a good outlet for our rapist is stupid. It's about over powering a human being. It's not about having a high sex drive SMH
> 
> I will take it farther. In a sense, for the rapist, rape is about winning. Think about that for a moment. The rapist wins the fight over whether or not no means no. Now think about some of the comments you have read *on this very thread* in the context of who wins. That should sober you up, and if it offends you, perhaps look in the mirror.


I am no psychologist, but I would say that rape is about specifically sexual power. There may be a DUH there. It can be about taking what one wants FROM the gender who has the power to deny it.

I see it. I see it in threads here and other "benign" internet forums. But, as I said, the wall is strong. The not me is too important. The metoo movement can just be demeaned as a bunch of malcontents high on victim status. Power.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I see it. I see it in threads here and other "benign" internet forums.



Where? You see what? Rapists? Potential rapists? I don’t get it. I must not be reading the right threads. I guess if it happened to someone, you have to become extra cautious with these things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Where? You see what? Rapists? Potential rapists? I don’t get it. I must not be reading the right threads. I guess if it happened to someone, you have to become extra cautious with these things.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No not rapists. The attitude that male dominance, the desire for male dominance when dealing with females is not a thing, was never a thing, or is no longer a thing. That behaviors, language and actions no longer support or encourage that sentiment among young boys and men. That even people who don't know that they are doing it, do.


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> Where? You see what? Rapists? Potential rapists? I don’t get it. I must not be reading the right threads. I guess if it happened to someone, you have to become extra cautious with these things.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


When people joke about what no really means, insist on being "right" about pushing for the yes, and push back against the idea that a man should stop when the woman says no (martial and LTR play aside), then they are treading into dangerous water and revealing something about their own attitudes toward coercion and consent. Whether they want to admit it or not.

At a certain point, it is time to drop the "joking" and admit that advising men to "keep selling" until you close the deal is not the wisest advice.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> When people joke about what no really means, insist on being "right" about pushing for the yes, and push back against the idea that a man should stop when the woman says no (*martial *and LTR play aside), then they are treading into dangerous water and revealing something about their own attitudes toward coercion and consent. Whether they want to admit it or not.
> 
> At a certain point, it is time to drop the "joking" and admit that advising men to "keep selling" until you close the deal is not the wisest advice.


Haaa ha ha ha. Tee hee. Sometimes life just hands 'em to you.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> Haaa ha ha ha. Tee hee. Sometimes life just hands 'em to you.


Teehee...hubby definitely has a black belt.....


----------



## farsidejunky

NobodySpecial said:


> No not rapists. The attitude that male dominance, the desire for male dominance when dealing with females is not a thing, was never a thing, or is no longer a thing. That behaviors, language and actions no longer support or encourage that sentiment among young boys and men. That even people who don't know that they are doing it, do.


I think it is important to separate male dominance from rape. 

Many women desire dominant men, and article after article is showing growing female dissatisfaction at the emergence of the passive male. 

Dominance in and of itself is not the problem. Dominance without a moral compass is what needs to be examined. 


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

A confident person is not what I am talking about. "Dominance" and passivity are a false dichotomy, that to be not passive is to be dominant. I am definitely not passive, nor am I dominant. Taking some attitudes from this board that make me scratch my head. PoI has already mentioned the joviality of pushing past the no to "convince" someone. That is a pretty direct example. But we have seen posters remark things like why would I ever want to be friends with a woman aside from sex when I have men? I could not care less whom that person dates or whom they have as friends. (Just thankfully not me since it would appeal to neither of us.) But I do think that guy may have to pay attention in sexual harassment class at work. Is he aware that that female person has thoughts beyond whether or not she is going to date/marry/sleep with someone? Who knows.

The SIM board is FULL of people whose problem can almost be summed up as how do I GET my wife to f me more and stfu. The idea of actually understanding what might be going on in the minds of said wives is nearly verboten communication. Why is it always HIS FAULT? Why can't she just... Why doesn't she just... Even now in the court of public opinion, any celebrity who speaks about her situation is faced with, why doesn't she just...


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> When I went to a fundraising march with her, we were yelled at because of our t-shirts. Feminizi, *****, *****... You get the drill.



What was written on your t shirts?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> What was written on your t shirts?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The name of the rape crisis center. Ooops.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> No not rapists. The attitude that male dominance, the desire for male dominance when dealing with females is not a thing, was never a thing, or is no longer a thing. That behaviors, language and actions no longer support or encourage that sentiment among young boys and men. That even people who don't know that they are doing it, do.



Are you talking about dominance or confidence?

How do you ‘dominate’ in a day to day interaction? You can dominate in the bedroom (and a lot of women seem to like it, as posts after posts show) but how do you dominate otherwise in a regular every day setting? 
Is someone making a joke or brag about something considered ‘dominance’?

I can’t get my head around this issue. I feel there’s a lot of conjecture. Some justified, some, I’m not sure. I think possibly it’s to do with having been abused: maybe the person’s complete attitude changes towards a whole gender, I don’t know.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> I think it is important to separate male dominance from rape.
> 
> Many women desire dominant men, and article after article is showing growing female dissatisfaction at the emergence of the passive male.
> 
> Dominance in and of itself is not the problem. Dominance without a moral compass is what needs to be examined.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk



Exactly, there’s a danger of lumping everything into the same bag. There’s also difference between dominance and confidence. Dominance seems like a non sensical word: unless you let someone dominate you (I’m not talking about physical dominance/rape), why is this even a word in this context?

Also a bunch of young guys bragging, joking or flirting with women does not make them into (potential) rapists 🤨



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> A confident person is not what I am talking about. "Dominance" and passivity are a false dichotomy, that to be not passive is to be dominant. I am definitely not passive, nor am I dominant. Taking some attitudes from this board that make me scratch my head. PoI has already mentioned the joviality of pushing past the no to "convince" someone. That is a pretty direct example. But we have seen posters remark things like why would I ever want to be friends with a woman aside from sex when I have men? I could not care less whom that person dates or whom they have as friends. (Just thankfully not me since it would appeal to neither of us.) But I do think that guy may have to pay attention in sexual harassment class at work. Is he aware that that female person has thoughts beyond whether or not she is going to date/marry/sleep with someone? Who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> The SIM board is FULL of people whose problem can almost be summed up as how do I GET my wife to f me more and stfu. The idea of actually understanding what might be going on in the minds of said wives is nearly verboten communication. Why is it always HIS FAULT? Why can't she just... Why doesn't she just... Even now in the court of public opinion, any celebrity who speaks about her situation is faced with, why doesn't she just...



You can’t take isolated comments (without context) and apply them across the board, as if this represents the prevalent view. It’s also possible that you haven’t understood the comment before jumping to a conclusion. Why not give people the benefit of the doubt first and let them explain themselves instead, if something doesn’t make sense? 

It’s as if people are worried that the explanation / clarification of the person making a controversial comment may actually make sense and make the conflict go away...Then there won’t be anyone to hate or paint with a broad brush. 

These are all sensitive subjects. One misplaced word, one unfortunate analogy will forever engrave the wrong impression: it seems unnecessary to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> The name of the rape crisis center. Ooops.



Why ‘oops’, I was just curious. There are idiots in all walks of life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> Exactly, there’s a danger of lumping everything into the same bag. There’s also difference between dominance and confidence. Dominance seems like a non sensical word: unless you let someone dominate you (I’m not talking about physical dominance/rape), why is this even a word in this context?
> 
> *Also a bunch of young guys bragging, joking or flirting with women does not make them into rapist*s 🤨
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is important to understand that the term Dominant in a sexual context STILL requires consent. Probably not to every specific act, but for the role itself. And even when it is understood that one person is "in control," there is still a safe word used in case the submissive partner needs to stop.

So it really ISN'T all that muddy. Because a "Dominant" will not "take control" unless the submissive partner agrees.

The bolded part is obvious, and NO ONE here has suggested otherwise.

Surely you can comprehend the difference between joking and banter and "Well, she said no, but I can tell she didn't mean it, so I'll keep 'bantering' (or bartering) until she says yes."


----------



## 269370

Double


----------



## uhtred

I think that there is a very wide range of sexual misbehavior and "rape" is several subsets of that wide range. 

I think rapists fall into different categories - some where the goal is harming women, others where the goal is "getting sex" and harming the victim is incidental, some that are by any reasonable standard psychotic. 

There is a range from situations with a huge power imbalance but no explicit threat, to ones where there is direct threat or use of physical force. 

There is the wide range of alcohol related activities, that add confusion to an already complicated problem. 

I'd like to see a clearer separation between the pathological sexual abuse of young children which I think is almost by definition a sign of mental illness, and the abuse of older children that really is standard rape by means of power imbalance. They have different causes, and probably different solutions. 

There does seem to me to be a continuum from men who see sex as the only goal of a relationship, to those who "take" sex (eg rape) women, especially men who feel *entitled* to sex in some situation. That is not to say that men who feel that they *deserve* sex are rapists - its only criminal if they act against the other person's wishes. (wanting to act that way doesn't count).

Another part of this problem though is that I think in an attempt to "simplify" rape, a lot of harm has been done to the cause of preventing rape. In particular I have a problem with:

Not recognizing the role of intoxication in a broad class of rapes. (especially on college campuses). Alcohol blurs both the ability to consent and the ability to recognize consent. If we could get college students to drink less (men and women), I think the number of rapes there would decrease dramatically. 

There is a subset of anti-rape groups that tries to apply blame to all men. I think this is counter productive because it provides camouflage for the real rapists, who are now led to believe that they are normal. Maybe a fair number of men engage in some sort of bad behavior toward women, but only a very small percentage commit rape. I want those men isolated, not allowed to hide among the great numbers of minor offenders and the even greater number of men in general. I want rapist to know that they are not just "one of the guys", the other guys want to see them in prison. I think the misuse of "not all men" by both sides has been a serious problem - its taken a literally true and important statement and made it mean something very different from what the words say. 

I'd like discussions to be clear on the difference between thinking that relationships are all about sex (which is a personal opinion that some may find distasteful, but which is not criminal), and thinking that its OK to do whatever is necessary to *get* sex (which can easily become rapey, or rape). Its OK to try to pick up someone just for sex. Its not OK to pressure someone for sex once you've picked them up. There is an all important difference.

There needs to be a better discussion of the complexities of non-verbal communication in sexual situations. Misreading this can lead to at least unreasonable pressure, if not assault and rape. 











NobodySpecial said:


> I am no psychologist, but I would say that rape is about specifically sexual power. There may be a DUH there. It can be about taking what one wants FROM the gender who has the power to deny it.
> 
> I see it. I see it in threads here and other "benign" internet forums. But, as I said, the wall is strong. The not me is too important. The metoo movement can just be demeaned as a bunch of malcontents high on victim status. Power.


----------



## personofinterest

> Not recognizing the role of intoxication in a broad class of rapes. (especially on college campuses). Alcohol blurs both the ability to consent and the ability to recognize consent. If we could get college students to drink less (men and women), I think the number of rapes there would decrease dramatically.


Exactly. And I'd like to see the double standard change. It's interesting (not in a good way) to me that if BOTH parties are drunk, it still tends to be the man who gets blamed. Sorry, that seems wrong to me.


----------



## wild jade

NobodySpecial said:


> I won't speak to serial killers as I know nothing about it. This board is awash with people who think that rape is some kind of super aberration of the twisted. I don't think that. In my own experience, of the attempted rapes I beat off, one was a well respected person of authority (directly over me in fact) and one was just a regular person in the neighborhood. I was very young in both instances. The second one I knew pretty well. We was definitely was of the mindset that sex was something to get. And I had heard a bunch of the push past the No more than once. It was sheer accident that I found myself alone with him without my brother there. The successful rapist thought no more of it than if he was going to the bathroom.
> 
> The attitudes about assault are changing, but meaningfully only somewhat recently. When I was assaulted by the person in authority, I was lucky that my parents believed me. No one at the school believed my mother. They wanted the incident rug swept. Said person in authority, I found out later, was likely accused of such behavior before and no action taken since he was protected by the school. (Catholic school, btw, if that matters.) My mother is a bad ass and was having none of that. The only reason she did not go to law was to protect me. The law was involved not in criminal proceedings but to ensure he never taught again.


Yes, agreed. It really wasn't all that long ago that it was generally believed that rape was not even a thing worth worrying about. 

IME, it was almost always so-called pillars of the community who were the ones doing these things. They were hardly ever charged, let alone convicted. The consistent narrative was that the woman asked for it, and so even if she did complain, she was the one put on trial.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> What was written on your t shirts?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am curious what the t-shirt would say to make that response acceptable. I am also wondering if you see any irony in the response "what was she wearing"?


----------



## Buddy400

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Again, I think this is sort of a binary thought process. Where women wouldn't act a certain way, or be turned on by certain things outside of a LTR. I disagree with that. So even if this is a married women, that doesn't mean her post only applies to married women. I also don't think it is very fair to judge other women (not saying you did) about their sexual preferences regarding being a sub. If a single woman is a sub, and she's looking for a dominant man, she isn't going to want a man who asks, she wants a man who takes. That doesn't make her some sort of lesser woman, or an immature woman. It is just part of who she is and what she finds sexually arousing.
> 
> Again, you could list out a 100 different types, and put them on paper. This is what men are faced with. Now add in the fact that if you make the wrong move, you lose the woman. Or worse, you make the wrong move with the wrong woman, and you lose your life and career. I'm not suggesting men have it harder than women either. From my perspective,* the biggest issue women have is men certainly aren't as intuitive as women are. So you essentially have a lot of women throwing out signals, positive and negative, that lots of men simply lack the ability to pick up on in any way shape or form*. Thus making these waters difficult to navigate for everyone equally. That, and I tend to think to often both men and women like to try and fit each other in a nice neat box, as if we all think, act, and feel the same. That if we don't, something must be wrong with that person.


It is probably true that some women in the dating arena are looking for displays of sexual dominance. If so, it's too problematic for a guy to display this outside of an LTR. We certainly can't count on men just divining what women _really want_, due to the bolded. I'm not quite sure how a woman who enjoys being sexually dominated is supposed to find her match. Wait until she's in an LTR, tell her partner what she's into and then break-up is he isn't into it (or doesn't do it well)? But, making sure submissive women ultimately get the sex they want isn't really my main concern here. 

The safest way to handle possible miscommunications between genders while dating is to employ the "No means No" rule in all cases. If there actually are women who say "No" but mean "Yes", then they're just **** outta luck. If it's a common thing that women don't always feel comfortable or able to say "No", then assertiveness training is called for.

It always astounds me that almost everyone agrees with the bolded, yet then turn around and decide that the solution is for men to read women's non-verbal signals.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Are you talking about dominance or confidence?


Neither. My entrance into this thread was to respondto Ele's notion that only someone insane rapes. I disagree with her. My disagreeing poster referred to societal and cultural male dominance which another poster equated with personal dominance which I am not talking about at all. So I responded to that.




> How do you ‘dominate’ in a day to day interaction? You can dominate in the bedroom (and a lot of women seem to like it, as posts after posts show) but how do you dominate otherwise in a regular every day setting?
> Is someone making a joke or brag about something considered ‘dominance’?
> 
> I can’t get my head around this issue. I feel there’s a lot of conjecture. Some justified, some, I’m not sure. I think possibly it’s to do with having been abused: maybe the person’s complete attitude changes towards a whole gender, I don’t know.
> 
> Since I have never been abused a day in my life, I cannot opine on anything other than what I have heard other abused people have told me. I am not speaking of attitudes of a whole gender or even only of one gender, so I am not sure what you are replying to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Why ‘oops’, I was just curious. There are idiots in all walks of life.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I had originally posted " the name of the rape crisis t-shirt". Changed it with an ooops qualifier. Sorry.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> It is important to understand that the term Dominant in a sexual context STILL requires consent. Probably not to every specific act, but for the role itself. And even when it is understood that one person is "in control," there is still a safe word used in case the submissive partner needs to stop.


I have never met an experienced DOM, male or female, who does not get consent for every damned thing early in the relationship down to scripting the scenes.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> But all that said, I think its still not that hard. If you can read your partner,


It's not hard to fly an F-22 Raptor, as long as you are an experienced fighter pilot.

There are very few problems when one can accurately read their partner.

If one is aware that one doesn't have a good ability to read their partner, then mistakes can be avoided.

The problems happen when one thinks they can read their partner but reads them wrong.

What's the easy answer for that?


----------



## personofinterest

> What's the easy answer for that?


I think part of the issue is that there may not always be an easy answer. So it that case one has to decide:

Would you rather be safe, or would you rather be sorry? Understanding that "sorry" might carry a pretty hefty price tag.

I would assume most men ruled by logic rather than ego would choose safe


----------



## Buddy400

Hopeful Cynic said:


> In a lot of those links, there is one common thread I'm seeing. Women passively expect men to act on what she says even when her behaviour doesn't change. Ie, the woman who says "I don't want to do this" but then doesn't leave. And the problem is women think their words should be enough, but men go by the actions, not the words. When a man says "I don't want to do this" he follows it up immediately with appropriate action. When a woman says "I don't want to do this" they expect the man to follow up with the appropriate action.
> 
> It goes back to classic socialization differences between men and women. Men are taught to be active and direct to get what they want, and if someone else is hurt (physically or emotionally), too bad. Women are taught to be passive and indirect, and that if someone is going to be hurt, it should be them and not the other person. It's why (generalizing) men get more raises, are more competitive, are more decisive, etc. When men interact with men, or women interact with women, it gets reinforced. When they interact with each other, they expect the other to behave they way they would. And things go wrong.
> 
> A woman saying "I don't want to do this" to another woman would lead to a conversation in which they mutually decide what to do instead. A man saying "I don't want to do this" not actively following up with doing something else (like leaving) would lead to the other man being fine with continuing as obviously the man didn't hate it that badly because he stuck around. In all these nonconsenting sexual scenarios, the woman expected the man to take charge of "not doing this" after her words, while the man figured the woman was okay with what was happening because she didn't back up her words with action.
> 
> And yes, the 'freeze' response is real, and something common to women who are being raped. When it's consciously done, they fear being overpowered and hurt worse, or even murdered, if they react at all. But mostly it's unconsciously done, the body and mind just shut down, enduring till it's over and they can get away.
> 
> Both men and women need to learn these differences early on, but aren't taught at all.


Very well said.

The only thing I would disagree with is that this is all due to "classic socialization differences between men and women".


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I am curious what the t-shirt would say to make that response acceptable. I am also wondering if you see any irony in the response "what was she wearing"?




No, don’t see any irony. I wasn’t asking what she (you) was wearing but what the t shirt said because you said that the comments shouted related to something on your t shirts. Naturally, I was curious what the t shirt said. Now you seem to be attributing something to me that was not intended. And so the circle continues. 

Best best not to put my head in this in the first place. I think this is a pointless battle. It’s a shame that it is a battle because it totally doesn’t have to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> No, don’t see any irony. I wasn’t asking what she (you) was wearing but what the t shirt said because you said that the comments shouted related to something in your t shirts. Naturally, I was curious what the t shirt said. Now you seem to be attributing something to me that was not intended. And so the circle continues.
> 
> Best best not to put my head in this in the first place. I think this is a pointless battle. It’s a shame that it is a battle because it totally doesn’t have to be.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am not fighting a battle. Not sure where you got that.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> . The message to boys continues to be that their sexual urges are beyond their control.


Who in the world is sending THAT message?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Who in the world is sending THAT message?


Schools, dress codes, mothers of boys, fathers of boys, teeny consequences for sexually aggressive behavior...


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> The attitude that male dominance, the desire for male dominance when dealing with females is not a thing, was never a thing, or is no longer a thing. That behaviors, language and actions no longer support or encourage that sentiment among young boys and men. That even people who don't know that they are doing it, do.


The only people I see who desire male sexual dominance over females on TAM is women.

Where's the last post from a guy saying "I want to dominate my wife sexually"?


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> Schools, dress codes, mothers of boys, fathers of boys, teeny consequences for sexually aggressive behavior...


I have mixed feelings about the dress code. In every school where I have taught, the dress code has included things for girls AND boys. Boys, for example, are not to wear saggy pants. In one school, there was neon-colored rope in the office, and any boy whose pants were barely hanging on his hips was given a length of the rope for a belt. Also, mesh shirts, tank tops, etc. The shorts length rule was for both genders.

Bottom line, unless you have been a teacher, you may not be able to appreciate the fact that clothing CAN be an issue. Short short, spaghetti straps, etc. just aren't appropriate for school.

No.... they are not. And it has nothing to do with boys not being able to control themselves. Kids need to learn what is appropriate for when. You wouldn't wear a bikini to a funeral or Daisy Dukes to a corporate job interview. When I supervised intern teachers, I had to remind them that the "low rise with your thong showing" style was NOT appropriate teacher attire.

Not everything is misogyny.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> When people joke about what no really means, insist on being "right" about pushing for the yes, and push back against the idea that a man should stop when the woman says no (martial and LTR play aside), then they are treading into dangerous water and revealing something about their own attitudes toward coercion and consent. Whether they want to admit it or not.
> 
> At a certain point, it is time to drop the "joking" and admit that advising men to "keep selling" until you close the deal is not the wisest advice.


One guy seems to think that women may say "No" when they mean "Yes" and even he's not saying that men should force themselves on them anyway.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> The only people I see who desire male sexual dominance over females on TAM is women.
> 
> Where's the last post from a guy saying "I want to dominate my wife sexually"?


This is a thread about consent which I stayed out of except to reply to Ele who opined that only insane people rape. I commented on the cultural and societal attitudes of male dominance that exist today and that the notion that nowadays that stuff does not exist is incorrect. I commented that I see the unconscious (and even conscious though those folks don't tend to stick around) endorsement of these attitudes here on this board. I have not made an opinion, in fact have no opinion, about individuals who may or may not want to dominate their spouses.


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy400 said:


> One guy seems to think that women may say "No" when they mean "Yes" and even he's not saying that men should force themselves on them anyway.


You read the continued insistence that we women be "sold" quite differently than I did, then.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> You read the continued insistence that we women be "sold" quite differently than I did, then.


I think, though I am not certain and have no desire to look, someone even thought pushing past the no was peachy too. But I can't stand firm on that recollection.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I am curious what the t-shirt would say to make that response acceptable. I am also wondering if you see any irony in the response "what was she wearing"?


Wow.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not fighting a battle. Not sure where you got that.




It seemed like your question carried quite a bit of baggage with it, or was it my imagination? (Whether I saw any irony in asking what she was wearing. which wasn’t the question I was asking). 

Were you not implying that I in some ways condoned the behaviour of the shouting men and somehow made it the woman’s fault? Because if this is what you will come away with from this exchange, it will be a shame, because it is not true.

Things are complex: If you want to find a pattern, you will always be able to find one to suit your world view. It doesn’t always mean it is the correct view or that there is even a pattern. I do not agree that it is reasonable to hold the view that the majority (or even a large portion) of men have these issues. The view that you don’t have to be sick to rape someone seems an oxymoron: the act alone says everything about the person and is in itself a diagnosis of a sickness. How can you function and live within a society where you feel that this type of stuff can come from ‘normal’ men as easily as it comes from sick men?
(If I mis-characterised your view or didn’t express it succinctly, I apologise in advance).

However I don’t think I can be that far off because it does explain some of the responses and the tone of the responses. I would also live in constant mistrust and suspicion to anything attached to a penis if I was you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> You can’t take isolated comments (without context) and apply them across the board,


What comments do you feel I am taking in isolation and what board do you see me applying them across? I am making very specific comments.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> Schools, dress codes, mothers of boys, fathers of boys, teeny consequences for sexually aggressive behavior...



This, for example, is a very broad statement with no basis behind it whatsoever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I commented that I see the unconscious (and even conscious though those folks don't tend to stick around) endorsement of these attitudes here on this board.



Another one...I read the same boards and don’t see any ‘endorsement of these attitudes’ on this or other boards. (But like I say, there are idiots everywhere.)
You really should qualify these statements with quotes because it’s just empty words otherwise.

Do i need to go through every post?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> The safest way to handle possible miscommunications between genders while dating is to employ the "No means No" rule in all cases. If there actually are women who say "No" but mean "Yes", then they're just **** outta luck. If it's a common thing that women don't always feel comfortable or able to say "No", then assertiveness training is called for.
> 
> It always astounds me that almost everyone agrees with the bolded, yet then turn around and decide that the solution is for men to read women's non-verbal signals.


Yes, all of this.

And yes, there is assertiveness training that is needed.

But there is also sensitivity training needed for any guy who doesn't stop at "no". We need to (please) stop making it seem like "pushing for more" is the way to "get sex". We should instead promote that people should not want to "get sex", they should consensually *choose* to have sex *with each other* (meaning both parties must choose). Sex should never be considered something that "you get", it is something you have and share.

For the people (any gender) who really want sex on a first date, there are lots of people willing to do this. Find one of those. Do not try to change your date's mind from no to yes. Just move on if you can't handle the no and find a new partner. This is to replace the idea that they should "keep pushing". Instead, "move on" should be the mantra for the guy who expects sex. There are SO MANY women who want what they want! There's no reason to chase anything around that is saying no.

For guys who are in the position of a woman who is showing reluctance, even if not outright saying no, he should stop and inquire further. Ask for affirmation of anything you need. Get her to verbalize it. If she can't or won't, don't proceed. 

Uneducated guys (who are not predators, just normal guys) are the ones who are going to say things like "but what if her no really means yes?" You can tell what he's really saying is "but I'm afraid I will lose out on the opportunity for sex if I either don't keep pushing, or if I stop at the first no....what if after she gets turned on more, she wants it?" 

These are the guys who need to be educated. Sex isn't a conquest. They think it is, but one day they like most people they will learn it is a lot more than that. Even people who have a lot of sex and/or partners understand there is a lot more to sex than just the pleasure of banging bodies together. There is responsibility of all kinds. 

But the biggest responsibility should always be toward your partner's well being, before all other things.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Who in the world is sending THAT message?



Yes, I am trying to figure out where this is all coming from. It reads like an ideology rather than observations. That’s why I’m not sure there is much room for discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Another one...I read the same boards and don’t see any ‘endorsement of these attitudes’ on this or other boards. (But like I say, there are idiots everywhere.)
> You really should qualify these statements with quotes because it’s just empty words otherwise.
> 
> Do i need to go through every post?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't care what you do. I replied to a post. I am good with it. You seem to think you are fighting something. I have made some examples, referred to my experiences. Replied to some other posters. You will form your own opinion as you see fit. I have replied within SI to some of these examples many times. My opinion stands that power attitudes around sex, sexuality is still quite present and one needn't be insane to rape or even too very far out of the realm of the mainstream. I mean, Brock Turner? Insane?


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> I think part of the issue is that there may not always be an easy answer. So it that case one has to decide:
> 
> Would you rather be safe, or would you rather be sorry? Understanding that "sorry" might carry a pretty hefty price tag.
> 
> I would assume most men ruled by logic rather than ego would choose safe


I agree that there is no easy answer.

If there IS an answer, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include "Reading your partner".

The problem with "reading your partner" is that you may be *certain* that your read is correct, but be wrong. Therefore, "reading your partner" can never be the safe answer.

There are only two way to avoid problems.

1) The person who does not want sex says so.

2) Or the person who wants sex verbally asks the other person for consent in a clear and straight-forward way with no room for ambiguity.

I've always been a fan of #1 as it seems to be the most likely give the results we're looking for.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Surely you can comprehend the difference between joking and banter and "Well, she said no, but I can tell she didn't mean it, so I'll keep 'bantering' (or bartering) until she says yes."



Yes, lets just take it for granted that we are not talking about retards or sexual maniacs.

But there’s another wrinkle to it: men like to pursue and women like to be pursued. 
True statement or not? 
(The right answer is: it depends).

I was pursuing my wife in school for about a year until she ‘changed her mind’ and let me closer and eventually we got together.

If I took the first no (it wasn’t a no, but more like a lack of interest or engagement) and just ‘let it go’, we would not have been together now for over 20 years. Would she have wanted me to stop pursuing her?

I think we are talking about mannerisms and general behaviour etiquette when it comes to the beginning / first dates. I do not envisage a situation where it would not be clear where a line shouldn’t be crossed. 

I found that things actually get more tricky as the relationship progresses and after 20 years, I find it actually harder to get straight answers. (Not just sexually, but for example: ‘can I go out for for a drink with friends?’ ‘Yes, fine.’ And later on, i find out that I am in deep **** because I forgot our anniversary etc).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> You read the continued insistence that we women be "sold" quite differently than I did, then.


Yes, we did read it differently.

I was pretty "twitchy" seeing it but then didn't see any "she really wants it" stuff and decided that he was just a salesperson (and what salesperson can accept that a customer saying "No" might not eventually be turned into a customer who says "Yes"). Also, it seems far more focused on how the concept of Yes and No isn't always as clear as it seems. It did not strike me as saying it's okay to have sex with women against their will.

However, I can see why it sounded disturbing (hence, my "twitchy" feeling).


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I mean, Brock Turner? Insane?



Anyone who rapes or abuses is disturbed and sick: lets just start from here. Then there are degrees of abuse. 

But if you think otherwise: that more ‘normal’ men are capable of this too, then what do you think it says about men as a gender, if not the obvious?

I realise you believe otherwise and it’s fine. We will just agree to disagree. I’m sure there are others who will agree with your point of view.
I just don’t think that this attitude will help solve those pockets and areas, which need to be solved.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

Prime, I won't speak for another poster, but here's how I reconcile that saying versus insane thing. I think people who know what they are doing is rape and do it anyway definitely have a mental disorder, even if it's just run of the mill psychopathy. I think what we would call normal people who rake are the men who have really deluded themselves into believing that what they are doing is not rate. They action Lee believe what they are doing is convincing or winning. And if you called them out on the fact that they basically wore a woman down until she felt she had no choice but go ahead and let him do it, those men would actually tell you it was not rape. But I guarantee you the women in question would absolutely feel as if they were raped. I don't think any man will actually say rape is OK. In fact most be and would agree rape is despicable. That battle is settled. Where we still have the battle is with those men who think they are such Mega sex gods and gifts to all of female kind that they actually think it's OK to keep pressing and till they get the yes they want. And they will swear with their dying breath that the woman was actually up for it. Those are the types of rapists who are the most dangerous. And yes, I do call them rapists.

And for the record, I am a submissive by nature, and I absolutely abhore this latest version of feminism that we see cropping up to day. So this is not because I am a man hater or have hairy arm pits or anything else. This is because any time a woman feels as if she has no choice because she just doesn't have the strength to say no anymore. She is being raped. No matter what the egomaniac on the other side of the equation decides he wants to call it.


----------



## RandomDude

All this talk of dominance and submissive play reminds me... when I think about my girlfriend and I's play, where we both say 'no' to each other quite often as we like to tease each other, we established a safe word very early on. With a safe word there's no issue of misunderstanding the 'no'. When the safe word is used, you stop no matter what.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> they actually think it's OK to keep pressing and till they get the yes they want



Ok so I have to be very careful how to phrase it but...unless they say ‘yes’ under gunpoint or some kind of duress, pressure or blackmail: how can this be called rape?

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely think there are slimy pest of abhorrent individuals who will persist and persist and it’s extremely irritating and frustrating if they don’t get the message straight away. But giving into sex, just so that the guy stops persisting? I find this a very unfortunate choice. What am I missing here?
Can you be persuaded by the power of mind instead of force? (Implied force is still a force so I’m not talking about it).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> 2) Or the person who wants sex verbally asks the other person for consent in a clear and straight-forward way with no room for ambiguity.



Now let’s try and settle on a version that is not too cringe-worthy. How about:

“May I now gently insert my generously lubricated manhood, into your delicious vajayjay, with the speed, accuracy and rhythm, that your womanhood desires?”

Would be interested for the best possible version, if anyone wants a try?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Prime, I won't speak for another poster, but here's how I reconcile that saying versus insane thing. I think people who know what they are doing is rape and do it anyway definitely have a mental disorder, even if it's just run of the mill psychopathy.



Maybe it’s a semantic thing but actually, I’m not sure I would look at it this way.

To me, it seems that the person who doesn’t know what they are doing is the sick one (as in, has an illness). The perpetrator who makes a calculated choice to rape, made a choice (it was a sick choice, but it was still a choice). 

IRL, it probably is never that b&w.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> You read the continued insistence that we women be "sold" quite differently than I did, then.


And you read way to far into more or less a joke. So I guess we are on even ground then eh? If I say no sometimes means yes and that equates to men reading in their own intent on the word no thus they are out of bounds and should be called out on it. Why is it any different from you reading your own intent into my words? But that isn't out of bounds at all to you?


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Anyone who rapes or abuses is disturbed and sick: lets just start from here. Then there are degrees of abuse.
> 
> But if you think otherwise: that more ‘normal’ men are capable of this too,* then what do you think it says about men as a gender*, if not the obvious?


Exactly nothing. It is not "obvious" or follows from my statements in any way that it "says anything" about men as a gender. Just as women can do pretty awful things and be neither sick nor insane.


> I realise you believe otherwise and it’s fine. We will just agree to disagree. I’m sure there are others who will agree with your point of view.
> I just don’t think that this attitude will help solve those pockets and areas, which need to be solved.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was not trying to solve anything. I was disagreeing with a post on the internet.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> It seemed like your question carried quite a bit of baggage with it, or was it my imagination? (Whether I saw any irony in asking what she was wearing. which wasn’t the question I was asking).


No baggage. I had told that story in RL and on social media and other forums. Universally I got replies like what DBs and such. They made the association between a rape fundraising march and the vitriol on their own without asking what the t-shirts were. Struck me pretty weird.



> Were you not implying that I in some ways condoned the behaviour of the shouting men and somehow made it the woman’s fault? Because if this is what you will come away with from this exchange, it will be a shame, because it is not true.
> 
> Things are complex: If you want to find a pattern, you will always be able to find one to suit your world view. It doesn’t always mean it is the correct view or that there is even a pattern. I do not agree that it is reasonable to hold the view that the majority (or even a large portion) of men have these issues.


I never said that men have issues or that there is like some closet will be become rapists. You seem to be seeing that, however. I see a systemic and persistent position of male power that has not been eradicated as some hysterical horror that has been effectively dismantled.



> The view that you don’t have to be sick to rape someone seems an oxymoron: the act alone says everything about the person and is in itself a diagnosis of a sickness. How can you function and live within a society where you feel that this type of stuff can come from ‘normal’ men as easily as it comes from sick men?
> (If I mis-characterised your view or didn’t express it succinctly, I apologise in advance).


I don't know what you think a "normal" person is. I think it is pretty obvious that people with no mental illness rape people unless you think raping someone is, itself, cause for such a diagnosis. I have never seen such a diagnosis. I definitely don't think one has to be insane:

"in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill."



> However I don’t think I can be that far off because it does explain some of the responses and the tone of the responses. I would also live in constant mistrust and suspicion to anything attached to a penis if I was you.


Why would you live in constant mistrust and suspicion? I don't. Of the people I know, the people closest to me, wonderful, genuine, caring, empathetic, smart, funny more than half of them are men. 

I wonder how much you have thought about these issues except insofar as feeling attacked by the very existence of rapists. The linking of abuse and rape as if they are the same seems weird to me. I also wonder if you assume that a person who has been raped is irreparably damaged such that they walk around in perpetual fear of everything and anything? It's sad that some do. But many, many, many don't. Many go one to have successful emotional lives, including half way decent judgement.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> And you read way to far into more or less a joke.


I won't claim to have followed the entire conversation on this joke, whatever it was. But I will observe that successful comedians are successful because their humor touches on veins of truth. As I say, I cannot recall the joke. So I don't know. But it is not unusual to feel a idea becomes more normal when one can pass jokes about it. ymmv


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Some of us joke when discussing heavy subjects as a way to keep the mood of the discussion light hearted. Not to take away from the seriousness of the subject being discussed. Also a lot of people deal with things that make them uncomfortable with humor. 

The joke was "in sales they always teach us not to take the first no. You have to get at least three Nos. If they say no, ive just not sold them on the value yet" paraphrasing myself, but that was basically it. Then others started to read intent into my own words as they saw fit. 

I stand by that statement btw. Just because you choose to read in malevolent intent to my statement, doesn't mean that is what I believe. Instead of asking for clarification of what exactly that statement means to me, an instant accusatory tone is adopted and my statement of "being sold" is used to describe a negative thought process in men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Some of us joke when discussing heavy subjects as a way to keep the mood of the discussion light hearted. Not to take away from the seriousness of the subject being discussed. Also a lot of people deal with things that make them uncomfortable with humor.
> 
> The joke was "in sales they always teach us not to take the first no. You have to get at least three Nos. If they say no, ive just not sold them on the value yet" paraphrasing myself, but that was basically it. Then others started to read intent into my own words as they saw fit.
> 
> I stand by that statement btw. Just because you choose to read in malevolent intent to my statement, doesn't mean that is what I believe. Instead of asking for clarification of what exactly that statement means to me, an instant accusatory tone is adopted and my statement of "being sold" is used to describe a negative thought process in men.


But it really is the thought process of a lot of men. So it’s really hard to know what is a joke and what isn’t. In the case of your joke, since I think it was just by itself here on this thread on consent, and wasn’t really in response to anything, it seemed more like a statement than a joke. Though I immediately assumed you know that no means no, I wasn’t sure if you do or don’t want to “push for the sale” in real life situations. Then you gave a lot of real life situations and they all sounded consensual to me.

But on first glance of just the “joke” I was unsure.

I know it seems best to lighten up heavy topics, but in that case, your “joke” was an example of how a lot of men really think and act accordingly. So it kind of had the opposite effect on some of us.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Faithful Wife said:


> But it really is the thought process of a lot of men. So it’s really hard to know what is a joke and what isn’t. In the case of your joke, since I think it was just by itself here on this thread on consent, and wasn’t really in response to anything, it seemed more like a statement than a joke. Though I immediately assumed you know that no means no, I wasn’t sure if you do or don’t want to “push for the sale” in real life situations. Then you gave a lot of real life situations and they all sounded consensual to me.
> 
> But on first glance of just the “joke” I was unsure.
> 
> I know it seems best to lighten up heavy topics, but in that case, your “joke” was an example of how a lot of men really think and act accordingly. So it kind of had the opposite effect on some of us.


I'll go further because you are hung up on the word "sold" or "making a sale" or "dont take less than three nos" which that last part was a joke relating to sales strategies they teach you. 

Lets use a real life example of what I'm talking about. First off, I wouldn't ever want sex on a first date. I personally feel sex on a first date, to me, is pretty disgusting behaviour, and fair or not, I would think I'm dealing with a loose woman. So lets say things are going well through two dates, we are clicking on all cylinders. I make a move on the third date and get the No. I don't press. But I'm not done selling myself as a parter to this woman. So I'll call her the next day. Set up a another date. We talk on the phone, I open up more. Try to build the value of myself and the value of a relationship together. If I get another no after the next date, again, I'm not going to just give up on the relationship if I think we are a good fit. Again call, talk more, set up another date, by this time we've been on six dates and are probably in the 6-8weeks of talking and dating. If she says no, she's not sold on me, and probably never will be. I take my three nos and I move on to find a different women. 

The fact that I look at something as a sale is just how I tend to see life in general. If a woman I'm not sold on wants to go on a date, I'm not buying. If a woman wants to sleep with me 8 hours after we have met, I'm not buying. If I'm really into a woman and I get a no, I'm not giving up that easy. I will work harder to sell my value and get her to buy. You want to read inappropriate behaviour into that last statement as if its something only a caveman would say, that is fine.

I tend to not feel a need to explain myself when people automatically, and without any sort of question or clarification, attribute malevolent motives and intent to others words. There's not much point in trying to have an honest discussion with people who do this.


----------



## personofinterest

Sometimes it's best to validate a womans feelings about rape instead of joking and then digging in one's heels. Some of us are rape survivors.

Compassion is an attractive quality.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I see a systemic and persistent position of male power that has not been eradicated as some hysterical horror that has been effectively dismantled.



I was with you up to that sentence. And after reading this (very loaded) statement, I don’t know what that means! I really don’t. 
How can you talk about ‘systemic and persistent position of MALE power’ yet not refer or group men together? This makes no sense to me. And those are big words.

How do you propose to ‘eradicate’ that power if you can’t really pinpoint what it is in the first place? Which part do you eliminate, the ‘MALE’ part or the ‘power’ part or what?

Yes there are some men within the society that worked hard (or got lucky) to get to a position of power. As there are some women too. Yes there is a democratic SYSTEM in place that society functions by and can vote for it, or reject it. 

The rest feels too conspiracey for me just doesn’t ring true. What would you like to dismantle exactly? You refer to the problem as ’male’ and ‘systemic’. How do you do that?
I acknowledge that there are many pockets with problems that need to be addressed. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> Sometimes it's best to validate a womans feelings about rape instead of joking and then digging in one's heels. Some of us are rape survivors.
> 
> Compassion is an attractive quality.


So is humor. My sister is a rape survivor, and linked into that, I'm a survivor of what would have been murder/suicide if it weren't for a butterfly effect. Like I said, some people use humor as a coping mechanism. It is quite common. But often misunderstood as a lack of compassion for others. It is what it is. I'll always make jokes about serious subjects. I have no intention of changing this about myself. For some of us, its just how we get by, and it works for us for various different reasons depending on the person.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> In the case of your joke, since I think it was just by itself here on this thread on consent, and wasn’t really in response to anything, it seemed more like a statement than a joke. Though I immediately assumed you know that no means no, I wasn’t sure if you do or don’t want to “push for the sale” in real life situations. Then you gave a lot of real life situations and they all sounded consensual to me.
> 
> But on first glance of just the “joke” I was unsure.
> 
> I know it seems best to lighten up heavy topics, but in that case, your “joke” was an example of how a lot of men really think and act accordingly. So it kind of had the opposite effect on some of us.


What you did here is admirable.

You were taken initially taken aback. Then, you thought "He can't be saying that no means yes!" (he's a long time poster) and looked for reasons to believe that this was not what he meant. 

So you gave him the benefit of the doubt.

We need more of that on the internet.

A lot more.

And, yes, this is a topic where it's best go light on the jokes.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> And if you called them out on the fact that they basically wore a woman down until she felt she had no choice but go ahead and let him do it, those men would actually tell you it was not rape. But I guarantee you the women in question would absolutely feel as if they were raped.


This goes back to @HopefulCynic. Most men can't imagine that a woman would "let herself get worn down" to the point where she would have unwanted sex. I can't imagine the situation in which I'd be "worn down" by a man to the degree that I would feel I had no choice other than to give him a blowjob.

I guess women can't imagine that men don't know what they're doing.



personofinterest said:


> This is because any time a woman feels as if she has no choice because she just doesn't have the strength to say no anymore. She is being raped.


But what if the man doesn't know that this is how she *feels*? (and yes, that's possible, even likely).

That's the beauty of "No means No". Any man, regardless of their ability to read non-verbal clues HAS NO EXCUSE but to stop immediately. He could refuse to stop, but at least he will have no ability to claim he didn't know what he was doing or whether or not the woman "wanted it", 

I get that a certain proportion of the world wants to teach men to behave like women. 

But, while they're working on that, I'd like to take steps to reduce the rate of rape and sexual assault NOW.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

Buddy400 said:


> What you did here is admirable.
> 
> You were taken initially taken aback. Then, you thought "He can't be saying that no means yes!" (he's a long time poster) and looked for reasons to believe that this was not what he meant.
> 
> So you gave him the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> We need more of that on the internet.
> 
> A lot more.
> 
> And, yes, this is a topic where it's best go light on the jokes.


All you really need to do is ask someone to clarify their statement, as the intentions of said statement can be taken in many different ways and the wording or context isn't clear. This doesn't only need to apply to jokes, but really any statement. 

Sort of like no means yes sometimes and yes means no sometimes. The difference is, we can't read each others body language through text like you can with your partner. Sarcasm is often lost. Jokes amd statements in text can easily be read in different ways. Instead of applying your own intent to someone else's words, let them make their intentions clear themselves. 

Reminds me of Cathy Newman's interview of Jordan Peterson. "So you're saying..."


----------



## Buddy400

TheDudeLebowski said:


> All you really need to do is ask someone to clarify their statement, as the intentions of said statement can be taken in many different ways and the wording or context isn't clear. This doesn't only need to apply to jokes, but really any statement.
> 
> Sort of like no means yes sometimes and yes means no sometimes. The difference is, we can't read each others body language through text like you can with your partner. Sarcasm is often lost. Jokes amd statements in text can easily be read in different ways. Instead of applying your own intent to someone else's words, let them make their intentions clear themselves.
> 
> Reminds me of Cathy Newman's interview of Jordan Peterson. "So you're saying..."


Yeah, but.................

You really should have known better.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't feel free to say what you please, but you really shouldn't be surprised at the reaction.

This IS the internet after all.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> I was with you up to that sentence. And after reading this (very loaded) statement, I don’t know what that means! I really don’t.
> How can you talk about ‘systemic and persistent position of MALE power’ yet not refer or group men together? This makes no sense to me. And those are big words.


I am kind of baffled frankly that you don't see that as part of all our history for time immoral. In all of history. 



> How do you propose to ‘eradicate’ that power if you can’t really pinpoint what it is in the first place? Which part do you eliminate, the ‘MALE’ part or the ‘power’ part or what?


I wasn't aware that it was my job or my goal to eradicate it. But I think, in the US, we can continue to make strides in power equality. Someday I even think we can see prosecution and sentencing of sex crimes that are blind to race and class, though we are clearly not there yet. I can vote for the right people. I will continue to raise my children to recognize the human dignity and agency of every human. I will continue to go to school meetings where Moms raise the idea that their pre-teen and teen boys are too distracted in math class by the presence of girls in temperature appropriate clothing. Etc..



> Yes there are some men within the society that worked hard (or got lucky) to get to a position of power. As there are some women too. Yes there is a democratic SYSTEM in place that society functions by and can vote for it, or reject it.
> 
> The rest feels too conspiracey for me just doesn’t ring true. What would you like to dismantle exactly? You refer to the problem as ’male’ and ‘systemic’. How do you do that?


You are the one who is lofting into big flights of fancy and theory. I have said none of that. I said there is a situation with unequal power. There has been few societies in which that was not the case. It is part of human history. It remains part of our current societal story. I did not say there was a problem with males. That is all you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Some of us joke when discussing heavy subjects as a way to keep the mood of the discussion light hearted. Not to take away from the seriousness of the subject being discussed. Also a lot of people deal with things that make them uncomfortable with humor.
> 
> The joke was "in sales they always teach us not to take the first no. You have to get at least three Nos. If they say no, ive just not sold them on the value yet" paraphrasing myself, but that was basically it. Then others started to read intent into my own words as they saw fit.
> 
> I stand by that statement btw. Just because you choose to read in malevolent intent to my statement, doesn't mean that is what I believe. Instead of asking for clarification of what exactly that statement means to me, an instant accusatory tone is adopted and my statement of "being sold" is used to describe a negative thought process in men.


For my part, pushing past the No in sales makes sense in that the salesperson wants to make the sale and fundamentally does not care whether the person wants or needs the product or service. This metaphor used in the realm of seeking sex is, at best, really icky. Regardless of INTENT of the specific comment, if it was said in an attempt to make that parallel (which I frankly don't remember), it does speak to a funked up attitude of sexuality.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> Prime, I won't speak for another poster, but here's how I reconcile that saying versus insane thing. I think people who know what they are doing is rape and do it anyway definitely have a mental disorder, even if it's just run of the mill psychopathy.


I don't. I just don't. The frequency with which people do things with no thought whatsoever to the people they harm, as an expression of power, greed or whatever negative motivation they may harbor is just too frequent. Rape is no different. 

It is pretty horrifying to realize you share the same species as rapists, let alone the same gender, as if that somehow makes you culpable. It requires denying the prevalence, but is is a self defense mechanism. I believe that is the subconscious rationale behind things like victim blaming. How could he REALLY have known no meant now when she... or the lack of belief of victims or the assumption that the rates of rape are not real at that false claims are the more prevalent reality or the notion that he is such a good boy his life should not be ruined over THAT.


----------



## wild jade

No doesn't mean yes .... and yes doesn't mean no. 

If there are exceptions to this, then it's only within the confines of an established, trusting relationship, with rules, where something else might mean no.

It isn't really that hard to figure out.


----------



## personofinterest

TheDudeLebowski said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it's best to validate a womans feelings about rape instead of joking and then digging in one's heels. Some of us are rape survivors.
> 
> Compassion is an attractive quality.
> 
> 
> 
> So is humor. My sister is a rape survivor, and linked into that, I'm a survivor of what would have been murder/suicide if it weren't for a butterfly effect. Like I said, some people use humor as a coping mechanism. It is quite common. But often misunderstood as a lack of compassion for others. It is what it is. I'll always make jokes about serious subjects. I have no intention of changing this about myself. For some of us, its just how we get by, and it works for us for various different reasons depending on the person.
Click to expand...

 Believe it or not I use humor as a mechanism as well. The difference is that when I am made aware that my insistence upon humor is hurting someone else, I have the capacity to use those 2 little words I'm sorry. I realized that those 2 little words have fallen out of fashion lightly. But I still know how to use them.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> Believe it or not I use humor as a mechanism as well. The difference is that when I am made aware that my insistence upon humor is hurting someone else, I have the capacity to use those 2 little words I'm sorry. I realized that those 2 little words have fallen out of fashion lightly. But I still know how to use them.


Nobody said they were hurt by my joke. They just proceeded to call me fudged up. My sense of humor? Absolutely. My treatment of women, or "attitude of sexuality" not at all. 

We do live in an age of black and white thinking. I guess I'm not surprised. You are either one thing or another in 2018.


----------



## personofinterest

TheDudeLebowski said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not I use humor as a mechanism as well. The difference is that when I am made aware that my insistence upon humor is hurting someone else, I have the capacity to use those 2 little words I'm sorry. I realized that those 2 little words have fallen out of fashion lightly. But I still know how to use them.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they were hurt by my joke. They just proceeded to call me fudged up. My sense of humor? Absolutely. My treatment of women, or "attitude of sexuality" not at all.
> 
> We do live in an age of black and white thinking. I guess I'm not surprised. You are either one thing or another in 2018.
Click to expand...

 This is probably a very good example of man and women having different types of thought processes. A lot of times, when a woman suddenly goes from 0 to 60 for seemingly no reason, it's because something she has read or heard has felt like a punch in the gut, and because she doesn't feel safe to be vulnerable about being hurt, she just lashes back. I know sometimes I do that because in my experience if you say you are hurt someone will make fun of you, which hurts worse. So sometimes I have a tendency to lash back with sarcasm or harshness because it feels safer than it mitting that someone's words felt like a stinging slap in the face. I guess if a man lacks intuition or an understanding of how some women react when hurt, they would be completely unaware that their words hurt someone. Which, of course, means they don't have to say they're sorry at all.

We do live in a world of a lot of Gray areas. However, because the topic of consent has become so sensitive, if I were a smart man I probably wouldn't chance it with a new relationship and go ahead anyway. It may not seem black-and-white, but it could get I


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> This is probably a very good example of man and women having different types of thought processes. A lot of times, when a woman suddenly goes from 0 to 60 for seemingly no reason, it's because something she has read or heard has felt like a punch in the gut, and because she doesn't feel safe to be vulnerable about being hurt, she just lashes back. I know sometimes I do that because in my experience if you say you are hurt someone will make fun of you, which hurts worse. So sometimes I have a tendency to lash back with sarcasm or harshness because it feels safer than it mitting that someone's words felt like a stinging slap in the face. I guess if a man lacks intuition or an understanding of how some women react when hurt, they would be completely unaware that their words hurt someone. Which, of course, means they don't have to say they're sorry at all.
> 
> We do live in a world of a lot of Gray areas. However, because the topic of consent has become so sensitive, if I were a smart man I probably wouldn't chance it with a new relationship and go ahead anyway. It may not seem black-and-white, but it could get I


This sort of thing does not, personally, hurt my feelings. But I was just joking, you're too sensitive, get over it, I did not mean that have been part of a dismissive societal conversation for a very long time. I can't help note the difference between what I hear in RL like huh, I will think about that from another point of view, I wonder how my subconscious attitude participates in this societal conversation (open mindedness) and what I choose not to engage in in RL and elsewhere like Yah but that's not me, not my attitude, you are just... too sensitive, reading things in that aren't there (defensive). We happen to be talking about consent, but this defense mechanism is common among many people on many topics.


----------



## personofinterest

I will confess out right that when people are dismissive and basically laughing about the idea of consent, it does in fact hurt me. It pierces my heart and makes me think of all The Times that people I know were coerced into doing things they weren't comfortable with because someone thought no meant yes. I think of The Times that the man who molested me shook his head at how silly I was being when it was apparent I was uncomfortable with what he was doing. The dismissive attitude takes me straight back to all The Times I opened up to my ex husband hoping to form a connection only to have him laugh at me as if I were ridiculous. And even if all of those things seem silly to others, I think it behooves us all to Maybe take a minute and think about someone besides ourselves. Maybe we can be kinder when we see our mode of communication hurting someone instead of digging in our heels and throwing it back off on to the person who is hurt. In other words, maybe we all need to remember how to be human.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> I will confess out right that when people are dismissive and basically laughing about the idea of consent, it does in fact hurt me. It pierces my heart and makes me think of all The Times that people I know were coerced into doing things they weren't comfortable with because someone thought no meant yes. I think of The Times that the man who molested me shook his head at how silly I was being when it was apparent I was uncomfortable with what he was doing. The dismissive attitude takes me straight back to all The Times I opened up to my ex husband hoping to form a connection only to have him laugh at me as if I were ridiculous. And even if all of those things seem silly to others, I think it behooves us all to Maybe take a minute and think about someone besides ourselves. Maybe we can be kinder when we see our mode of communication hurting someone instead of digging in our heels and throwing it back off on to the person who is hurt. In other words, maybe we all need to remember how to be human.


I'm sorry.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> I'm sorry.



You are a very empathetic person, but you didn't do anything wrong or hurtful. I am just being very gut level transparent because I think I am probably not the only one who comes into these discussions with scars from their past. I'm not "messed up" in the sense that I blame myself, can't function, can't have relationships, etc. But there will always be a tender spot there that gets bruised when there is an implication that repeatedly pushing past the no is okay. Because while I am healed, I have not forgotten.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> No doesn't mean yes .... and yes doesn't mean no.
> 
> If there are exceptions to this, then it's only within the confines of an established, trusting relationship, with rules, where something else might mean no.
> 
> It isn't really that hard to figure out.


I agree. That's why I'm such a strong supporter of "No means No".

On the other hand, it *IS* sometimes hard to figure out if a woman is wants to stop just by reading her non-verbal cues.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> I will confess out right that when people are dismissive and basically laughing about the idea of consent, it does in fact hurt me. It pierces my heart and makes me think of all The Times that people I know were coerced into doing things they weren't comfortable with because someone thought no meant yes. I think of The Times that the man who molested me shook his head at how silly I was being when it was apparent I was uncomfortable with what he was doing. The dismissive attitude takes me straight back to all The Times I opened up to my ex husband hoping to form a connection only to have him laugh at me as if I were ridiculous. And even if all of those things seem silly to others, I think it behooves us all to Maybe take a minute and think about someone besides ourselves. Maybe we can be kinder when we see our mode of communication hurting someone instead of digging in our heels and throwing it back off on to the person who is hurt. In other words, maybe we all need to remember how to be human.


I, for one, am not dismissive or laughing about the idea of consent. How best to determine if consent is present is the question.

I am dismissive of the idea that we should depend on a man's ability to read the non-verbal cues to determine if consent is present and to base all of our efforts at curbing sexual abuse on men having this ability. And yes, many (most?) "affirmative consent" policies allow non-verbal cues.

I abhor the thought that I or any other man might be having sex with a woman who, unknown to the man, feels like she's being raped. The only way to avoid this is for the man to receive verbal consent at each and every escalation (which I think is impractical), or to employ the tried and true convention of "No means No". If some women truly feel that they are incapable of saying "No" when they do not want sex, then assertiveness training is called for.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I, for one, am not dismissive or laughing about the idea of consent. How best to determine if consent is present is the question.
> 
> I am dismissive of the idea that we should depend on a man's ability to read the non-verbal cues to determine if consent is present and to base all of our efforts at curbing sexual abuse on men having this ability. And yes, many (most?) "affirmative consent" policies allow non-verbal cues.
> 
> I abhor the thought that I or any other man might be having sex with a woman who, unknown to the man, feels like she's being raped. The only way to avoid this is for the man to receive verbal consent at each and every escalation (which I think is impractical), or to employ the tried and true convention of "No means No". If some women truly feel that they are incapable of saying "No" when they do not want sex, then assertiveness training is called for.


It really isn't this complicated, though. If the signs are murky and not clearly enthusiastic, if there is any hesitancy in the air, if she is not making any kind of verbal noise at all that can be considered positive, then the guy should stop and directly ask her for affirmation of consent. If she still cannot verbalize it, if she can't speak at all, or if she is hesitant...anything other than a "yes means yes"...then he should stop.

Stopping all action until both parties are assured of consent is all it takes.

I should think any guy could easily understand this. There is no need to read non verbal cues. There *is* a need to seek verbal affirmation of consent if it is not present. If a man's highest priority is his partner's well being, then there should be no reason he cannot stop if he isn't sure about consent and if she will not answer to affirm it. Just stop, say it has to be consensual for me to proceed, then that's it, go no further. 

Now - I'm not saying that assertiveness training isn't needed. But there are no women here pondering "how do I give consent in a proper way?" If there were, we would have those discussions with those women.


----------



## personofinterest

I think honestly the best MO is this: if in doubt, don't

Will that mean someone possibly "misses out" on some sex they maybe could have had? Probably. Will it greatly lessen the risk of being accused of something that could damage your life indefinitely? Absolutely

What I hear when I hear "If I hadn't pressed, I'd have missed that great lay" is that the "lay" is more important. I LOVE sex so I can empathize with really REALLY wanting to have some, but I'm not sure it's the best mindset.

I think it's even more tough for men in and around my age range (40ish and up). Cause back in the 80's and 90's if guys used the old "if you really love me you will/I'll die from blueballs/ come on baby you know you want it," it was perfectly fine. I mean, it WASN'T necessarily perfectly fine, but legally it was.

It ain't the 803 and 90s anymore. And whether we think the current climate is too restrictive or not, it IS the climate we live in. I think the 15 mph school speed limit on my work route is ridiculously slow, since back in MY day it was 35. But if I go 35 in the 15 mph zone....I risk getting a ticket.

So if you wanna live on the edge, then by all means think like an 80s college football player. If you want to protect yourself in 2018....not so much.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> It really isn't this complicated, though. If the signs are murky and not clearly enthusiastic, if there is any hesitancy in the air, if she is not making any kind of verbal noise at all that can be considered positive, then the guy should stop and directly ask her for affirmation of consent. If she still cannot verbalize it, if she can't speak at all, or if she is hesitant...anything other than a "yes means yes"...then he should stop.
> 
> Stopping all action until both parties are assured of consent is all it takes.
> 
> I should think any guy could easily understand this. There is no need to read non verbal cues. There *is* a need to seek verbal affirmation of consent if it is not present. * If a man's highest priority is his partner's well being, then there should be no reason he cannot stop if he isn't sure about consent and if she will not answer to affirm it. *Just stop, say it has to be consensual for me to proceed, then that's it, go no further.
> 
> Now - I'm not saying that assertiveness training isn't needed. But there are no women here pondering "how do I give consent in a proper way?" If there were, we would have those discussions with those women.


This is really basic and seems self evident, at least to any man who cares. I certainly have never had a problem with this. Even the nonverbals always seem pretty clear. It's not hard to detect a flinch or a pulling away if you're paying attention. Meanwhile if the buttons just got ripped off your shirt, proceed!

However, I have heard numerous women say that stopping to answer consent kills their mojo. Major turnoff. Theoretically, this can be rectified by making clear that the intent is to go all the way before festivities begin.


----------



## personofinterest

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> This is really basic and seems self evident, at least to any man who cares. I certainly have never had a problem with this. Even the nonverbals always seem pretty clear. It's not hard to detect a flinch or a pulling away if you're paying attention. Meanwhile if the buttons just got ripped off your shirt, proceed!
> 
> *However, I have heard numerous women say that stopping to answer consent kills their mojo. * Major turnoff. Theoretically, this can be rectified by making clear that the intent is to go all the way before festivities begin.


I'll be blunt. In this case the WOMAN needs to check herself. If you want women to be safe, then you cannot then be part of the problem by perpetuating the lack of clarity. You cannot say you are against rape and coercion and then punish a man for wanting to make sure he has consent.

I don't mean to be hard on these women, but when you decide it is a turnoff to give consent, you are sending mixed messages to men who are trying to do the right thing.

Part of having a "no means no" and "yes means yes" culture means the women have to step up and cooperate too.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Faithful Wife said:


> If the signs are murky and not clearly enthusiastic, if there is any hesitancy in the air, if she is not making any kind of verbal noise at all that can be considered positive, then the guy should stop and directly ask her for affirmation of consent.


This is the issue. It is very hard for anyone to measure enthusiasm, hesitancy, noises, etc. 

I have been married to the same woman for 30 years and can't tell. I can be rubbing her back and shoulders, maybe touching her butt. I get no response from her. Yet, when I stop, she will say, why did you stop?


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> i'll be blunt. In this case the woman needs to check herself. If you want women to be safe, then you cannot then be part of the problem by perpetuating the lack of clarity. You cannot say you are against rape and coercion and then punish a man for wanting to make sure he has consent.
> 
> I don't mean to be hard on these women, but when you decide it is a turnoff to give consent, you are sending mixed messages to men who are trying to do the right thing.
> 
> Part of having a "no means no" and "yes means yes" culture means the women have to step up and cooperate too.


this!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> This is really basic and seems self evident, at least to any man who cares. I certainly have never had a problem with this. Even the nonverbals always seem pretty clear. It's not hard to detect a flinch or a pulling away if you're paying attention. Meanwhile if the buttons just got ripped off your shirt, proceed!
> 
> However, *I have heard numerous women say that stopping to answer consent kills their mojo*. Major turnoff. Theoretically, this can be rectified by making clear that the intent is to go all the way before festivities begin.


But Rocky....this in bolded is simply something that has to be addressed, whether it kills her mojo or not. Sorry, sweetie! So the mood is killed just because you need to stop and give consent? Oh well, I am sorry it has to be this way, but I refuse to proceed with someone who refuses to express consent. If her mojo is killed and sex doesn't occur, great! That's a perfect opportunity for you to lay down your own boundaries and say "ok well next time, if you are saying that I should proceed no matter what you are saying or doing in the moment, then I will accept that as pre-meditated consent". Then get her verbal agreement that this is the rules you have set forth together. So that can apply for NEXT time and any future times. But she must be able to verbalize it at least once. 

We can't address hypothetical women who are this way. But we can give you (anyone reading) words and actions to use when IN that situation.

Other than arming men with those words to use in case they are in that situation, there's really nothing more complicated than that.

Rocky - I hope you will realize I am not saying this to you specifically but in a way, to all of the male posters who keep saying "but what about, but what about..." - every time we give the way to respond to a given situation, another man says "but what about this very specific example"? Then we answer how to handle that one. Then "but what about this other very specific example?" and we answer that one too....and then "what about..." all over again. And eventually we are answering the exact examples over again.

I and others really have answered them all. It just seems sort of - I dunno - like there is still a push back, no matter how many times we say it. Like men still want to keep saying that it is ambiguous, and that they don't know how to proceed, and that women change their minds and and and and and....

I feel like, can men not see that the answer to ANY situation that is not 100% clear is to simply stop?

Again - I think men are just not accustomed to thinking in terms of stopping. I think they are focused on finishing, and they are really only trying to get to the finish line (in the moment) and not considering "oh hey, any number of things could change and I will not be finishing here, so I should just slow down and see what direction this goes instead of trying to pile drive my way to only one conclusion".

I think men need to go from the mindset of "how do I get sex?" to the mindset of "I only have consensual sexual relations".

In the case of a woman who will lose her mojo because she has to stop and talk about consent related stuff, do you really want to be with a woman like that? What if refusing to talk about it is an indicator that she doesn't actually like any of it? What if refusing to talk about it is an indication that she will never ever talk about or be enthusiastic about any sex? Why would someone keep pursuing a woman who literally can't even speak intelligently about her own sexual life to a person she is having sex with?

I really think men should just avoid women like this, rather than keep asking "how do I get sex with her?"


----------



## Faithful Wife

SadSamIAm said:


> This is the issue. It is very hard for anyone to measure enthusiasm, hesitancy, noises, etc.
> 
> I have been married to the same woman for 30 years and can't tell. I can be rubbing her back and shoulders, maybe touching her butt. I get no response from her. Yet, when I stop, she will say, why did you stop?


You have trained her that it is ok with you for her to never ever speak of sex. She now has no reason to speak about any of it or show any sign.

However, if I were to guess just based on your history (if I recall it correctly) there is no genie in the bottle that you are going to unleash in her. It won't matter if she ever speaks about it or gives acknowledgment to what she likes or doesn't like. She isn't going to be any more sexual with you than she is right now. WYSIWYG.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I'll be blunt. In this case the WOMAN needs to check herself. If you want women to be safe, then you cannot then be part of the problem by perpetuating the lack of clarity. You cannot say you are against rape and coercion and then punish a man for wanting to make sure he has consent.
> 
> I don't mean to be hard on these women, but when you decide it is a turnoff to give consent, you are sending mixed messages to men who are trying to do the right thing.
> 
> Part of having a "no means no" and "yes means yes" culture means the women have to step up and cooperate too.


And if we have women here asking about best practices regarding consent, we will tell them this.

But since we do not, we have only men saying "what do I do when she won't say anything?" then our only option is to say "you don't proceed until or unless she does say something".

We can't give the advice "oh well, she should have said something and since she didn't, you were within your rights to proceed however you wanted to". I know that is not what you are saying, but I'm just pointing out that arming the guys with what to say in the case of an uneducated woman is what needs to happen. Hammering on the women (who aren't here and haven't asked and are hypothetical) because they need to "step up" is kind of pointless here. Those women aren't here. The men who may deal with them are.


----------



## personofinterest

Faithful Wife said:


> And if we have women here asking about best practices regarding consent, we will tell them this.
> 
> But since we do not, we have only men saying "what do I do when she won't say anything?" then our only option is to say "you don't proceed until or unless she does say something".
> 
> We can't give the advice "oh well, she should have said something and since she didn't, you were within your rights to proceed however you wanted to". I know that is not what you are saying, but I'm just pointing out that arming the guys with what to say in the case of an uneducated woman is what needs to happen. Hammering on the women (who aren't here and haven't asked and are hypothetical) because they need to "step up" is kind of pointless here. Those women aren't here. The men who may deal with them are.


This is really neat and all, and I agree, but I'm not sure why the correction and argument was necessary. I was responding to a statement made by a poster about some women, and I was expressing my opinion on THOSE women. I wasn't saying it as if a bunch of faceless women were going to magically read it.

Again, not sure why I needed to be corrected when all I did was express my opinion about women who say they are turned off by giving consent. I mean, it didn't really invite argument - color me confused.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> And if we have women here asking about best practices regarding consent, we will tell them this.
> 
> But since we do not, we have only men saying "what do I do when she won't say anything?" then our only option is to say "you don't proceed until or unless she does say something".
> 
> We can't give the advice "oh well, she should have said something and since she didn't, you were within your rights to proceed however you wanted to". I know that is not what you are saying, but I'm just pointing out that arming the guys with what to say in the case of an uneducated woman is what needs to happen. Hammering on the women (who aren't here and haven't asked and are hypothetical) because they need to "step up" is kind of pointless here. Those women aren't here. The men who may deal with them are.


Is it really that hard to say "no"? When men are repeatedly told that women don't want to be asked for a kiss and prefer the man to take charge, then there should be responsibility on the part of women to be able to say a single syllable. Mind reading is hard, especially with women! 

At the same time, I can kind of tell if a woman isn't in to it and I'll back off, but there seems to be grey areas where men are accused of rape when they sincerely had no idea. Then you have a he said, she said incident where no one knows what the hell happened, not even the participants. Are we really to the point where people have sign waivers or keep VAR's on them so they don't fall prey to this?


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> This is really neat and all, and I agree, but I'm not sure why the correction and argument was necessary. I was responding to a statement made by a poster about some women, and I was expressing my opinion on THOSE women. I wasn't saying it as if a bunch of faceless women were going to magically read it.
> 
> Again, not sure why I needed to be corrected when all I did was express my opinion about women who say they are turned off by giving consent. I mean, it didn't really invite argument - color me confused.


No I'm not correcting. I'm just pointing out that although it is true that women need to stand up and also we all should educate them as best we can...when a man hears "she should step up" as the response to "what do I do if she doesn't say anything" then he still will not have an answer as to what HE should do and he may think "well she should have stepped up and didn't so it is all on her".

So I'm pointing out that those guys in that position still do have an answer of what THEY should do in that scenario. They should end all proceedings until she either gives affirmative consent or if she doesn't, then the activity is over. That's the answer on how to respond in that situation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Is it really that hard to say "no"? When men are repeatedly told that women don't want to be asked for a kiss and prefer the man to take charge, then there should be responsibility on the part of women to be able to say a single syllable. Mind reading is hard, especially with women!
> 
> At the same time, I can kind of tell if a woman isn't in to it and I'll back off, but there seems to be grey areas where men are accused of rape when they sincerely had no idea. Then you have a he said, she said incident where no one knows what the hell happened, not even the participants. *Are we really to the point where people have sign waivers or keep VAR's on them so they don't fall prey to this?*


Nope. All that has to happen is that no one will proceed if their partner is not giving affirmation of consent. If he or she isn't, simply don't proceed. Is it really that hard to understand this?

If you have a partner who is so uneducated about consent that they are giving no signal or fuzzy signals or they seem to expect you to read their mind, then simply do not move forward with them sexually until or unless they are able to give affirmative consent. It is that simple.


----------



## personofinterest

Faithful Wife said:


> No I'm not correcting. I'm just pointing out that although it is true that women need to stand up and also we all should educate them as best we can...when a man hears "she should step up" as the response to "what do I do if she doesn't say anything" then he still will not have an answer as to what HE should do and he may think "well she should have stepped up and didn't so it is all on her".
> 
> So I'm pointing out that those guys in that position still do have an answer of what THEY should do in that scenario. They should end all proceedings until she either gives affirmative consent or if she doesn't, then the activity is over. That's the answer on how to respond in that situation.


Again, I agree, but that was NOT the thread of thought. I agree that men should take a no as a no. A poster then said "but someone women say it kills their mojo." I then responded that a woman who feels this way is being counterproductive and she needs to stop reacting that way.

In no way did ANYTHING I said indicate that if women don't step up, men should just proceed anyway. That doesn't even make sense.

Men should always accept a no. If they feel hesitant, they should ask. If a woman is going to get "turned off" just because a man wants to do the right thing, then SHE needs to adjust her thinking.

There was no actual or implied idea that women not stepping up gives men a free pass.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> There was no actual or implied idea that women not stepping up gives men a free pass.


Yes, I know you did not and I didn't mean to imply that is what you meant.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> But Rocky....this in bolded is simply something that has to be addressed, whether it kills her mojo or not. Sorry, sweetie! So the mood is killed just because you need to stop and give consent? Oh well, I am sorry it has to be this way, but I refuse to proceed with someone who refuses to express consent. If her mojo is killed and sex doesn't occur, great! That's a perfect opportunity for you to lay down your own boundaries and say "ok well next time, if you are saying that I should proceed no matter what you are saying or doing in the moment, then I will accept that as pre-meditated consent". Then get her verbal agreement that this is the rules you have set forth together. So that can apply for NEXT time and any future times. But she must be able to verbalize it at least once.
> 
> We can't address hypothetical women who are this way. But we can give you (anyone reading) words and actions to use when IN that situation.
> 
> Other than arming men with those words to use in case they are in that situation, there's really nothing more complicated than that.
> 
> Rocky - I hope you will realize I am not saying this to you specifically but in a way, to all of the male posters who keep saying "but what about, but what about..." - every time we give the way to respond to a given situation, another man says "but what about this very specific example"? Then we answer how to handle that one. Then "but what about this other very specific example?" and we answer that one too....and then "what about..." all over again. And eventually we are answering the exact examples over again.
> 
> I and others really have answered them all. It just seems sort of - I dunno - like there is still a push back, no matter how many times we say it. Like men still want to keep saying that it is ambiguous, and that they don't know how to proceed, and that women change their minds and and and and and....
> 
> I feel like, can men not see that the answer to ANY situation that is not 100% clear is to simply stop?
> 
> Again - I think men are just not accustomed to thinking in terms of stopping. I think they are focused on finishing, and they are really only trying to get to the finish line (in the moment) and not considering "oh hey, any number of things could change and I will not be finishing here, so I should just slow down and see what direction this goes instead of trying to pile drive my way to only one conclusion".
> 
> I think men need to go from the mindset of "how do I get sex?" to the mindset of "I only have consensual sexual relations".
> 
> In the case of a woman who will lose her mojo because she has to stop and talk about consent related stuff, do you really want to be with a woman like that? What if refusing to talk about it is an indicator that she doesn't actually like any of it? What if refusing to talk about it is an indication that she will never ever talk about or be enthusiastic about any sex? Why would someone keep pursuing a woman who literally can't even speak intelligently about her own sexual life to a person she is having sex with?
> 
> I really think men should just avoid women like this, rather than keep asking "how do I get sex with her?"


 @faithfulwife,
No offense taken by any part of your response. All good stuff.

In fact, I'm going back into popcorn mode on this one. Really, my combination of 32 years with the same woman, and never having had any problem understanding any of what you say before that, means I really don't have much value to add to this discussion. I just found it somewhat interesting as it follows changes in societal norms. That and I have three young adult children who are probably facing these issues.

Not knowing the current sexual landscape firsthand, I was very adamant about raising all my kids, but my girls in particular to be assertive. No shrinking wallflowers in our house! Interestingly, it seems, at least from outside appearances, that both of the consistently "wear the pants" in all their relationships. Not that there's anything wrong with that (okay, that's my cliche for the day), but being a strong leader type myself, it just feels natural to think it's best for my girls to pair up with a strong type themselves. But they're smart girls, and well grounded for the most part, so I give them credit for being able to manage their own lives. I did my part. It's up to them now.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope. All that has to happen is that no one will proceed if their partner is not giving affirmation of consent. If he or she isn't, simply don't proceed. Is it really that hard to understand this?
> 
> If you have a partner who is so uneducated about consent that they are giving no signal or fuzzy signals or they seem to expect you to read their mind, then simply do not move forward with them sexually until or unless they are able to give affirmative consent. It is that simple.


"Excuse me miss, I know you came home with me and I know you are disrobing, but I will require your consent for sex."

Geez, no one is getting laid with you crazies.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

great discussion ladies! I have always had trouble with reading nonverbal cues preceding sexy time so I just asked before proceeding, "are you sure that you want to continue in this direction?" which is usually followed by a "YES!" and her hand reaching for my belt/pants. I have read that some women get turned off by being asked for consent but my own anecdotal experience says that asking for consent in a way that that is non presumptuous gets me more enthusiastic sex which is what gets me off.....enthusiasm.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> "Excuse me miss, I know you came home with me and I know you are disrobing, but I will require your consent for sex."
> 
> Geez, no one is getting laid with you crazies.


See now, that looks a lot like the unfounded hysteria that surrounds this issue. 

There's nothing fuzzy or ambiguous about that particular nonverbal. When clothes start hitting the floor without you ripping them off, you're being waved in.


----------



## Faithful Wife

PigglyWiggly said:


> great discussion ladies! I have always had trouble with reading nonverbal cues preceding sexy time so I just asked before proceeding, "are you sure that you want to continue in this direction?" which is usually followed by a "YES!" and her hand reaching for my belt/pants. I have read that some women get turned off by being asked for consent but my own anecdotal experience says that asking for consent in a way that that is non presumptuous gets me more enthusiastic sex which is what gets me off.....enthusiasm.


I think the problem is that some men don't want to ask because they are afraid the action will stop, as she may not say yes if asked. So they would rather wander down a murky path of reluctance.

Also, in the case of women who are going to be turned off by having to answer, again he just doesn't want the action to stop so he doesn't insist she answer.

I think your partner's well being should always be a higher priority than whether or not a topic is a boner killer for either of you. There are things that must be discussed whether boners are killed or not. 

Clearly these issues do not apply to you. :laugh:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> See now, that looks a lot like the unfounded hysteria that surrounds this issue.
> 
> There's nothing fuzzy or ambiguous about that particular nonverbal. When clothes start hitting the floor without you ripping them off, you're being waved in.


Right, and I don't know why scenarios like this are thrown into the discussion. Again it just feels like, we are making ourselves very clear, but some men want to keep pretending that it is not clear.


----------



## personofinterest

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> "Excuse me miss, I know you came home with me and I know you are disrobing, but I will require your consent for sex."
> 
> Geez, no one is getting laid with you crazies.


I read a comment similar to this one upthread. I mean, surely this is tongue-in-cheek, right? There are all kinds of non-awkward ways to ascertain consent.

This overly awkward hypothetical seems like a way to deflect from personal responsibility.

You don't have to say "May we please have the sex now" to have consent. Just like you don't need to use clinical medical terminology or have a pad of consent forms in your pocket. All those remarks are just dismissive and silly.

If you are making out with a woman and she seems to slow down, stiffen, pull away a bit, or something in your gut just say "uh oh," just pull back and say, "You good, honey?". If she nods, then you go back to kissing.

It;s really not that hard.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> See now, that looks a lot like the unfounded hysteria that surrounds this issue.
> 
> There's nothing fuzzy or ambiguous about that particular nonverbal. When clothes start hitting the floor without you ripping them off, you're being waved in.


Are you sure? What if you are disrobing her and she is just moaning? Is that being waved in or do I need to get her signature?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Are you sure? What if you are disrobing her and she is just moaning? Is that being waved in or do I need to get her signature?


If you think about it hard enough, you can come up with plenty of ambiguous scenarios. If ambiguous, make sure it's okay as described in some of the above posts. The question can be asked and answered in a matter of three seconds with no real disruption in flow (unless of course the answer is no in which case it's a good thing you stopped and asked!).


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> If you think about it hard enough, you can come up with plenty of ambiguous scenarios. If ambiguous, make sure it's okay as described in some of the above posts. The question can be asked and answered in a matter of three seconds with no real disruption in flow (unless of course the answer is no in which case it's a good thing you stopped and asked!).


if she says "no" when asked for consent and you don't sulk or bully her, you are probably getting laid later that night or the next date for sure. In my experience, when a woman feels that you respect her "no", it makes her feel safe with you and valued as more than a sex object. It's like an aphrodisiac and has never failed me. YMMV.


----------



## personofinterest

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Are you sure? What if you are disrobing her and she is just moaning? Is that being waved in or do I need to get her signature?


If you do not know the answer to this question, you need to remain single.

Thing is, you DO know the answer to this question. You are just choosing to once again dismiss the idea and importance of consent.

Have fun with that.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

personofinterest said:


> I think honestly the best MO is this: if in doubt, don't
> 
> Will that mean someone possibly "misses out" on some sex they maybe could have had? Probably. Will it greatly lessen the risk of being accused of something that could damage your life indefinitely? Absolutely
> 
> What I hear when I hear "If I hadn't pressed, I'd have missed that great lay" is that the "lay" is more important. I LOVE sex so I can empathize with really REALLY wanting to have some, but I'm not sure it's the best mindset.
> 
> I think it's even more tough for men in and around my age range (40ish and up). Cause back in the 80's and 90's if guys used the old "if you really love me you will/I'll die from blueballs/ come on baby you know you want it," it was perfectly fine. I mean, it WASN'T necessarily perfectly fine, but legally it was.
> 
> It ain't the 803 and 90s anymore. And whether we think the current climate is too restrictive or not, it IS the climate we live in. I think the 15 mph school speed limit on my work route is ridiculously slow, since back in MY day it was 35. But if I go 35 in the 15 mph zone....I risk getting a ticket.
> 
> So if you wanna live on the edge, then by all means think like an 80s college football player. If you want to protect yourself in 2018....not so much.



I've never said any of those things or believe if for myself. I did lose some girlfriends back in the day because I didn't make a move fast enough as a matter of fact. Which is fine by me as I'm not in to casual sex. I think sex is a bonding experience between two people who are committed. 

There is a Louis C.K. bit (yes I know what he did, not excusing his actions) that is called "of course, but maybe" which is a very good, and very real thought process i have. You can google it and get linked to YouTube for a video if you want. I can't help but have dark thoughts. I've lived a dark existance. 

A formal apology to you PoI. I am sorry you had the experiences you have had in life. My dark humor is in no way a means to discount or to be demeaning of your own experiences. I do have empathy for others. I have a wife, and a daughter. I'm a huge proponent of capital punishment and castration for those convicted of aggravated sexual assault and rape. 

I grew up in a house with sexual, mental, and physical abuse, not to mention suicide, extreme poverty, drug abuse, and crime, amongst other things. Despite this, I dont mind jokes about these subjects. They don't bother me at all. I sometimes lose sight of the fact that others are in fact bothered by it. That isn't to say I'm going to change my own coping mechanism however. Maybe just try to be more sensitive to others and clarify jokes as such. I do think people are becoming too soft these days though. So there is that. You will just have to get used to TheDude. I honeslty don't mean anything by it. 

I'm sorry if I offended you.


----------



## 269370

Also, morning after regret, is not the same as rape. 
A more experienced and driven guy is risking quite a lot with an unexperienced girl these days.
I was never really that driven that it would have been an issue early on (I was inexperienced); now however, I am much more driven and could picture scenarios, where perhaps this could become an issue where it's not clear whether you have been 'given' consent or not. Still, in a new relationship, it's better to be careful and in theory, you should be ok.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Again, I agree, but that was NOT the thread of thought. I agree that men should take a no as a no. A poster then said "but someone women say it kills their mojo." I then responded that a woman who feels this way is being counterproductive and she needs to stop reacting that way.
> 
> In no way did ANYTHING I said indicate that if women don't step up, men should just proceed anyway. That doesn't even make sense.
> 
> Men should always accept a no. If they feel hesitant, they should ask. If a woman is going to get "turned off" just because a man wants to do the right thing, then SHE needs to adjust her thinking.
> 
> There was no actual or implied idea that women not stepping up gives men a free pass.



The problem is that a woman (especially an inexperienced one) might feel self conscious that she might be giving out the impression that she is 'loose' by consenting or acting like she is eager for you to have sex with her. 
We are talking about millions of years of men pursuing women, and sometimes pursuing hard, without saying words or talking.

I am trying to remember now how it was with my wife, when we started fooling around...
I remember the first time I kissed her it was outside, in the rain, and being surprised that she kissed me back with so much enthusiasm (it felt like I should have been giving *her* consent...). 

But then when we went inside, I took her top off and did the 'wandering hand' kind of thing. She put my hand away as it was approaching areas below her stomach, but she was still kissing me enthusiastically. So I did it a couple more times (I think; it's been like 20 now), to check, maybe she made a mistake, but same thing happened. So I stopped it and just focused where I *had* 'permission' which was everything above stomach.

I definitely cannot envisage how I could have stopped and asked or said anything at all because it would have been just so weird...or her giving any kind of verbal confirmation at the time that it was ok for me to grab her boobs but leave her crotch alone. I mean seriously. 

I asked her about it years later (what was up with not letting me near her crotch area) and she said that apparently, she really wanted to but basically didn't want to seem 'too easy' (as that's how she was brought up apparently). I am pretty sure that she would have viewed giving consent as being 'too easy' too. Back then, this wasn't even a topic.

I have no idea what the solution is; I do think that on balance, you may have to rely on your instincts. There were other girls with whom I was hesitant when making out (I didn't find them attractive), also virgins/inexperienced. And because of my 'hesitations', they basically felt 'unwanted' and went to **** other people pretty much straight after, to get some 'reassurance' (and that's not my interpretation of events, it's what got back to me from the friends they ended up ****ing).

This 'consent' thing, seems to be getting slightly ahead of itself.

While it is very clear that one should not proceed when there is a clear 'no', I really do not think that one should *not* proceed, until you have 'explicit and verbal consent'. Because somebody may not feel comfortable being asked for or giving consent. So I think we need some perspective here...


----------



## personofinterest

There seems to be a lot of speculation about what a woman might really main as opposed to what she says or what she displays, at cetera. If you are in a long term relationship or marriage, I think there is some wiggle room here because you know the person so well. However, in the early stages of dating, which is where 99% of these things can occur, it's better to just err on the safe side. It's never a good Idea to try to speculate about what a person might mean or might think when you do not know them very well yet. So instead of trying to figure out what secret thing might be going through a woman's head, just be careful. It's not that hard


----------



## wild jade

personofinterest said:


> So instead of trying to figure out what secret thing might be going through a woman's head, just be careful. It's not that hard


Or just ask her.

Also not hard.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> Or just ask her.
> 
> 
> 
> Also not hard.




I don’t know if you met women before  but they don’t always say what they want or don’t like being asked and even sometimes say the opposite (reverse psychology type of thing).
It really isn’t that straightforward sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> wild jade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or just ask her.
> 
> 
> 
> Also not hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know if you met women before  but they don’t always say what they want or don’t like being asked and even sometimes say the opposite (reverse psychology type of thing).
> It really isn’t that straightforward sometimes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 If a man wants to play guessing roulette with some woman he hardly knows, have added. I would recommend against it though.

By the way, the comment above is exactly what women are talking about when they get exasperated with men thinking they know women better than women n women.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> There seems to be a lot of speculation about what a woman might really main as opposed to what she says or what she displays, at cetera. If you are in a long term relationship or marriage, I think there is some wiggle room here because you know the person so well. However, in the early stages of dating, which is where 99% of these things can occur, it's better to just err on the safe side. It's never a good Idea to try to speculate about what a person might mean or might think when you do not know them very well yet. So instead of trying to figure out what secret thing might be going through a woman's head, just be careful. It's not that hard




What I described above was the first time encounter. And I found it easier to figure out what she wanted / didn’t want back then (which was already pretty hard). Nowadays, it’s a total mystery and talking (in the moment) is mostly counter productive. I will get a funny look in best case scenario, or a kick out of the bedroom in worst.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> If a man wants to play guessing roulette with some woman he hardly knows, have added. I would recommend against it though.
> 
> By the way, the comment above is exactly what women are talking about when they get exasperated with men thinking they know women better than women n women.



That comment / joke implies the opposite actually. Unless one generally dislikes men, one wouldn’t come to that conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

SadSamIAm said:


> This is the issue. It is very hard for anyone to measure enthusiasm, hesitancy, noises, etc.
> 
> I have been married to the same woman for 30 years and can't tell. I can be rubbing her back and shoulders, maybe touching her butt. I get no response from her. Yet, when I stop, she will say, why did you stop?


I mostly disagree with the hard to measure responses. When single it wasn't a problem once I cleared 15 or 16yrs. 13 to 15 I was indeed clueless, that's for sure and let the girls lead.

Married over 30yrs now, it's also not hard with dear W. There are many imaginative ways for us to be clear of intent and it's our rule to not turn each other down. Everyone's interactions if good for them is obviously ok. I can say I don't touch Ws butt, I grab it firmly or similar. 

I certainly don't think I'm unique in these understandings.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> It really isn't this complicated, though. If the signs are murky and not clearly enthusiastic, if there is any hesitancy in the air, if she is not making any kind of verbal noise at all that can be considered positive, then the guy should stop and directly ask her for affirmation of consent. If she still cannot verbalize it, if she can't speak at all, or if she is hesitant...anything other than a "yes means yes"...then he should stop.
> 
> Stopping all action until both parties are assured of consent is all it takes.





personofinterest said:


> I think honestly the best MO is this: if in doubt, don't


I am obviously having a hard time explaining what I mean.

You both seem to be making the assumption that if the man isn't sure if he has consent. If this is the case, you think he should stop. I agree.

The problem is *if the man is sure he has consent but is wrong*. In this case, why would he stop? He has no doubts and believes he has consent. If this is the case, why would he stop?

It seems that women believe that a man could never get it this wrong. But, they can. They do. This is why we can't count on a man's judgement of a woman's consent. He's just guessing if she want sex or not. She *knows*.



personofinterest said:


> What I hear when I hear "If I hadn't pressed, I'd have missed that great lay" is that the "lay" is more important.


Where do you hear "If I hadn't pressed. I'd have missed a great lay"? Not on this thread. I think men would tend to regret sex with women who were eager to have sex rather than regretting not having sex with a woman who wasn't interested. 



personofinterest said:


> Cause back in the 80's and 90's if guys used the old "if you really love me you will/I'll die from blueballs/ come on baby you know you want it," it was perfectly fine. I mean, it WASN'T necessarily perfectly fine, but legally it was.


I think this is/was a tactic employed by teenagers when dealing with young women who were not sexually active yet. It is/was a loathsome practice, but I don't think it is/was used by sexually active men with sexually active women.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope. All that has to happen is that no one will proceed if their partner is not giving affirmation of consent. If he or she isn't, simply don't proceed. Is it really that hard to understand this?
> 
> If you have a partner who is so uneducated about consent that they are giving no signal or fuzzy signals or they seem to expect you to read their mind, then simply do not move forward with them sexually until or unless they are able to give affirmative consent. It is that simple.


I understand that the above will reduce the amount of unwanted sex.

I also understand that a woman saying "No" and the man stopping as a result will reduce the amount of unwanted sex.

The question is, why does it have to be the first?

The problem seems to be woman having sex when they don't want to.

Why should this be on the man and not the woman (who, after all, is the person who knows that whether or not they want to have sex)?

Sure, men shouldn't want to have sex with women who are not into it.

But women also shouldn't want to have sex if they're not into it either.

So why the men? Do women not have agency? Why is it the man's responsibility to determine what women want?

I mean, I could understand if it was children we were dealing with........


----------



## katiecrna

Buddy400 said:


> I understand that the above will reduce the amount of unwanted sex.
> 
> 
> 
> I also understand that a woman saying "No" and the man stopping as a result will reduce the amount of unwanted sex.
> 
> 
> 
> The question is, why does it have to be the first?
> 
> 
> 
> The problem seems to be woman having sex when they don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should this be on the man and not the woman (who, after all, is the person who knows that whether or not they want to have sex)?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, men shouldn't want to have sex with women who are not into it.
> 
> 
> 
> But women also shouldn't want to have sex if they're not into it either.
> 
> 
> 
> So why the men? Do women not have agency? Why is it the man's responsibility to determine what women want?
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, I could understand if it was children we were dealing with........




In the court of law if the women didn’t tell the man to stop then there is no case. In real life... your a jerk if you keep pursuing and she is resistant, or seems unsure whether or not she said stop because some women are docile, shy, easily pressured, maybe under the influence or whatever. Yes she SHOULD use her words, yes she SHOULD say what she wants and she SHOULD know what she wants, but the reality is it’s not like that.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

katiecrna said:


> In the court of law if the women didn’t tell the man to stop then there is no case. In real life... your a jerk if you keep pursuing and she is resistant, or seems unsure whether or not she said stop because some women are docile, shy, easily pressured, maybe under the influence or whatever. *Yes she SHOULD use her words, yes she SHOULD say what she wants and she SHOULD know what she wants, but the reality is it’s not like that*.



*SHE *doesn't sound like she is mature enough to be having sex.


----------



## uhtred

Actively kissing someone clearly gives consent for continued sexual activity. Pushing your hand away shows a lack of consent for where your had was going. 

You were fine moving the hand again later because she was in general consenting by active kissing. If she wanted you to never move your had there, she could have told you, - for example if she said "no, don't do that", then you should have stopped. Note: "don't do that" is different from "not now". 

In general though if someone is actively participating, I think it is safe to assume that they are in general consenting. (excepting various bizarre scenarios that someone could concoct). 




inmyprime said:


> snip
> 
> But then when we went inside, I took her top off and did the 'wandering hand' kind of thing. She put my hand away as it was approaching areas below her stomach, but she was still kissing me enthusiastically. So I did it a couple more times (I think; it's been like 20 now), to check, maybe she made a mistake, but same thing happened. So I stopped it and just focused where I *had* 'permission' which was everything above stomach.
> snip
> .


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. All that has to happen is that no one will proceed if their partner is not giving affirmation of consent. If he or she isn't, simply don't proceed. Is it really that hard to understand this?
> 
> If you have a partner who is so uneducated about consent that they are giving no signal or fuzzy signals or they seem to expect you to read their mind, then simply do not move forward with them sexually until or unless they are able to give affirmative consent. It is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the above will reduce the amount of unwanted sex.
> 
> I also understand that a woman saying "No" and the man stopping as a result will reduce the amount of unwanted sex.
> 
> The question is, why does it have to be the first?
> 
> The problem seems to be woman having sex when they don't want to.
> 
> Why should this be on the man and not the woman (who, after all, is the person who knows that whether or not they want to have sex)?
> 
> Sure, men shouldn't want to have sex with women who are not into it.
> 
> But women also shouldn't want to have sex if they're not into it either.
> 
> So why the men? Do women not have agency? Why is it the man's responsibility to determine what women want?
> 
> I mean, I could understand if it was children we were dealing with........
Click to expand...

She has agency and she should use it.

If she is not educated in how to use it, she may give off weak or nonexistent signals.

All I am saying is that for men who find themselves with a woman who will not give clear consent, to protect himself and her, he should stop and ask for affirmation.

However, if he isn’t educated in stopping without clear consent and she isn’t educated in how to express a clear yes or no, then both of these people are potentially going to have a misunderstanding.

Here on this thread, we do not have women who are saying they are confused about using their agency.

But we do have men saying they are confused about how to handle an encounter with a woman who does not express affirmative consent. We have given words and actions to use in those situations.

So it seems this should be clear. 

Yes women need to use and understand agency. But there are none here who don’t know how to do that, so why would we focus on that part of the “problem”. The men here who have a problem reading non verbal cue from women (which is totally understandable because men are not mind readers) are the ones who keep saying but what about this situation and what about that one? Our answers are the same over and over.

We can say sure she needs to use her words and actions more assertively, but if she doesn’t and you now have been educated to seek verbal affirmation and stop all activity unless you get it, then what is the point of continuing to ask what to do about non verbal cues or lack of self awareness? We have answered this clearly.

The hypothetical woman who doesn’t know how to assert herself isn’t here to educate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

By the way @Buddy400 ....in various threads in the past, I have seen women saying they don’t like to talk about it because it spoils the mood and they want men to just go for it. Depending on the context, in some cases I have pushed back on those threads and said I feel it isn’t fair to put all that on the man. And the open communication is necessary and if a man is asking for it, that’s a good thing. And I’ve provided examples of how to open up without it being a mood killer.

But some of these women are talking about within a relationship and not while dating, which is what I meant about context. 

Some really were talking about dating and on those I left my opinion about good communication and consent.


----------



## personofinterest

> The problem is if the man is sure he has consent but is wrong. In this case, why would he stop? He has no doubts and believes he has consent. If this is the case, why would he stop?


This sentence is so contradictory. Basically it seems to be saying, if I believe I have consent I should forge ahead and tough luck. However, I know that isn't what it is saying.

I will guess here: you are asking what to do when EVERYTHING a woman is doing (sounds, participation, positive body language, etc.) screams clear consent....but after the fact you find out, oops, her moaning and writhing and kissing back and enjoyment DIDN'T actually mean consent. You were wrong.

Okay, I am putting up my pink hat shield here, but.....

If a woman very obviously enjoyed herself (I don't mean physical orgasm, I mean audible, body language, participation signs of enjoyment), put up zero barriers, and fully participated....you did NOT rape her or violate her boundaries. If she claims you DID after such an encounter, she is using morning-after regret to falsely accuse you. Or she is just clueless. In either case, I would be very hard pressed to say you did anything wrong. I would not support a woman in this situation (who was sober) saying she was violated after the fact, regardless of the fact that we both have vaginas.

You do the best you can to act with integrity without blurring the lines in your favor, and that is all you can really do.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Faithful Wife said:


> She has agency and she should use it.
> 
> If she is not educated in how to use it, she may give off weak or nonexistent signals.
> 
> All I am saying is that for men who find themselves with a woman who will not give clear consent, to protect himself and her, he should stop and ask for affirmation.
> 
> However, if he isn’t educated in stopping without clear consent and she isn’t educated in how to express a clear yes or no, then both of these people are potentially going to have a misunderstanding.
> 
> Here on this thread, we do not have women who are saying they are confused about using their agency.
> 
> But we do have men saying they are confused about how to handle an encounter with a woman who does not express affirmative consent. We have given words and actions to use in those situations.
> 
> So it seems this should be clear.
> 
> Yes women need to use and understand agency. But there are none here who don’t know how to do that, so why would we focus on that part of the “problem”. The men here who have a problem reading non verbal cue from women (which is totally understandable because men are not mind readers) are the ones who keep saying but what about this situation and what about that one? Our answers are the same over and over.
> 
> We can say sure she needs to use her words and actions more assertively, but if she doesn’t and *you now have been educated to seek verbal affirmation and stop all activity unless you get it*, then what is the point of continuing to ask what to do about non verbal cues or lack of self awareness? We have answered this clearly.
> 
> The hypothetical woman who doesn’t know how to assert herself isn’t here to educate.


I have never needed to know more than the bolded. 

"What if I am an Alpha, she is wearing red shoes, watches porn and is a gold digger?" Refer to the bolded above


----------



## happyhusband0005

As a man I have never understood the approach to push a woman or try to convince her to have sex. I think there is a subset of the male population who have such egos they seem to have a hard time imagining that a woman would not want to have sex with them so they think If she just goes with it she will have the best sex of her life with me and thank me after. The group of men also have little to no respect for women. 

I think those men need to be re-educated to understand that manipulating a woman into sex is good for no one. And we need to figure out how to raise our girls to know they don't need to and shouldn't have sex with a guy just because he's begging and if she feels even a little uncomfortable to leave the situation. Scumbags will use a wishy washy no to say she didn't say no she said she wasn't sure but she didn't fight me so I thought she was ok with it. I have known one girl in my life who was raped (or at least was open about being raped) and I also know a guy who was accused only to have the accuser recant days before his trial began. 

The big thing men need to understand is that if there is not clear consent or if there is even a little bit of uneasiness on a womans part it is best to pull back and reassess. 

Also if I were single I would never have a one night stand with a woman who was drunk.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Actively kissing someone clearly gives consent for continued sexual activity.


Actively kissing gives consent for... actively kissing.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> It seems that women believe that a man could never get it this wrong. But, they can. They do. This is why we can't count on a man's judgement of a woman's consent. He's just guessing if she want sex or not. She *knows*.




I don’t think the guy should always assume that actually. First of all, how could an inexperienced woman know what she wants? She hasn’t done it before!
If I was with a virgin and had consent but noticed she was too nervous or her legs were shaking or something else, I would probably just say we should wait till it’s a better moment and goof around instead or do some other virgin stuff, like anal or something (joking).

And yeah...this is gonna be an endless discussions because there are unlimited ifs and butts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

> If I was with a virgin and had consent but noticed she was too nervous or her legs were shaking or something else, I would probably just say we should wait till it’s a better moment and good around instead or something.


This is because you are a man with integrity on this issue.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> So why the men? Do women not have agency?.



Yes, and if she has agency, I would call them and ask 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

happyhusband0005 said:


> As a man I have never understood the approach to push a woman or try to convince her to have sex. I think there is a subset of the male population who have such egos they seem to have a hard time imagining that a woman would not want to have sex with them so they think If she just goes with it she will have the best sex of her life with me and thank me after. The group of men also have little to no respect for women.


This is true, but there is another subset (some of who we are hearing from on this thread) who actually assume the woman doesn't want sex at all, and/or that she doesn't know if she wants sex, or that she may say no when she means maybe because she is not self aware. So this guy's reasons for "pushing for more" are different than the type of guy you described above.

The type of guy you described is less likely to seek to be educated and more likely to ignore education.

The type of guy I described is more likely to seek education but still may never quite feel at ease in sexual situations because they still don't believe she actually wants sex (or in some cases, he knows for certain that she doesn't and he keeps hoping there are some words or actions that will make her want to and they seek education mostly because of that).

This post isn't meant to diss anyone on this thread, btw. Just an observation.


----------



## uhtred

Don't you also see actively kissing as giving consent for other things that are going on? It would seem very strange to keep kissing someone if you were unhappy with what their hands were doing. 

(Here I'm talking *active* kissing, not just lying there passively which could be a sign of fear). 

I see active kissing, fondling etc, as very different from passively doing nothing, and to me they do indicate consent for whatever is going on at the time. 





NobodySpecial said:


> Actively kissing gives consent for... actively kissing.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Faithful Wife said:


> This is true, but there is another subset (some of who we are hearing from on this thread) who actually assume the woman doesn't want sex at all, and/or that she doesn't know if she wants sex, or that she may say no when she means maybe because she is not self aware. So this guy's reasons for "pushing for more" are different than the type of guy you described above.
> 
> The type of guy you described is less likely to seek to be educated and more likely to ignore education.
> 
> The type of guy I described is more likely to seek education but still may never quite feel at ease in sexual situations because they still don't believe she actually wants sex (or in some cases, he knows for certain that she doesn't and he keeps hoping there are some words or actions that will make her want to and they seek education mostly because of that).
> 
> This post isn't meant to diss anyone on this thread, btw. Just an observation.


There are all different guys out there. I think the guys you describe would typically be younger less experienced guys. I think the best thing is to tell boys to take a girls words literally. If she says no don't second guess it or try to read between lines that aren't there.


----------



## Buddy400

katiecrna said:


> In the court of law if the women didn’t tell the man to stop then there is no case. In real life... your a jerk if you keep pursuing and she is resistant, or seems unsure whether or not she said stop because some women are docile, shy, easily pressured, maybe under the influence or whatever. Yes she SHOULD use her words, yes she SHOULD say what she wants and she SHOULD know what she wants, but the reality is it’s not like that.


Very true.

I have always agreed that if a man doesn't feel that he has consent, he should stop. Yes, if he doesn't, he's a jerk.

I'm concerned about about situations where the man believes he has consent but is wrong. In that case, I think the tactic most likely to work is for the woman to say "No" (if that doesn't stop him, then he's a rapist).

I have a great deal of doubt that this issue can be resolved by teaching men to read women's non-verbal signals.

I also fear that some women may start depending on men reading non-verbal signals to keep from having unwanted sex and decide that they do not have the responsibility (or ability) to say "No, I do not want to do this".


----------



## Buddy400

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I mostly disagree with the hard to measure responses. When single it wasn't a problem once I cleared 15 or 16yrs. 13 to 15 I was indeed clueless, that's for sure and let the girls lead.
> 
> Married over 30yrs now, it's also not hard with dear W. There are many imaginative ways for us to be clear of intent and it's our rule to not turn each other down. Everyone's interactions if good for them is obviously ok. I can say I don't touch Ws butt, I grab it firmly or similar.
> 
> I certainly don't think I'm unique in these understandings.


It's very good that you don't have a problem measuring women's responses.

But it's the guys who do that women should be worried about.


----------



## Buddy400

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> There's nothing fuzzy or ambiguous about that particular nonverbal. When clothes start hitting the floor without you ripping them off, you're being waved in.


I'm not so sure about that.

In at least one case I know of, a woman initiated fellatio on a man but he didn't stop her when she started displaying a lack of enthusiasm. Also, when she expressed concern that someone might walk in on them, he suggested that they continue anyway.

He was thrown out of school for sexual assault.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, and I don't know why scenarios like this are thrown into the discussion. Again it just feels like, we are making ourselves very clear, but some men want to keep pretending that it is not clear.


Why do you assume that men are *pretending* that you're not clear.

That implies bad intent. Why would we do that? So that we can go on violating women with a clear conscience? 

Perhaps we really don't think you're being clear.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> Actively kissing someone clearly gives consent for continued sexual activity. Pushing your hand away shows a lack of consent for where your had was going.
> 
> You were fine moving the hand again later because she was in general consenting by active kissing. If she wanted you to never move your had there, she could have told you, - for example if she said "no, don't do that", then you should have stopped. Note: "don't do that" is different from "not now".
> 
> In general though if someone is actively participating, I think it is safe to assume that they are in general consenting. (excepting various bizarre scenarios that someone could concoct).


"Campus Rape Frenzy" is chock full of various bizarre scenarios that resulted in men getting expelled from college.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Don't you also see actively kissing as giving consent for other things that are going on? It would seem very strange to keep kissing someone if you were unhappy with what their hands were doing.
> 
> (Here I'm talking *active* kissing, not just lying there passively which could be a sign of fear).
> 
> I see active kissing, fondling etc, as very different from passively doing nothing, and to me they do indicate consent for whatever is going on at the time.


What I meant was that whatever you are actively doing you are consenting to do since you are doing it. What that does not mean to imply is that you consent to something that you have not commenced to doing.


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy400 said:


> "Campus Rape Frenzy" is chock full of various bizarre scenarios that resulted in men getting expelled from college.


Hmmm....I'm wondering if a site or resource actually CALLED "Campus Rape Frenzy" is entirely unbiased.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> The hypothetical woman who doesn’t know how to assert herself isn’t here to educate.


I have no dog in the race. I've been married for 28 years and, if my wife were to die, it's doubtful that I'd get back into the dating game.

I have educated my sons to be very careful about obtaining consent. I have educated my daughter about saying "No".

So, I'm not here to ask for personal advice or to educate individual people.

There are efforts to legislate affirmative consent (I believe successfully to some degree in CA and NY). 

I'm here to discuss the issue with other potential voters.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> Hmmm....I'm wondering if a site or resource actually CALLED "Campus Rape Frenzy" is entirely unbiased.


You'd have to read it (or excerpts) to decide. It's a book from a reputable publisher and written by reputable authors.

Of course, some people still think it's entirely biased, but other reasonable people don't.

If you have or may have a son in college, you should definitely give it a look.


----------



## uhtred

Agreed. 

Reasonable people will initiate new actions in a way that allows their partner to easily indicate consent or not. This is completely natural for most people - moving a hand toward a more intimate area etc. I would assume that continued active kissing while that is going on indicates consent. 

Kissing doesn't give consent to suddenly "grab by the...." That is only OK if there has been a prior agreement of consent. 

I think the key is providing enough warning (non verbal is OK) of what you are about to do, that the other person can indicate consent or lack of same. 




NobodySpecial said:


> What I meant was that whatever you are actively doing you are consenting to do since you are doing it. What that does not mean to imply is that you consent to something that you have not commenced to doing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I'm here to discuss the issue with other potential voters.


I see. Well in that case, I am sure you will come to your conclusions as a voter and it will be interesting how these types of laws affect things as they are rolled out. I don't really have much other interest in it in the meantime. But am glad conscientious voters like you are educating themselves.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> I don’t think the guy should always assume that actually. First of all, how could an inexperienced woman know what she wants? She hasn’t done it before!
> If I was with a virgin and had consent but noticed she was too nervous or her legs were shaking or something else, I would probably just say we should wait till it’s a better moment and goof around instead or do some other virgin stuff, like anal or something (joking).


And women are always really happy when men tell them that women don't know what they want.

In your case, she might not know what she wants, but I'd know what I wanted. 

No part of it.


----------



## personofinterest

> Of course, some people still think it's entirely biased, but other *reasonable* people don't.


LOL

I did look up a couple of youtube interviews with the author. He seems fairly objective, and it seems that he wrote it to be as objective a study as possible into the current climate on campuses and such.

Of course, people will use the information as they see fit.

My son is extremely smart and somewhat quiet. Not passive, but not someone to make a lot of waves. He does not possess the personality traits one usually sees with the "pushers". However, we have talked about such things.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> What I meant was that whatever you are actively doing you are consenting to do since you are doing it. What that does not mean to imply is that you consent to something that you have not commenced to doing.



Does it mean you just keep kissing indefinitely? Until one of you throws up or teeth begin to fall out? 
Why can’t you just go for it and if you notice she doesn’t like it, you don’t keep doing it? 

It seems pretty obvious that in many cases, the problems happen when it’s not made clear that the woman doesn’t want something that she is doing or that is being done to her. Most women here are very experienced, have been divorced multiple times and way beyond the ‘I’m not sure whether I should be doing this’ stage. However many women probably didn’t start out this way and perhaps did things that they regret with hindsight.

There are also cases when the guy just won’t stop, even if you tell him to, explicitly: that’s criminal behaviour. I would say the latter is obvious. The discussion is more how to deal with the first type of scenario (and that must come up all the time with young people).

I would be interested to know how to deal with the former, from the perspective that i have a daughter. And at some point future, I either need to talk to her and explain how this works, or buy her a knife and teach her how to cut the guy’s balls off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Buddy400 said:


> Why do you assume that men are *pretending* that you're not clear.
> 
> That implies bad intent. Why would we do that? So that we can go on violating women with a clear conscience?
> 
> Perhaps we really don't think you're being clear.


Saying the word "no" is clear. Pushing or fighting someone off is clear. Everything else is open for interpretation and I don't think men are so clear on what clear is if those two things aren't being done.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> And women are always really happy when men tell them that women don't know what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, she might not know what she wants, but I'd know what I wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> No part of it.




Yes but nobody will be asking YOUR consent for wanting no part in it. Once you are there at the ground floor and already making out, you better step up and do what she expects you to do  Otherwise you might wake up with your penis boiling in the kitchen one day.
I don’t think I have ever seen a woman angrier than when she’s ready and wants you to seduce her but you say stuff like ‘lets take it slowly’, either because you are worried about consent stuff or maybe because her friend is hotter. You better have a good excuse or be prepared for the consequences. 
Been there, done that. Was blackmailed by The Crazy, even though nothing happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Why do you assume that men are *pretending* that you're not clear.
> 
> That implies bad intent. Why would we do that? So that we can go on violating women with a clear conscience?
> 
> Perhaps we really don't think you're being clear.


Haaaaaaaa. Haven't most of us on this board been married at least once? When do men even think their WIVES are being clear?? 

I would not ascribe malice, as with the word pretending, to place perception of being vague. But I have seen, conversely, people claim clarity where I did not think there was anything clear about consent, and precedent has caught up with that eventually. 

We have heard of instances where a the fact that a person kissing is consent to going all the way as it were. In casual conversation (hear on TAM in fact. I remember this as clear as a bell since I threw up in my mouth a little) someone will say something like well why would you be kissing if you don't mean to bang? He was in earnest. In his mind, would SHE have been being unclear if she was prepared to kiss but not to bang?

I do think that with young, inexperienced men in particular, the urge to HAVE sex overwhelms the desire to have good, safe, meaningful sex. That when he is thinking with his wrong head, he is looking for consent where none might exist. It is in HIS best interest to learn the lesson of consent so as not to suffer the consequences of his youth and inexperience.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> It is in HIS best interest to learn the lesson of consent so as not to suffer the consequences of his youth and inexperience.



Which would be....??



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Yes but nobody will be asking YOUR consent for wanting no part in it.


Of course you know that they damned well should be? My rape crisis center buddy tells me that ustoo is the new cry. Sexual violence is, of course, not limited to women. Men face some pretty awful challenges in this area that women do not face and need support and hard hammer of law behind them. The rape crisis center my friend works at works hard to reach out to male victims (not yet survivors) so that they can get the support they need. It is a sad thing, but the legal precedent and the understanding of the specific needs is not as advanced.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> Don't you also see actively kissing as giving consent for other things that are going on? It would seem very strange to keep kissing someone if you were unhappy with what their hands were doing.
> 
> (Here I'm talking *active* kissing, not just lying there passively which could be a sign of fear).
> 
> I see active kissing, fondling etc, as very different from passively doing nothing, and to me they do indicate consent for whatever is going on at the time.


We can discuss what individuals should or shouldn't do. But, really, the people who would most need to be educated on this aren't here.

The problem is that rules of behavior surrounding consent are being developed (in colleges, businesses, government, legislation) and people who violate said rules are may be expelled, fired, have their reputations tarnished forever or maybe even be put in prison.

By their nature, these rules need to be clearly defined and known ahead of time so that's why it's so important to know exactly what constitutes a violation. There are those who believe that guilt should be solely determined by the alleged victim. But this would result in no one being able to know ahead of time that what they were doing was wrong.

So, that's why I favor a clear and unambiguous rule: "No means No".

All the rest is good advice on making personal decisions, but it's impractical for formal rules which have consequences if violated.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> Of course you know that they damned well should be? My rape crisis center buddy tells me that ustoo is the new cry. Sexual violence is, of course, not limited to women. Men face some pretty awful challenges in this area that women do not face and need support and hard hammer of law behind them. The rape crisis center my friend works at works hard to reach out to male victims (not yet survivors) so that they can get the support they need. It is a sad thing, but the legal precedent and the understanding of the specific needs is not as advanced.



The ‘assault’ that men have to deal with is the mind ****ery that happens afterwards, not the actual sexual assault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## katiecrna

uhtred said:


> Actively kissing someone clearly gives consent for continued sexual activity. Pushing your hand away shows a lack of consent for where your had was going.
> 
> 
> 
> You were fine moving the hand again later because she was in general consenting by active kissing. If she wanted you to never move your had there, she could have told you, - for example if she said "no, don't do that", then you should have stopped. Note: "don't do that" is different from "not now".
> 
> 
> 
> ).




This is so wrong. Kissing does not necessarily mean to increase the sexual activity.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> *We can discuss what individuals should or shouldn't do*. But, really, the people who would most need to be educated on this aren't here.


This is a REALLY REALLY good point. For whatever reason, men, particularly young men, seem to fight against the concept of consent. (At least in what I have read. Obviously not exhaustive.) It brings to mind something I saw that Will Smith (yes, Will Smith of all people did). I don't remember the topic but the gist was to differentiate between blame and responsibility. When you find yourself in a situation or environment that sucks, you may not be to BLAME for that situation, but you are responsible for dealing with that situation or environment. 

If I were the mother of a young man (HEY! Look I am!) that would be (tee hee already has been) part of my message. Hey love, remember when you were really small and wanted to stay in the car when I want into the grocery story and I said no? You remember how I did that not because the risk was super high, but that the consequences were horrifically untenable if anything went wrong? Well this is a similar thing. If you are ever in a situation where you are not 100% sure if your partner good to go, ASK. Aside from the fact that you presumably care for him, you don't want to find yourself in a legal **** show over that lack of communication. Incidentally, I share the same with my daughter. 




> The problem is that rules of behavior surrounding consent are being developed (in colleges, businesses, government, legislation) and people who violate said rules are may be expelled, fired, have their reputations tarnished forever or maybe even be put in prison.


One significant problem is that there is no expectation of due process and assumption of innocence when operating outside of the legal framework as with college expulsions and the like. 



> By their nature, these rules need to be clearly defined and known ahead of time so that's why it's so important to know exactly what constitutes a violation. There are those who believe that guilt should be solely determined by the alleged victim. But this would result in no one being able to know ahead of time that what they were doing was wrong.
> 
> So, that's why I favor a clear and unambiguous rule: "No means No".
> 
> All the rest is good advice on making personal decisions, but it's impractical for formal rules which have consequences if violated.


Ayuh.


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Yes but nobody will be asking YOUR consent for wanting no part in it. Once you are there at the ground floor and already making out, you better step up and do what she expects you to do  Otherwise you might wake up with your penis boiling in the kitchen one day.
> I don’t think I have ever seen a woman angrier than when she’s ready and wants you to seduce her but you say stuff like ‘lets take it slowly’, either because you are worried about consent stuff or maybe because her friend is hotter. You better have a good excuse or be prepared for the consequences.
> Been there, done that. Was blackmailed by The Crazy, even though nothing happened.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Heh if she's the type of Crazy to blackmail you for being a gentleman imagine what would have happened if you did what she expected you to do.



katiecrna said:


> This is so wrong. Kissing does not necessarily mean to increase the sexual activity.


Correct, but it is a greenlight for more physical contact and should be treated accordingly.


----------



## 269370

RandomDude said:


> Heh if she's the type of Crazy to blackmail you for being a gentleman imagine what would have happened if you did what she expected you to do.



She would have just let me go, most probably. 
Have you seen how spiders mate?

Sometimes you just have to bite your teeth together and comply and hope they don’t behead you. Lesson learnt.
Not that I would ever try to find myself in that situation again...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

Here's a real scenario to think about.

I'm not claiming it's this or that, just laying it out for consideration.

On our first date, my wife to be and I went out to an informal dinner after work. The conversation was good. Somehow it came up that she and her ex weren't romantically compatible (she was not sexually attracted to him). We had a great time. I was certain that she was interested. I was interested. As we left the restaurant, I knew that I needed to make a move. I'd previously been the type who didn't make any move, since I was always uncertain that they were wanted (I was very concerned about what women wanted). However, by this point in my life (~30), I knew that moves needed to be made so that the women knew you desired her.

I said "Well, we've determined we're intellectually compatible. Now we need to find out if we're romantically compatible". Then I pressed her against the restaurant window and kissed her deeply while holding her firmly (no grabbing her boobs or anything). I am a very good kisser.

She went home that night and told her parents she'd just met her next husband. Discussing it years later, she made it clear that what I did was the best thing I could possibly have done. We have been very happily married for over 28 years.

Every time this this story is told to a woman they "Oh" and "Ah" and say how romantic that was.

Discussion Topics: 

1) Was I right to think that "a move" needed to be made?
2) Should I have asked her if I could kiss her? Would the result have been any different if I had?
3) If I was wrong in determining she was interested and she pulled away, would I have been guilty of sexual assault?
4) How is it possible that what I did could either be described as "Romantic" or "sexual assault" depending on the woman's response?
5) If the atmosphere back then was the same as it is now, would my actions have been different and would *my wife* and I have missed out on an exceptionally happy 28 years of being married?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> One significant problem is that there is no expectation of due process and assumption of innocence when operating outside of the legal framework as with college expulsions and the like.


But there are a significant number of people (including many judges) who think there is an expectation of due process and an assumption of innocence in these situations. Various courts have ruled this way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> But there are a significant number of people (including many judges) who think there is an expectation of due process and an assumption of innocence in these situations. Various courts have ruled this way.


Wait, wait. I am well versed in this. The thing that is sticky is that expulsion is not a consequence consistent with criminal prosecution. There are many violations for which a college can expel or an employer terminate. Do you have an example where the rules are different for these (say expulsions for simplicity sake) for rape vs other expulsions? You would be educating me. Thanks.


----------



## uhtred

Interesting. Do you feel that the request / response needs to be verbal? Or if not what is the right approach. How would someone who you are kissing know if you want more intimate contact?

I would have thought that if you are actively kissing someone and they start to do something you don't want, its easy to stop actively kissing them, and if they don't take the hint, then tell them specifically.

I am aware that some people want specific verbal agreement, but I'm interested in the reasoning. It would seem awkward to me to have to ask for fine-grained permission for actions. 






katiecrna said:


> This is so wrong. Kissing does not necessarily mean to increase the sexual activity.


----------



## RandomDude

"Does he ask you for sex? If he does you shouldn't be with him"
GF: "Nope, he never once asked me for sex."
Me: "Yup, that's right, I never asked you, I just seduced you"
GF: "Yup, like that's totally not worse!"

Looking back, perhaps a compromise could be like, seeking active communication. Looking back when I was seducing my girlfriend I made the first moves but I asked her like "how does that feel for you?" "do you like that?" etc, so not exactly asking for permission but making sure she's also enjoying herself.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Interesting. Do you feel that the request / response needs to be verbal? Or if not what is the right approach. How would someone who you are kissing know if you want more intimate contact?
> 
> I would have thought that if you are actively kissing someone and they start to do something you don't want, its easy to stop actively kissing them, and if they don't take the hint, then tell them specifically.
> 
> I am aware that some people want specific verbal agreement, but I'm interested in the reasoning. It would seem awkward to me to have to ask for fine-grained permission for actions.


She is enjoying kissing but does not want to do this something else. So she is to tell you not to do something else by stopping kissing. This makes sense to you?


----------



## SadSamIAm

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I mostly disagree with the hard to measure responses. When single it wasn't a problem once I cleared 15 or 16yrs. 13 to 15 I was indeed clueless, that's for sure and let the girls lead.
> 
> Married over 30yrs now, it's also not hard with dear W. There are many imaginative ways for us to be clear of intent and it's our rule to not turn each other down. Everyone's interactions if good for them is obviously ok. I can say I don't touch Ws butt, I grab it firmly or similar.
> 
> I certainly don't think I'm unique in these understandings.


Not everyone is the same. 

I think the term sometimes used is 'responsive desire'. My wife can be sexual, but it takes time and warm-up. If I grab her butt, she would mostly likely be turned off. But if I hug her and hold her and get her warmed up, then she might be wanting me to be spanking her in a bit. But she doesn't 'warm up' 100% of the time. Thus the confusion. 

So no, you are not unique, but 100% of people don't react the way you describe above.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Buddy400 said:


> Here's a real scenario to think about.
> 
> I'm not claiming it's this or that, just laying it out for consideration.
> 
> On our first date, my wife to be and I went out to an informal dinner after work. The conversation was good. Somehow it came up that she and her ex weren't romantically compatible (she was not sexually attracted to him). We had a great time. I was certain that she was interested. I was interested. As we left the restaurant, I knew that I needed to make a move. I'd previously been the type who didn't make any move, since I was always uncertain that they were wanted (I was very concerned about what women wanted). However, by this point in my life (~30), I knew that moves needed to be made so that the women knew you desired her.
> 
> I said "Well, we've determined we're intellectually compatible. Now we need to find out if we're romantically compatible". Then I pressed her against the restaurant window and kissed her deeply while holding her firmly (no grabbing her boobs or anything). I am a very good kisser.
> 
> She went home that night and told her parents she'd just met her next husband. Discussing it years later, she made it clear that what I did was the best thing I could possibly have done. We have been very happily married for over 28 years.
> 
> Every time this this story is told to a woman they "Oh" and "Ah" and say how romantic that was.
> 
> Discussion Topics:
> 
> 1) Was I right to think that "a move" needed to be made?
> 2) Should I have asked her if I could kiss her? Would the result have been any different if I had?
> 3) If I was wrong in determining she was interested and she pulled away, would I have been guilty of sexual assault?
> 4) How is it possible that what I did could either be described as "Romantic" or "sexual assault" depending on the woman's response?
> 5) If the atmosphere back then was the same as it is now, would my actions have been different and would *my wife* and I have missed out on an exceptionally happy 28 years of being married?


You know, this is typical. You played it well, you did everything perceived to be right. You were the man, you made the move like women want (even to this day). If you would have asked, it would have carried a completely different effect. You would have came off weaker and less confident, which are turn offs to most women. As she was feeling it, it was very romantic. So, you did everything right.

Even if she hadn't been feeling it like you thought, she would have just pushed you away and that would have been it. I've never heard of anyone reporting anyone for trying to kiss them on a date. Its usually just a hilarious face palm. Though by every definition of feminism you sexually assaulted her, since she had little choice but to kiss you. 

Now be gone with you, you vile predator .


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Wait, wait. I am well versed in this. The thing that is sticky is that expulsion is not a consequence consistent with criminal prosecution. There are many violations for which a college can expel or an employer terminate. Do you have an example where the rules are different for these (say expulsions for simplicity sake) for rape vs other expulsions? You would be educating me. Thanks.


There are quite a few cases (involving colleges) where the expelled man has won judgement against the college (or courts have issued restraining orders preventing the man from being expelled), generally these cases have to do with a lack of due process. Of course, the opposing argument is that, since they only involve being expelled, due process isn't needed. 

I can come up with specific cases if needed.

The link is related and from the latimes, so it should be reputable.

More college men are fighting back against sexual misconduct cases

In any case, colleges are losing enough of these cases that it's starting to cost them some significant money. 

I'm not sure if anything similar is happening with businesses.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> 1) Was I right to think that "a move" needed to be made?
> 2) Should I have asked her if I could kiss her? Would the result have been any different if I had?
> 3) If I was wrong in determining she was interested and she pulled away, would I have been guilty of sexual assault?
> 4) How is it possible that what I did could either be described as "Romantic" or "sexual assault" depending on the woman's response?
> 5) If the atmosphere back then was the same as it is now, would my actions have been different and would *my wife* and I have missed out on an exceptionally happy 28 years of being married?


1) No move ever "needs" to be made. Did you make a good move that was right for you both? Yes. If you had not made such move, it does not mean you would have never ended up with her.

2) For myself, a person I'm on a date with does not need to ask permission to kiss me and push me against the wall as they do so. If I do not want the kiss, I will halt him with my hands in front of my face and words expressing my lack of consent before he gets his lips or hands on me (or in the scenario you described, I would have said "no thank you" after you mentioned testing the romantic compatibility). My answer only applies to the scenario as given. Obviously, if a random stranger tries to kiss me and push me against a wall out of nowhere, that really would be assault.

3) If she pulled away and you kissed her anyway, then possibly. But she did not pull away.

4) It isn't. "What you did" wasn't assault and therefore would not be considered so anywhere.

5) No.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> She is enjoying kissing but does not want to do this something else. So she is to tell you not to do something else by stopping kissing. This makes sense to you?


Wow! A very cogent point. Enthusiastically participating in one activity doesn't necessarily imply consent to move the next, more intimate level. What a concept. Well said.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Buddy400 said:


> Here's a real scenario to think about.
> 
> I'm not claiming it's this or that, just laying it out for consideration.
> 
> On our first date, my wife to be and I went out to an informal dinner after work. The conversation was good. Somehow it came up that she and her ex weren't romantically compatible (she was not sexually attracted to him). We had a great time. I was certain that she was interested. I was interested. As we left the restaurant, I knew that I needed to make a move. I'd previously been the type who didn't make any move, since I was always uncertain that they were wanted (I was very concerned about what women wanted). However, by this point in my life (~30), I knew that moves needed to be made so that the women knew you desired her.
> 
> I said "Well, we've determined we're intellectually compatible. Now we need to find out if we're romantically compatible". Then I pressed her against the restaurant window and kissed her deeply while holding her firmly (no grabbing her boobs or anything). I am a very good kisser.
> 
> She went home that night and told her parents she'd just met her next husband. Discussing it years later, she made it clear that what I did was the best thing I could possibly have done. We have been very happily married for over 28 years.
> 
> Every time this this story is told to a woman they "Oh" and "Ah" and say how romantic that was.
> 
> Discussion Topics:
> 
> 1) Was I right to think that "a move" needed to be made?
> 2) Should I have asked her if I could kiss her? Would the result have been any different if I had?
> 3) If I was wrong in determining she was interested and she pulled away, would I have been guilty of sexual assault?
> 4) How is it possible that what I did could either be described as "Romantic" or "sexual assault" depending on the woman's response?
> 5) If the atmosphere back then was the same as it is now, would my actions have been different and would *my wife* and I have missed out on an exceptionally happy 28 years of being married?


I have a similar story, but it went a little further.

My wife and I met at college. We had just met a few days before and it was her birthday. It was a weeknight and I told her I was taking her to the bar for a birthday drink. We got in my car and we went to the bar. I made her laugh and I could tell we were 'into' each other. We left after a couple of drinks as it was a week night and not much was happening. When we got back to the dorms, we headed downstairs to the 'tv' room which was public, but nobody was around. This was our first date and 
the first time I kissed her. We kissed a few times and I felt like we were both into it. At one point, I went from kissing her lips, to quickly sliding down and placing my mouth on her vagina over her jeans and blew hot air onto her. I did this for a few seconds and then went back up to kissing her. I totally surprised her. I think I kind of scared her. I know it was definitely too much, too soon. 

We have now been married for 30 years. She will sometimes bring up that night and how hot it made her that I did that. She has told me, that me doing that, made her think of me non stop for a number of days and made her want to go out with me.

So did I assault her? I know I didn't ask for consent. 

Would she have been interested in me later if I didn't do that?


----------



## SadSamIAm

Faithful Wife said:


> 1) No move ever "needs" to be made. Did you make a good move that was right for you both? Yes. If you had not made such move, it does not mean you would have never ended up with her.
> 
> 2) For myself, a person I'm on a date with does not need to ask permission to kiss me and push me against the wall as they do so. If I do not want the kiss, I will halt him with my hands in front of my face and words expressing my lack of consent before he gets his lips or hands on me (or in the scenario you described, I would have said "no thank you" after you mentioned testing the romantic compatibility). My answer only applies to the scenario as given. Obviously, if a random stranger tries to kiss me and push me against a wall out of nowhere, that really would be assault.
> 
> 3) If she pulled away and you kissed her anyway, then possibly. But she did not pull away.
> 
> 4) It isn't. "What you did" wasn't assault and therefore would not be considered so anywhere.
> 
> 5) No.


I don't agree with your response. I think it only works for you or someone like you.

He could have easily been reading the situation wrong. He might have pressed her up against the wall and kissed her and her response might have been to freeze and not say anything. She might not have had the confidence to put her hands in front of her face to stop him. She may have felt violated by him. It obviously worked out for him, but it could have easily have gone south.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Here's a real scenario to think about.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not claiming it's this or that, just laying it out for consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> On our first date, my wife to be and I went out to an informal dinner after work. The conversation was good. Somehow it came up that she and her ex weren't romantically compatible (she was not sexually attracted to him). We had a great time. I was certain that she was interested. I was interested. As we left the restaurant, I knew that I needed to make a move. I'd previously been the type who didn't make any move, since I was always uncertain that they were wanted (I was very concerned about what women wanted). However, by this point in my life (~30), I knew that moves needed to be made so that the women knew you desired her.
> 
> 
> 
> I said "Well, we've determined we're intellectually compatible. Now we need to find out if we're romantically compatible". Then I pressed her against the restaurant window and kissed her deeply while holding her firmly (no grabbing her boobs or anything). I am a very good kisser.
> 
> 
> 
> She went home that night and told her parents she'd just met her next husband. Discussing it years later, she made it clear that what I did was the best thing I could possibly have done. We have been very happily married for over 28 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Every time this this story is told to a woman they "Oh" and "Ah" and say how romantic that was.
> 
> 
> 
> Discussion Topics:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Was I right to think that "a move" needed to be made?
> 
> 2) Should I have asked her if I could kiss her? Would the result have been any different if I had?
> 
> 3) If I was wrong in determining she was interested and she pulled away, would I have been guilty of sexual assault?
> 
> 4) How is it possible that what I did could either be described as "Romantic" or "sexual assault" depending on the woman's response?
> 
> 5) If the atmosphere back then was the same as it is now, would my actions have been different and would *my wife* and I have missed out on an exceptionally happy 28 years of being married?




Good move. I don’t think you should have asked her. I think even the ‘now we need to determine if we romantically compatible’ was arguably unnecessary.

She wasn’t still with her husband though, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> 5) If the atmosphere back then was the same as it is now, would my actions have been different and would *my wife* and I have missed out on an exceptionally happy 28 years of being married?



Same question I have asked upthread. If you don’t hunt, you won’t have anything for dinner.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Wow! A very cogent point. Enthusiastically participating in one activity doesn't necessarily imply consent to move the next, more intimate level. What a concept. Well said.


I am half trying to figure out if you are making fun of me! Are you making fun of me? Good naturedly I hope, at least.


----------



## 269370

SadSamIAm said:


> At one point, I went from kissing her lips, to quickly sliding down and placing my mouth on her vagina over her jeans and blew hot air onto her. I did this for a few seconds and then went back up to kissing her. I totally surprised her.



Did she think you were trying to blow her up, like a balloon ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SadSamIAm said:


> I have a similar story, but it went a little further.
> 
> My wife and I met at college. We had just met a few days before and it was her birthday. It was a weeknight and I told her I was taking her to the bar for a birthday drink. We got in my car and we went to the bar. I made her laugh and I could tell we were 'into' each other. We left after a couple of drinks as it was a week night and not much was happening. When we got back to the dorms, we headed downstairs to the 'tv' room which was public, but nobody was around. This was our first date and
> the first time I kissed her. We kissed a few times and I felt like we were both into it. At one point, I went from kissing her lips, to quickly sliding down and placing my mouth on her vagina over her jeans and blew hot air onto her. I did this for a few seconds and then went back up to kissing her. I totally surprised her. I think I kind of scared her. I know it was definitely too much, too soon.
> 
> We have now been married for 30 years. *She will sometimes bring up that night and how hot it made her that I did that.* She has told me, that me doing that, made her think of me non stop for a number of days and made her want to go out with me.
> 
> *So did I assault her? I know I didn't ask for consent.*
> 
> Would she have been interested in me later if I didn't do that?


I honestly don't quite understand what some of you guys are trying to get at. When you describe a fully consensual scene, and then ask if it was assault? It just seems like you are trying to make a point, yet I have no clue what that point is.

Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words. Yep, that happens all the time! And hey, sometimes it was the very first time for something, and it was also a major turn on! Taking that activity and making an example out of it and then asking "was this assault?" doesn't make any sense to me.

Color me confused.


----------



## CharlieParker

uhtred said:


> It would seem awkward to me to have to ask for fine-grained permission for actions.


Haven’t read most of this thread, back a little, so maybe wrong context, but unless it’s really obvious I’ll ask “are you ready or do you need more time” or “shall I go down on you now” (not in thos exact words). The response is usually go, but occasionally not yet. Menopause has made this more of thing as she doesn’t get wet.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> I am half trying to figure out if you are making fun of me! Are you making fun of me? Good naturedly I hope, at least.


Actually, there's not ulterior motives here whatsoever. I'm dead serious. I'm impressed because I think a lot of guys will assume that if she's really into whatever is happening at the moment, it must mean she's looking to escalate. That may not be the case. 

Of course that leads us back to the whole responsibility discussion of how one approaches taking it to the next level. I just thought your point was really appropriate because the pursuer need to be aware of potential signals to cool it. He must be aware of those signals. If he's highly focused, and already assuming that the enthusiasm with the current activity implies readiness to proceed to the next activity, he may not be as open to reading the lack of consent. 

I know I'm speculating about a hypothetical here, so take it for what it's worth. But it does seem reasonable to think that, if he assumes current enthusiasm is a "signal" to proceed, he'll be more likely to miss what would seem to be signals contrary to that.


----------



## 269370

SadSamIAm said:


> I don't agree with your response. I think it only works for you or someone like you.
> 
> 
> 
> He could have easily been reading the situation wrong. He might have pressed her up against the wall and kissed her and her response might have been to freeze and not say anything. She might not have had the confidence to put her hands in front of her face to stop him. She may have felt violated by him. It obviously worked out for him, but it could have easily have gone south.




Yes, and the whole point is that it is up to the woman to determine whether it was assault or not, at the end of the day, even if you do everything exactly the same way, but misread the situation.

She could have just screamed: “who the **** have you the permission to touch me?” And call the police, with witnesses, if it was a public place. Or ‘endure’ it, as you say, and decide later that she had no choice but to comply.

It’s a jungle out there. I’m glad I’m not doing this anymore (‘assaulting’ women romantically).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## katiecrna

RandomDude said:


> Correct, but it is a greenlight for more physical contact and should be treated accordingly.




What!!! Maybe she just likes to kiss. Maybe she just likes the exact Physical contact that she is currently receiving.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SadSamIAm said:


> I don't agree with your response. I think it only works for you or someone like you.
> 
> He could have easily been reading the situation wrong. He might have pressed her up against the wall and kissed her and her response might have been to freeze and not say anything. She might not have had the confidence to put her hands in front of her face to stop him. She may have felt violated by him. It obviously worked out for him, but it could have easily have gone south.


I answered for myself. Buddy described what his wife did.

If you want to speculate about what a hypothetical woman who really did not want to be kissed and he kissed her anyway would do (because she "froze"), then you would have to find a woman who knows how that feels and ask her.

But where are all those women who are waiting around for men to kiss them just so they can file assault charges?

Oh right...on college campuses right?

I would like to see an example of assault charges that have actually been filed against someone for kissing them at the end of a date. Just for the kiss, since that is the scenario put forth.

IOW, even if a woman wasn't happy about being kissed afterwards (because she "froze" and did not speak up before he kissed her), she is not likely to file assault charges. And I'd love to read any case where this scenario has happened and ended in an assault charge.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Actually, there's not ulterior motives here whatsoever. I'm dead serious. I'm impressed because I think a lot of guys will assume that if she's really into whatever is happening at the moment, it must mean she's looking to escalate. That may not be the case.


Oh. It seemed pretty obvious to me. Like DUH. Like when I go to get my hair cut it does not mean I REALLY want a buzz.


----------



## RandomDude

katiecrna said:


> What!!! Maybe she just likes to kiss. Maybe she just likes the exact Physical contact that she is currently receiving.


And that's the issue that we are discussing with this thread. In the moment of a kiss there's bound to be further physical contact, I'm not talking about thrust with the hips to her groin straight off the bat or anything like that but a kiss is still a greenlight and you can find the hands moving other places like on the hair, on the chin, down the back, waist in which one thing leads to the next while the lips can move from the lips to the neck, to the collar bone and down etc etc. Asking for permission in each step is too much in my opinion and will ruin the mood for many couples, hence my compromise which I mentioned on the previous page, where there should be active communication such as "hows that feel?" "do you like that?" etc. Same thing with sex if/when it gets down to it anyway.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Good move. I don’t think you should have asked her. I think even the ‘now we need to determine if we romantically compatible’ was arguably unnecessary.


Agreed. I wussed out to some a degree. It was very bold for me though, at the time. 



inmyprime said:


> She wasn’t still with her husband though, right?


No, they'd been divorced for a while.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I honestly don't quite understand what some of you guys are trying to get at. When you describe a fully consensual scene, and then ask if it was assault? It just seems like you are trying to make a point, yet I have no clue what that point is.
> 
> Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words. Yep, that happens all the time! And hey, sometimes it was the very first time for something, and it was also a major turn on! Taking that activity and making an example out of it and then asking "was this assault?" doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> Color me confused.


I am always surprised when women take the attitude of "these are far-fetched hypothetical situations that never happen in real life".

Read the link in my response to NobodySpecial and read this one about what happened to Garrison Keilor and tell me that these situations never happen.

Source of Garrison Keillor allegations shocks those close to radio host - StarTribune.com 

Men get expelled from college (usually unable to find another college that will take them) and their see their political and entertainment careers trashed for things like this.

Believe it or not, we are genuinely confused and concerned. It's really not that we are looking for reasons to force ourselves on unwilling women for ****s and giggles.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> It's a series of gotcha questions, I'm sorry @Buddy400 and yes, it is exhausting to answer - especially if it's clear that you have one way of seeing things and I have another based on our respective experiences.
> 
> Life is risk and the rules of life also change.


These are real questions I would ask myself if I found myself in this position today.

And, keep in mind, had we not gotten together, things wouldn't have worked out for my wife either.

If the rules changed again, would you tell women afraid of being sexually assaulted that "life is risk and the rules of life also change"? 

I don't think so.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't quite understand what some of you guys are trying to get at. When you describe a fully consensual scene, and then ask if it was assault? It just seems like you are trying to make a point, yet I have no clue what that point is.
> 
> Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words. Yep, that happens all the time! And hey, sometimes it was the very first time for something, and it was also a major turn on! Taking that activity and making an example out of it and then asking "was this assault?" doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> Color me confused.
> 
> 
> 
> I am always surprised when women take the attitude of "these are far-fetched hypothetical situations that never happen in real life".
> 
> Read the link in my response to NobodySpecial and read this one about what happened to Garrison Keilor and tell me that these situations never happen.
> 
> Source of Garrison Keillor allegations shocks those close to radio host - StarTribune.com
> 
> Men get expelled from college (usually unable to find another college that will take them) and their see their political and entertainment careers trashed for things like this.
> 
> Believe it or not, we are genuinely confused and concerned. It's really not that we are looking for reasons to force ourselves on unwilling women for ****s and giggles.
Click to expand...

Ok I’m even more confused. I have never heard of this guy or this case. The link provided here tells a story of how one guy was a sexual harasser and another guy called him out on it because he was pissed for being fired. Huh?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> FrenchFry said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a series of gotcha questions, I'm sorry @Buddy400 and yes, it is exhausting to answer - especially if it's clear that you have one way of seeing things and I have another based on our respective experiences.
> 
> Life is risk and the rules of life also change.
> 
> 
> 
> These are real questions I would ask myself if I found myself in this position today.
> 
> And, keep in mind, had we not gotten together, things wouldn't have worked out for my wife either.
> 
> If the rules changed again, would you tell women afraid of being sexually assaulted that "life is risk and the rules of life also change"?
> 
> I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Sure she would. She would tell the woman that there are sexual risks involved if you don’t learn how to be assertive with your consent or lack of it. Also that there are risks you will never be able to foresee, and give examples of real stories or our own or other information about the risk of men who really are rapists and will never even try to understand consent. Do you really think any of the women here would advise young girls any other way?


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> I honestly don't quite understand what some of you guys are trying to get at. When you describe a fully consensual scene, and then ask if it was assault? It just seems like you are trying to make a point, yet I have no clue what that point is.
> 
> Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words. Yep, that happens all the time! And hey, sometimes it was the very first time for something, and it was also a major turn on! Taking that activity and making an example out of it and then asking "was this assault?" doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> Color me confused.


:scratchhead:

FW really?

The point is that consent can get blurred.

You mentioned: "Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words." And you admitted it happens all the time and a major turn on.

What if the woman in question was just playing along but was unable to assert herself, and then reported it as sexual assault even though the signals given was all consensual.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, wait. I am well versed in this. The thing that is sticky is that expulsion is not a consequence consistent with criminal prosecution. There are many violations for which a college can expel or an employer terminate. Do you have an example where the rules are different for these (say expulsions for simplicity sake) for rape vs other expulsions? You would be educating me. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few cases (involving colleges) where the expelled man has won judgement against the college (or courts have issued restraining orders preventing the man from being expelled), generally these cases have to do with a lack of due process. Of course, the opposing argument is that, since they only involve being expelled, due process isn't needed.
> 
> I can come up with specific cases if needed.
> 
> The link is related and from the latimes, so it should be reputable.
> 
> More college men are fighting back against sexual misconduct cases
> 
> In any case, colleges are losing enough of these cases that it's starting to cost them some significant money.
> 
> I'm not sure if anything similar is happening with businesses.
Click to expand...

Regarding this link, my opinion...I don’t understand why criminal cases like assault and rape are handled at college courts at all. I have never understood it. I think criminal charges should be filed, attorneys should be there, innocence until proven guilty should be the case. It should not be up to any college what happens to a rapist on a legal level. If the rapist is prosecuted, then the college should ban/fire the rapist. If the accused is cleared, then the college should have nothing to do with it unless it feels some other internal rule was violated. But for a college court to determine if some one was assaulted or raped is wrong to me.

I am sure that the young people will find their balance. They do want to have sex with each other, after all. This is true and has been true for all time and will be true for all time. Most of them are happily having consensual sex and understand consent. The ones who don’t need to be educated and it needs to be now. That part we can’t help (times have changed) so let’s just educate and get it rolling.

I am still waiting for a case where she pulled back from a kiss but didn’t say anything because she is “frozen” and he kissed her anyway and she filed assault charges.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't quite understand what some of you guys are trying to get at. When you describe a fully consensual scene, and then ask if it was assault? It just seems like you are trying to make a point, yet I have no clue what that point is.
> 
> Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words. Yep, that happens all the time! And hey, sometimes it was the very first time for something, and it was also a major turn on! Taking that activity and making an example out of it and then asking "was this assault?" doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> Color me confused.
> 
> 
> 
> <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/scratchhead.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Scratchhead" ></a>
> 
> FW really?
> 
> The point is that consent can get blurred.
> 
> You mentioned: "Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words." And you admitted it happens all the time and a major turn on.
> 
> What if the woman in question was just playing along but was unable to assert herself, and then reported it as sexual assault even though the signals given was all consensual.
Click to expand...

If that happened then everyone would be in a big mess and all kinds of crap would happen. Depending on who or where she filed charges with, what she accused him of, and what her motives actually were.

So do you mean the example of going down and blowing hot breath on the outside of her pants? Ok say she was giving off the wrong signals but seemed to be enjoying it. She says nothing at the time, they end their date.

What does she do next? You have to fill in the blanks for me with details if you want to actually have an answer. What he is supposed to do at that point is too late anyway right? So depending on if she just told her parents or she told everyone on Facebook or she filed a formal complaint with the police, what he should do next depends on those details.

Further, please tell me more about why she was not asserting herself. Is he very much larger than her? Is she a CSA victim? Is she out to get this guy because of spite? Since I don’t know any woman who would file charges against a man in this scenario, I also don’t know how to advise what a guy should do.

I need the whole picture of your hypothetical story. Or give me a couple of options at least.


----------



## 269370

Interesting case.

In a parallel universe, they are probably happily married right now.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nationa...ways-judge-rules-in-trial-of-ex-yukon-mla/amp

“When the meeting ended, Laxton gave the woman a hug and brief kiss on the lips. She was shocked but did not immediately convey her feelings.

“I froze. … I didn’t go there to be touched, I didn’t go there to be kissed,” she later testified, according to the Yukon News.

As Laxton escorted the woman to the public foyer of the building, he once again hugged and kissed her.

Two months later, the woman phoned the administrative director and complained she had been sexually harassed.

The complaint was forwarded to the premier’s office and Laxton subsequently resigned as speaker and left his party caucus to sit as an independent. (He did not seek re-election later in the year.)

In May 2016, the woman complained to the Yukon Human Rights Commission and also gave a statement to the RCMP, which led to the criminal charge. “




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

It gets down to details of how people are behaving and how they can read each other. Hopefully each can read the other's reactions to tell what they want. Often that is situation dependent. A good-night kiss at the door, is different from a kiss when you have been invited into someone's bedroom. 

I see consent as more basic. Its when someone has been mis-read, what is the "stop" point beyond which someone is being unreasonable / offensive / committing assault. 






NobodySpecial said:


> She is enjoying kissing but does not want to do this something else. So she is to tell you not to do something else by stopping kissing. This makes sense to you?


----------



## uhtred

I think there are two different things being considered: when someone is a good intimate partner, and when someone is committing assault. IMHO there is a very large gap between those two. 

I think a good lover is someone who is able to read what their partner wants and to act in accordance with those desires. Its great when people can do that. When they can't or when they make a mistake, then its down to not wanting to commit assault by violating consent. 

I view someone as consenting to the current activity if:

1). They have verbally consented, assuming not other coercion. 

2). They are engaging in physical actions or making sounds that indicate consent. This can be active kissing, stroking, etc etc. 

If someone says no, then they are not consenting. (that one is pretty simple). If someone pushes you away, they are not consenting - except see mixed signals:

Mixed signals: For example kissing passionately while pushing someone away. This is really unclear territory. Clearly its safest to ask what they want, but that may not be the mood that they want. My feeling is that it is not assault to continue if they are actively doing something to encourage you - but of course to stop if they say so. Its a difficult situation. 

Consent for additional activities: I think that asking verbally for each new specific activity is impractical: may I kiss your neck. May I kiss you ear. May I put a hand on your back, may I move my hand 3 inches lower on your back... etc etc. The human race would die out if everyone had to do that before sex. So my feeling is that mild slow escalations are OK as long as your partner is continuing to be an active participant, and as long as you have reason to believe that they likely want to continue. 

Slow is the key above. Kissing someone, then grabbing their crotch isn't "slow" because it doesn't give them time to react. Kissing and running your hands over someone, and gradually moving your hands toward intimate places counts as slow. 

If you have mis-read, then they can tell you to stop. Remember, I'm not talking about being a perfect lover, but about avoiding committing assault. Being a good lover - see above -that requires reading what someone wants.


----------



## uhtred

I agree 100%. College courts do not have any of the necessary protections against bias. There is no way to deal with the problem of either the victim or accused being the child of a wealthy donor, or an important professor, nor are they necessarily free from racial bias. The court system is very far from perfect, but at least it has attempted to address these issues. 

Expulsion may not sound bad for rape, and it isn't, but it is a very serious punishment if done to an *innocent* person. To me that is the problem: if someone commits rape, they deserve a lot more than expulsion, but if they are innocent they deserve a lot less. 

The whole title IX thing started because it was so difficult to prosecute accused college sex offenders. Unfortunately I think that this is just the nature of the situation. Sex offenses often happen in private, with no witnesses, and in college there are a high percentage where one or both people were intoxicated at some level. They assault may be real, but it can be very difficult to get really sold evidence when everyone involved was drunk, and no one has (or claims to have) a clear memory of what happened. 

The cases where the evidence is clear can be prosecuted by the courts and the attackers can be imprisoned for a long time. 

Universal surveillance would of course solve this and most other crimes - but with far worse consequences I think. If everyone drank less at college parties, these cases would be much less common - but I don't know how to make that happen: somehow kids have the strange idea that getting so drunk that you can't remember the party means that you had a good time. 








Faithful Wife said:


> Regarding this link, my opinion...I don’t understand why criminal cases like assault and rape are handled at college courts at all. I have never understood it. I think criminal charges should be filed, attorneys should be there, innocence until proven guilty should be the case. It should not be up to any college what happens to a rapist on a legal level. If the rapist is prosecuted, then the college should ban/fire the rapist. If the accused is cleared, then the college should have nothing to do with it unless it feels some other internal rule was violated. But for a college court to determine if some one was assaulted or raped is wrong to me.
> snip


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> If that happened then everyone would be in a big mess and all kinds of crap would happen. Depending on who or where she filed charges with, what she accused him of, and what her motives actually were. So do you mean the example of going down and blowing hot breath on the outside of her pants? Ok say she was giving off the wrong signals but seemed to be enjoying it. She says nothing at the time, they end their date. What does she do next? You have to fill in the blanks for me with details if you want to actually have an answer. What he is supposed to do at that point is too late anyway right? So depending on if she just told her parents or she told everyone on Facebook or she filed a formal complaint with the police, what he should do next depends on those details.


What can he do next?

Rape or sexual assault charges are not something that is innocent until proven guilty, it's guilty until proven innocent and even then their innocence may never be accepted. It is something that the accused will bear the consequences of before the verdict for very understandable reasons, rapists are subhumans and hate against them is justified. When innocent people are accused of rape however, there leaves alot of room for injustice.



> Further, please tell me more about why she was not asserting herself. Is he very much larger than her? Is she a CSA victim? Is she out to get this guy because of spite? Since I don’t know any woman who would file charges against a man in this scenario, I also don’t know how to advise what a guy should do.
> 
> I need the whole picture of your hypothetical story. Or give me a couple of options at least.


A woman may be not asserting herself due to expectations whether by her partner or society, fear of disappointment, fear of the consequences of refusal, or even internal conflict; her body may desire it, while her mind may not. Without clear consent the guy may end up going forward believing that he has her consent and enjoying it when deep down she could be resenting it. Regardless of this conflict, lets say the worst case scenario, she regrets not pushing him away, but the damage is done enough for her to cry to her friends later and then file charges. The guy then goes 'erm, wtf?!' such as the case with Ansari (assuming she DID consent according to Ansari)

Or even alcohol, she's drunk, he's drunk, neither knows what they are doing and end up doing it. The girl can blame the guy for everything. This is what I mean when in some cases women should be taught to assert themselves and not put themselves in situations that they may regret, and if they put themselves in situations where such consent may be blurred such as in the case of alcohol then they should share the same responsibility for it as the men they slept with.

The issue with this too when it comes to responsibility, is that rapists push the responsibility of it to their victims. Lets say Ansari really did sexually assault that woman, but he knows she never really said no even though his instincts could say she doesn't want it. So if he truly did what some folks suspected him to have done, he has gotten away with it because the consent is blurred (though even though he wasn't proven guilty he has suffered consequences to his reputation and career). How to prevent that scenario from happening? Assertiveness.

I doubt the Ansari case would have ruled in his favor if the woman he was with made it loud and clear and he still kept going. And more likely he wouldn't have kept going at all.


----------



## wild jade

Faithful Wife said:


> I honestly don't quite understand what some of you guys are trying to get at. When you describe a fully consensual scene, and then ask if it was assault? It just seems like you are trying to make a point, yet I have no clue what that point is.
> 
> Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words. Yep, that happens all the time! And hey, sometimes it was the very first time for something, and it was also a major turn on! Taking that activity and making an example out of it and then asking "was this assault?" doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> Color me confused.


The impression I'm getting is that what is motivating all the gotcha questions is a genuine insecurity or concern that some act they've done in the past is some form of sexual assault.

All the gotcha are about how women don't know what we want, how we loved to be dominated or pushed towards yes, how uncomfortable *we* get when talking about these things, how we can't express ourselves, blah, blah. 

It rather seems like a hunt for that exact line where refusing to take no for an answer doesn't get you charged.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> II think men would tend to regret sex with women who were eager to have sex rather than regretting not having sex with a woman who wasn't interested.


Wait, say what??? Is part of the problem that the more interesting women are the ones saying no?

Maybe the best solution, then, is to stick with the women who are actually eager to have sex. Problem solved!


----------



## personofinterest

I'm really really trying to give the benefit of the doubt to some of these guys, but it is seeming more and more like they are just out to prove that since consent can be blurry they are not responsible for obtaining it or having it. Sorry guys, that's not how any of this works


----------



## RandomDude

wild jade said:


> The impression I'm getting is that what is motivating all the gotcha questions is a genuine insecurity or concern that some act they've done in the past is some form of sexual assault.
> 
> All the gotcha are about how women don't know what we want, how we loved to be dominated or pushed towards yes, how uncomfortable *we* get when talking about these things, how we can't express ourselves, blah, blah.
> 
> It rather seems like a hunt for that exact line where refusing to take no for an answer doesn't get you charged.


Can't speak for others but in my case of course. I want to be sure I don't hurt the ones I care about!!!

So far I've been very lucky considering I don't ask for permission. Never had a problem reading women though and I like to chalk it up with being an animal lover hence I read body language in different species including humans quite clearly 

Still, I fear if even once, I can be wrong 
Also why I asked my girlfriend if I made her feel uncomfortable and she slapped me upside my head and told me to stop overthinking >.<


----------



## personofinterest

Random dude, it's clear to me that you really want to do the right thing. Eugene John windley want to know how to make sure you're not hurting a woman. All these weirdo scenarios and examples from slanted books and what about this and what about that is what I am talking about. We could hypothetical all day long. Either these guys are looking for a guarantee or they just want to slot in the back door. I can't figure it out. Or they're just those contrary and type of people who constantly want to play devil's advocate until everyone else is pulling out their hair. In any case this is not rocket science. No it's not. If you want to do the right thing, make sure you have consent. If you don't like that, choose a different world to live in period


----------



## RandomDude

personofinterest said:


> Random dude, it's clear to me that you really want to do the right thing. Eugene John windley want to know how to make sure you're not hurting a woman. All these weirdo scenarios and examples from slanted books and what about this and what about that is what I am talking about. We could hypothetical all day long. Either these guys are looking for a guarantee or they just want to slot in the back door. I can't figure it out. Or they're just those contrary and type of people who constantly want to play devil's advocate until everyone else is pulling out their hair. In any case this is not rocket science. No it's not. If you want to do the right thing, make sure you have consent. If you don't like that, choose a different world to live in period


What I'm afraid of is like, even when doing all I can to ascertain consent, deep down the woman doesn't want it.

So far it's never been the case, but the thought of hurting someone I care about deeply in such a fashion, it hurts to even think about really. Maybe I'm just thinking too much like I tend to do.


----------



## personofinterest

It may be that this is where picking the right kind of woman comes in to play. For example, if I know a man cares about me and doesn't want to hurt me, then even if, in the heat of the moment, he pushes boundaries past what I'm comfortable we is or maybe tries to go farther than I intended to, I'm not going to rush out and file charges because I know his motives. I think if you are sincerely doing all you can with the well being of the woman you are with in mind, a woman with character and quality is not going to cry assault just because she didn't tell you how she felt deep down. I know it's impossible to know that sometimes on the 1st few dates. Trust me, I think men have it very difficult in this day of covert and over MA sandrie that manifests itself in the threat of rape or sexual harassment charges. But all a man can really do is make sure he is trying to do the right thing with pure motives. Beyond that, if a woman is going to be a *****, you cant necessarily predict. Although there usually are some signs if a woman has that general attitude that most men are probably potential rapists. I would avoid a woman like that like the plague.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> The impression I'm getting is that what is motivating all the gotcha questions is a genuine insecurity or concern that some act they've done in the past is some form of sexual assault.
> 
> 
> 
> All the gotcha are about how women don't know what we want, how we loved to be dominated or pushed towards yes, how uncomfortable *we* get when talking about these things, how we can't express ourselves, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> It rather seems like a hunt for that exact line where refusing to take no for an answer doesn't get you charged.




I think that’s your wild imagination. It’s quite obvious and very simple that what guys are worried about is that while all the women here keep saying “just get consent, simples!”. All the guys are saying that it is not that simple: in the real world, nobody really asks for VERBAL consent in the heat of the moment nor do women expect to be asked VERBALLY (contrary to what they are saying here) and if the guy takes charge of the situation (which is how majority of women like it, according to them), it leaves him open for sexual assault charges being filed, like with many examples provided, if he misreads the situation.
The men with assault charges aren’t here to confirm (WiFi is not great in prisons) and women who believe they have been sexually assaulted, well, believe it was sexual assault, and not an inappropriate / misplaced sexual advance (not to minimise actual sexual assault crimes and rapes).
But there are lots of these stories online; like somebody touching someone else’s knee and being charged with assault, 15 years after the fact: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.ind...appropriate-everyday-sexism-a8027086.html?amp

It really is not that difficult to understand, and frankly, it really shouldn’t be. The problem is that women can’t have it both ways: if they want verbal clarity, then forget the whole taking charge thing. If they want a man to lead / take charge, then don’t complain if they get it wrong sometimes. Not so difficult hopefully.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

RandomDude said:


> What I'm afraid of is like, even when doing all I can to ascertain consent, deep down the woman doesn't want it.
> 
> So far it's never been the case, but the thought of hurting someone I care about deeply in such a fashion, it hurts to even think about really. Maybe I'm just thinking too much like I tend to do.


 Boo. I'm sorry. It seems mighty unlikely. But I feel you.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Trust me, I think men have it very difficult in this day of covert and over MA sandrie that manifests itself in the threat of rape or sexual harassment charges.



And that’s ALL we need acknowledged; because that is a REAL problem at the moment. But instead, there’s a bit of that heels  digging going on.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> And that’s ALL we need acknowledged; because that is a REAL problem at the moment. But instead, there’s a bit of that heels  digging going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Bear in mind that it is within the context of the rejection of the notion that rape and harassment are a real and prevalent thing not some weird aberration. Historically what has been taken for consent often isn't. The idea that <b>some</b> men just DON'T attempt to achieve reluctant consent is held tightly as well. And many of us have found this to just not be true.

ETA: added the some so you don't flip your standard **** that this is meant to speak to all men.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are real questions I would ask myself if I found myself in this position today.
> 
> And, keep in mind, had we not gotten together, things wouldn't have worked out for my wife either.
> 
> If the rules changed again, would you tell women afraid of being sexually assaulted that "life is risk and the rules of life also change"?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Thank you for sharing your first kiss story, let me tell you a little bit about mine:
> 
> It was second date. Before we went over to my husbands house for a party he was throwing, we had a bite to eat and a couple cocktails at nearby neighborhood restaurant. I was wearing a very tight and short black dress and absolutely massive high heels as at the time, I was really into those giant stripper platforms. During the dinner, we were having an awesome conversation about trying new things and I was really into him so I was wildly flirty and took several opportunities to touch him and hang on him.
> 
> When we made it over to his house, he had a keg set up and his friends were already in full party mode. I had another beer. I was introduced to a bunch of people, the music got turned up and I started dancing with a bunch of his friends. Later on, my husband pulled me aside to his kitchen which was in a secluded, dark area of his house. He opened his cabinet and said "Hey, I remember you like M&Ms -- these are for you, don't tell anyone else. I laughed, took a few and as I was chewing them he said "I really wanted to do this on our last date, but I thought I should wait--can I kiss you?" I blushed, did not finish chewing my M&Ms and said "mmmhmm!" and we had our first, totally awesome electric kiss.
> ---
> 
> If my husband was not, in fact, my husband but a predator and ended up assaulting me my clothing, my drinking, my behavior at dinner, my partying with people I did not know and willingly going into a secluded part of his house after only knowing him for 4 hours tops would all be called into question. This could have all gone very, very wrong for me and a lot of people would put the blame on me for giving mixed signals and being a tease.
> 
> The interpretation I have of this whole discussion is that men are experiencing legitimate fear of the dating arena because the cultural rules have shifted to a point where instead of the benefit of the doubt being given to the man for misinterpreting signals, more legitimacy is being given to women that say things like "I said no and tried to pull away, but he pinned me in."
> 
> Believe me, I get that it is scary. If you aren't great at reading body language, you have to risk being awkward by asking. If you are great at reading body language, you have the risk of dating someone who is conniving, wishy-washy or outright malicious. This is part of the risk of having human interactions and there is not a failsafe way to avoid this.
> 
> The only part I don't understand is that people are out here advocating for a way to minimize that risk by promoting things like affirmative consent and assertiveness training but because it's either different than what happened in the past or it can feel awkward - trying to shut it down and say it's not realistic and/or their whole lives would be different if all these rules were in place before. Okay...but it has changed and you have to evaluate all of these risks and decide what works best for you. If you feel strongly in your heart that women are turned off by asking - then that is a risk that you have to take.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of men learned, either directly or via social conditioning, the following things that they believe are true:

1. Men want sex but women don’t just “give it up”. So men, in order to “get sex” must figure out how to convince a woman to “give it up”. Right off the bat their desire to have sex is met with the dilemma of how to get a woman willing. Tales are told between friends brothers, and they speculate and formulate about how to essentially trick women into sex. They are not wanting to trick them, they just think women must be tricked because women don’t just come at them to “get sex” the way men come at women to get it. So tricking them is what men feel forced to do. They would rather women just “give up the sex” without being tricked but that isn’t the way the world is, in their view. Also some of them don’t want to “get sex” from a woman who would “give it up” to just anyone, so they feel if they were tricky enough to “get her to give it up” means they are studly and also she is worthy.

2. Women will be more likely to “give it up” if you turn her on slowly and escalate the situation incrementally. And you never want to do anything that will take her out of the mood, since your goal is to “get sex”. So you only want to listen to clues that confirm she is turned on and nothing else.

3. Women are sexually unpredictable and sometimes coy and men never know for sure if they will suddenly scream “take me you fool!” or “get off me you creep!” So men focus on the arousal part of sex to try to figure out this conundrum. They think that her state of arousal is the gauge they should listen to. They don’t want her to say “get off, creep” at all, but they don’t really understand why she does this sometimes and doesn’t at others. When she does this but is clearly aroused, they are further confused.

4. Most men have had what they considered “success” in “getting some” using the above points so now believe they understand women and sex. Women are unpredictable and sex is something you must trick them into. The “trick” part doesn’t feel dirty to the men because some of these women thanked him for “bringing her out of her shell” or similar. They believe the scene is that men chase and women are chaste until the tricky one who has all the right moves has aroused her enough to “give it up”. This man has now accomplished the task he set out for.

So in my womansplaining above, I’m talking about the way things have been learned when verbal consent wasn’t part of the conversation, and when women’s voices were not part of the conversation. In that environment it made sense and did not seem non consensual to the men.

And during the same time, women received bad or no education on how to become sexual people. Usually their education consisted of “just don’t do it or you will be sorry for numerous reasons” and “oh also, be careful because men will rape you”. So women gather with friends and share stories and most of the time it was bad advice for various reasons, the same way young inexperienced men give each other bad advice.

And for both the young men and women, that bad advice worked some of the time so the “way it is” seemed obvious. Men chase and women are chaste...until he finds that magic sweet spot that arouses her enough to drop her inhibitions for this special guy. Even women describe it this way, romantically and wistfully.

But now we enter a new day. One where women need to be free to just want sex and want it with who they choose, and men need to be free to find those women who want to have sex with them and never have to “trick” anyone.

Now there is consent in the conversation. And it confuses those who learned things the old way. When you learn about sex with the inclusion of consent at the same time, your assumptions go more like this...

1. Everyone wants sex but only in their own time and way. My job is to know how to responsibly get sex in my own way. My way can’t impose on another’s way. Therefore, all sex needs to be consensual and I need to learn about giving and receiving consent. (Goal is not “get sex”. Goal is “get consent”).

2. Arousal is natural and normal and is telling your body that it is revving up for “more”. But we are not slaves to arousal, our own or anyone else’s. When you are a responsible sexual person, you realize that no matter if you or both you and your date are aroused, it does not mean sex will happen. So you will learn to deal with sexual frustration in healthy ways that do not penalize your partner somehow. You understand before you go into a situation that is arousing that you will still have to make clear headed choices. 

3. Consent is sexy. This is something only those who truly get it understand. But for people who learned things this way and not the old way, it is self evident. Men and women simply need to find each other, mutually consent, and have sex. The only people who don’t believe this is as easy as pie are the ones who still believe that there are not people who want to have sex with them without trickery. 

As for mixed signals and women who don’t want to talk about anything....

It is true this is an issue and a lot of women don’t understand the reasons they need to openly communicate. Also true it turns some women off to communicate at all and they really do just want him to read her mind. Some women are even convinced that if a man does read her mind, he is the one. And that if he doesn’t he’s an idiot.

We try to educate these women and it is difficult sometimes and sometimes we fail. But we continue to try.

The good news is that younger women these days are more likely to communicate and understand consent and claim their right to be sexual beings and choose who when and where, versus being “tricked” or wanting a man to read her mind. The more women learn about their own arousal, desires, and healthy activities the better. 

And younger men are enjoying the new way because they are encountering empowered young women who want sex and know how to have it in ways that are healthy. 

About asking for consent in a similar way to FF’s first kiss story...

During one of our first hot and heavy make out sessions, my ex h and I were in the back seat of his truck. We stopped to take a breath for a moment and were looking at each other with lust in our eyes. He had his hands on my thighs at that moment, and he lifted one hand and slowly started touching the trim on the neck of my shirt. Then he moved his whole hand and arm toward me like he was going to touch my breast. But right before he did he stopped and held it there for a moment and then said “permission to touch?” 

This made me melt on several levels and I breathlessly whispered “yes please”. Not only did he show me his desire to be consensual, he was also telling me (in top/bottom speak) how he likes to give or receive certain types of instruction. I knew right then that he was an advanced sexual being. (I could have been wrong on that as sometimes a guy will say the right thing in the moment but he simply got lucky and actually has no mojo. This usually gets revealed quickly when it happens. And I was not wrong about my ex, the Sex God that he is).


----------



## personofinterest

> 4. Most men have had what they considered “success” in “getting some” using the above points *so now believe they understand women and sex.* Women are unpredictable and sex is something you must trick them into. The “trick” part doesn’t feel dirty to the men because some of these women thanked him for “bringing her out of her shell” or similar. They believe the scene is that men chase and women are chaste until the tricky one who has all the right moves has aroused her enough to “give it up”. This man has now accomplished the task he set out for.


The above is very true and speaks volumes.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

inmyprime said:


> I think that’s your wild imagination. It’s quite obvious and very simple that what guys are worried about is that while all the women here keep saying “just get consent, simples!”. All the guys are saying that it is not that simple: in the real world, *nobody really asks for VERBAL consent in the heat of the moment* nor do women expect to be asked VERBALLY (contrary to what they are saying here) and if the guy takes charge of the situation (which is how majority of women like it, according to them), it leaves him open for sexual assault charges being filed, like with many examples provided, if he misreads the situation.
> The men with assault charges aren’t here to confirm (WiFi is not great in prisons) and women who believe they have been sexually assaulted, well, believe it was sexual assault, and not an inappropriate / misplaced sexual advance (not to minimise actual sexual assault crimes and rapes).
> But there are lots of these stories online; like somebody touching someone else’s knee and being charged with assault, 15 years after the fact: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.ind...appropriate-everyday-sexism-a8027086.html?amp
> 
> It really is not that difficult to understand, and frankly, it really shouldn’t be. The problem is that women can’t have it both ways: if they want verbal clarity, then forget the whole taking charge thing. If they want a man to lead / take charge, then don’t complain if they get it wrong sometimes. Not so difficult hopefully.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




This chump does. I love enthusiastic sex with a woman who WANTS it and is sure she wants it. I get stuck in my head if I don't feel her comfort level is equal to mine. It might be a "beta" trait to ask but it is the way I am wired i guess. Not getting laid because I asked for verbal consent is nothing compared to the shame I'd feel if I pushed a woman to not feel safe with me.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> Bear in mind that it is within the context of the rejection of the notion that rape and harassment are a real and prevalent thing not some weird aberration.




Rapes and sexual abuse are an aberration, and not the norm and not to be tolerated. Period. The way you phrase your posts are either deliberately provocative or simply uninformed, reciting slogans from somewhere that don’t have any connection to reality which makes me wonder if you actually understand what these slogans actually stand for.

It used to be more common in the past and it is still a problem in developing countries, but like any crime, rape IS an aberration in our society. It pesky mean it doesn’t happen. But it also means that it is NOT normal. It does offend me that you keep shoving into people’s throats that it is ‘part of the system designed by the males’ and that it is normal part of male behaviour. Because it isn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Rapes and sexual abuse are an aberration, and not the norm and not to be tolerated. Period.


Ok. (I do think you mean sexual assault, not abuse.) You can site anything very strongly that you like. Have fun with that.


----------



## uhtred

I don't think its that clear. 

I don't really have a dog in this fight - the last time I had sex with someone other than my wife was 35 years ago and it is unlikely I will ever do so again. In a long term marriage, consent has usually been well worked out. (though of course there are cases of spousal rape and abuse).

Women are at a real risk of sexual assault and rape. Men are as well, though with a lower probability. This is a real and important problem. The exact statistics are difficult to obtain, but its a a substantial risk. 

At the same time there are cases of men being expelled, or sometimes convicted and imprisoned on false rape charges. These statistics are even more difficult to obtain - there are rare cases where an accuser recants, but usually once someone is convicted the stay convicted. No way to know what percentage of those convictions was false. 

Then there are the endless blurry cases. There are two drunken people in a room, where its not clear how intoxicated each was. There are cases of women who report being assaulted by a date years after it happened (just had a case like that here), and there simply isn't enough evidence. There are cases where people are to some extent spressured, coerced, etc. There is the range from being a terrible selfish sex partner to being a rapist 

I don't know how real the risk is for men of false accusation, but I think it is a valid concern. 









personofinterest said:


> I'm really really trying to give the benefit of the doubt to some of these guys, but it is seeming more and more like they are just out to prove that since consent can be blurry they are not responsible for obtaining it or having it. Sorry guys, that's not how any of this works


----------



## personofinterest

In one of my previous jobs I worked in this field. The statistical percentage of rape allegations that are false are between 2-4%. So yes, it does happen.

2-4% of the time. So no, the go-to response should NOT be "she's lying." I honestly think that for a subset of men, "she's lying" has replaced "her skirt was too short," and it is sickening. I do not think the majority of men on TAM feel that way. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple do, but that is NOT because of TAM. It is likely because of incel and RedPill type sites.

I know two very fine men whose careers were torpedoed unfairly because a student (in each case) falsely accused them of sexual misconduct. One wasn't going to get the grade she wanted. The other made a pass at HIM, he declined and distanced himself, and she got mad. I watched them lose their jobs, teaching credentials, etc. And even though both accusations were PROVEN to be false....neither one of them ever taught again. And the papers that were so quick to plaster the accusation weren't making their innocence front page news.

Still......2-4%. You don't decide it's all a bunch of lying women because of 2-4%


----------



## NobodySpecial

Incidentally I did not say anything about our current social constructs being designed by men. I don't think it and never said it.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

personofinterest said:


> In one of my previous jobs I worked in this field. The statistical percentage of rape allegations that are false are between 2-4%. So yes, it does happen.
> 
> 2-4% of the time. So no, the go-to response should NOT be "she's lying." I honestly think that for a subset of men, "she's lying" has replaced "her skirt was too short," and it is sickening. I do not think the majority of men on TAM feel that way. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple do, but that is NOT because of TAM. It is likely because of incel and RedPill type sites.
> 
> I know two very fine men whose careers were torpedoed unfairly because a student (in each case) falsely accused them of sexual misconduct. One wasn't going to get the grade she wanted. The other made a pass at HIM, he declined and distanced himself, and she got mad. I watched them lose their jobs, teaching credentials, etc. And even though both accusations were PROVEN to be false....neither one of them ever taught again. And the papers that were so quick to plaster the accusation weren't making their innocence front page news.
> 
> Still......2-4%. You don't decide it's all a bunch of lying women because of 2-4%


So, only 2-4% of those men's lives were irrevocably destroyed. I don't even know where those percentages come from...I mean most of the cases there are no eyewitnesses, it becomes a he said/she said situation. Is it just that 2-4% admit that they made it all up? I mean whats the chances of that, really? Maybe 2-4%?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I'm all for erring on the side of safety, pls don't get me wrong, every rape is horrible and I feel nothing but compassion and hopes the guilty is hung slowly. 

There are some mens lives' that have been ruined because of false accusations no matter what the percentage is and that too must be horrible in a different way to go through. One out of a thousand or 10 thousand, who knows. 

No one can honestly say both situations don't exist though.


----------



## NobodySpecial

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> So, only 2-4% of those men's lives were irrevocably destroyed. I don't even know where those percentages come from...I mean most of the cases there are no eyewitnesses, it becomes a he said/she said situation. Is it just that 2-4% admit that they made it all up? I mean whats the chances of that, really? Maybe 2-4%?


There is no doubt that 0% of people falsely accused should suffer consequences and work needs to be done to change systems that allow that to happen. I think the point is that the cry of false accusation is often the battle rally of the people who insist that sexual assault does not happen.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

And the battle cry of most of the guilty.

It's a tough topic, I certainly don't have any answers.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I'm all for erring on the side of safety, pls don't get me wrong, every rape is horrible and I feel nothing but compassion and hopes the guilty is hung slowly.
> 
> There are some mens lives' that have been ruined because of false accusations no matter what the percentage is and that too must be horrible in a different way to go through. One out of a thousand or 10 thousand, who knows.
> 
> No one can honestly say both situations don't exist though.


It's like it is a weird either or in some people's minds sometimes. EITHER false accusations happen OR the real thing happens. Well, no.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure she would. She would tell the woman that there are sexual risks involved if you don’t learn how to be assertive with your consent or lack of it. Also that there are risks you will never be able to foresee, and give examples of real stories or our own or other information about the risk of men who really are rapists and will never even try to understand consent. Do you really think any of the women here would advise young girls any other way?


Once upon a time, the rule was "If a woman is wearing revealing clothes, she's asking for it". If a woman back then wasn't sure what clothes were appropriate in a certain situation and was looking for guidelines, would @FrenchFry have blown off her concerns and told her "Life is a risk"?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I'm all for erring on the side of safety, pls don't get me wrong, every rape is horrible and I feel nothing but compassion and hopes the guilty is hung slowly.
> 
> There are some mens lives' that have been ruined because of false accusations no matter what the percentage is and that too must be horrible in a different way to go through. One out of a thousand or 10 thousand, who knows.
> 
> No one can honestly say both situations don't exist though.


I guess there needs to be education for men who want to learn about actual consent, and another separate type of education for those who want to learn how to prevent a false rape charge.

And there can be education for women who don’t want to be assertive, and education for all women so they know that false charges are a crime. And then the education for women who want to learn about actual consent, which would cover all of these things.

Affirmative consent education is approached from the position that people actually want to have sex with each other and finding ways to do this where no one’s boundaries are crossed. It does not assume men are rapists just because they want to have sex. And is does not assume that women are wilting flowers who must be tricked into sex.

Trying to figure out how to avoid a false rape or assault charge comes from an approach that assumes large numbers of women want to trick men out of spite and that they don’t want sex anyway and/or they may file charges against you if they regret it. This approach of course makes men afraid. They should be since this approach is wrong and and a terrifying prospect. If large numbers of women were doing this, and no one has yet shown that it is a large number, but if it was I would definitely educate men on avoiding false charges.

Yet - - the way I would educate them would be by telling them to get affirmative verbal or written consent. How else could they prove there was consent in the moment?

So there we are back at the same advice that also is used for consent education that is of the actual type - - meaning it approaches things from the view that people do want to have sex with each other and are concerned for their partner’s well being more than they are concerned about getting laid.

The answer to both avoiding false charges as much as one can protect themselves, and also the answer to gaining affirmative consent not because you are worried about false charges but because you honestly desire the other persons consent - - is the same answer. 

Get verbal or written (only if deemed necessary by you for your own protection) consent and you will know for sure she wants you and had consensual relations with you.

Now the last part of it...

Just because it was consensual doesn’t mean it was good for her. She may have actual regrets. Having had consensual sex even though she regretted it would be covered in standard affirmative consent education. She would be advised to be self aware about sex and therefore hope to avoid sex she regretted in the future.

Now we have covered all bases by standard affirmative consent education.

But if men insist on special separate classes to avoid false charges, they can have them. It will just be “get it verbally or in writing if you have to, or get it on voice recording”. That same message would just be repeated over and over. It’s a very easy class.

For women who are literally going to commit criminal offenses by out right lying, I’m sorry but no one can protect themselves from something that random. Just as women can’t always protect themselves from actual predators by learning affirmative consent. I don’t know what to tell you guys about scary women like that any more than I know what to tell women about predators. They are out there. If they target you it is because they are criminals, not because you did anything wrong. This goes to both rape assault victims and false charge victims. No amount of education will remove the evil in other people.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I honestly don't quite understand what some of you guys are trying to get at. When you describe a fully consensual scene, and then ask if it was assault? It just seems like you are trying to make a point, yet I have no clue what that point is.


We are describing scenes that ended up being consensual (because the woman welcomed our action). We know that this is not sexual assault.

We are saying, what if the woman in the scenario *did not *welcome our action. Would THAT be sexual assault.

We are trying to make the point that if one thinks the first scenario is not sexual assault and that the second one is, then sexual assault is completely reliant on the woman's perception of our actions and it doesn't seem right that the same action in the same situation on our part could either be sexual assault or not based solely on it's reception by the woman (which is unknowable to us ahead of time).

And sure, one could say, don't have sex with a women unless you KNOW ahead of time that it won't get you in trouble (which actually would, if one wanted to be absolutely safe, involve a signed document or a video).

I guess one could also tell women not to go to frat parties unless they KNOW that they'll be safe from sexual assault. But I don't think that would be received well. It might be called victim blaming.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

NobodySpecial said:


> There is no doubt that 0% of people falsely accused should suffer consequences and work needs to be done to change systems that allow that to happen. I think the point is that the cry of false accusation is often the battle rally of the people who insist that sexual assault does not happen.


Well, granted those people who insist that are stupid. Its just my impression after the accusation you are guilty before being proven innocent and even after proven innocent, people will still look at you cautiously. Like POI said, nobody is going to let those men teach again even though they did nothing wrong. The accusation is stronger than the evidence. Rape and even sexual assualt is really hard to prove most of the time since its usually behind closed doors, so its not surprising the conviction rate isn't that great, because the evidence usually isn't. In the meantime, the guy loses his job, his income and sometimes his family/friends whether he is proven innocent or guilty. 

But the rallying cry to string every man up by his balls upon accusation is extreme too. Its like that old saying, 'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'. I did see a story of a woman that got a 10 yr jail sentence for lying about being raped, every state should adopt a law like that. 

Unfortunately, its one of those things where its important be smart about what situation you put yourself in rather than rely on strangers doing the right thing and then blaming the legal system when all you have is your word vs his word.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Once upon a time, the rule was "If a woman is wearing revealing clothes, she's asking for it". If a woman back then wasn't sure what clothes were appropriate in a certain situation and was looking for guidelines, would @FrenchFry have blown off her concerns and told her "Life is a risk"?


I think the concerns are real. I also think the consent advice is also real. That's why I give it. ymmv. I mean, if I did not think the concerns were real, I would not be talking to my kids about it.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> It rather seems like a hunt for that exact line where refusing to take no for an answer doesn't get you charged.


This is a complete and total straw man argument. 

Either you didn't read this thread or you're being deliberately obtuse.

No man here has indicated that would refuse to take "No" for an answer (one thought that "No" might not be a final answer, but did not say it should be ignored.

No man here even has wondered what he should do if consent is not obvious.

Our concerns have been with the possibility that the man believes he has consent but the woman does not believe she has given it.

Yeah, the guys here all all looking for ways to sexually assault women and get away with it.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

And as @FW said, there's evil in the world. And sadly, not all, men or women, will avoid being impacted by said evil.

And not just this yes/no topic. Many other crimes up to and including murder happen every day, sadly.

On the topic though....who won't have a woman by herself in their office alone?

Me, for one, and all my friends. 

It's just good practice. 
Even if there's a good reason to close the door for business interactions. I always invite another or open the door if any woman associates come in and close the door.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> In one of my previous jobs I worked in this field. The statistical percentage of rape allegations that are false are between 2-4%. So yes, it does happen.
> 
> 2-4% of the time. So no, the go-to response should NOT be "she's lying." I honestly think that for a subset of men, "she's lying" has replaced "her skirt was too short," and it is sickening. I do not think the majority of men on TAM feel that way. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple do, but that is NOT because of TAM. It is likely because of incel and RedPill type sites.
> 
> I know two very fine men whose careers were torpedoed unfairly because a student (in each case) falsely accused them of sexual misconduct. One wasn't going to get the grade she wanted. The other made a pass at HIM, he declined and distanced himself, and she got mad. I watched them lose their jobs, teaching credentials, etc. And even though both accusations were PROVEN to be false....neither one of them ever taught again. And the papers that were so quick to plaster the accusation weren't making their innocence front page news.
> 
> Still......2-4%. You don't decide it's all a bunch of lying women because of 2-4%


The 2-4% is a completely made up statistic with no foundation.

If you want to debate it some more, let me know and I'll point you to several reputable sources that agree with me.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Faithful Wife said:


> The answer to both avoiding false charges as much as one can protect themselves, and also the answer to gaining affirmative consent not because you are worried about false charges but because you honestly desire the other persons consent - - is the same answer.
> 
> Get verbal or written (only if deemed necessary by you for your own protection) consent and you will know for sure she wants you and had consensual relations with you.
> .


Nobody will ever get written consent, that is just plain ridiculous. By the time you drafted up the legalese, you both would be so over it, no one will get laid. And verbal consent is useless unless you record it, which is also a turnoff unless you carry around a VAR in which case there are legal implications in some states for recording private conversations with unknowing individuals. You might as well avoid the opposite sex if you want to be 100% safe.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> There is no doubt that 0% of people falsely accused should suffer consequences and work needs to be done to change systems that allow that to happen. I think the point is that the cry of false accusation is often the battle rally of the people who insist that sexual assault does not happen.


So the 2nd point invalidates the first?

The sky is blue.

Donald Trump tells me the sky is blue.

The sky's still blue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> We are describing scenes that ended up being consensual (because the woman welcomed our action). We know that this is not sexual assault.
> 
> *We are saying, what if the woman in the scenario *did not* welcome our action. Would THAT be sexual assault*.


Ok taking the sentence as it is written - - yes. Of course it would be assault. You've given me no information other than scenes of kissing/other sexy/light petting, and then said what if "she did not welcome our action". Well, if she did not welcome your action _and you did it anyway_, then yes that is assault. How else would you define assault? This implies you did know that she did not welcome the action, of course.

But what if she never told you she felt assaulted and files charges on you the next day?

Ok I am willing to play that game...however, we are still talking about a KISS. Right? That's the scenario you have presented. I had asked for any evidence of any other assault charge based on a KISS after a date, and none has been forthcoming. Yes, there are assault charges filed against the likes of Weinstein for unwanted kisses. That was at work, with women who worked for him. That was not on a date between two college kids.

So let's say she files charges. Who does she file them with? College police or actual police? Let's say actual police. They take her statement. She claims you kissed her but it was unwanted and she feels assaulted. Now hold on to your hats but....the police WILL ask her if she told you that she did not want the kiss, either before, during or after the kiss. Because intent matters to police, and the intent to assault someone can easily be mistaken if we are talking about a KISS at the end of a date.

So we can take 2 hypothetical scenarios....

1. She lies and says she did tell you to stop. In this case, the police may proceed and you will need to retain an attorney. This would really suck for you, and the woman is a criminal. From here, you are on your own. _There is nothing about affirmative consent education that will protect you against an evil lying person_. You need advice only from lawyers at this point.

2. She says no, she didn't actually tell you that either before, during or after, but she was feeling it and did not know how to say it. At this point, the police will tell her that because she did not give any indication that she didn't want the kiss, and therefore you likely thought she was consenting to the kiss, no charges will be filed. Hopefully he would also tell the girl to seek some counseling or talk to her mother.

So...there you go. That is my answer to the hypothetical scenario given, and adding some details myself so that I can answer. 

Is kissing assault if it was unwanted and the kisser was aware of this? Yes. 

Is kissing assault if it was unwanted but the kisser was not aware of this? Sometimes. Maybe the teacher kissing a teen aged student had her consent so he didn't think it was assault. It wouldn't matter in that case if he had consent or not, still assault. Or in the case of 2 college kids on a date where the kisser has a reasonable impression that he has her consent even though she has not verbalized it (and in reality, she does not consent), no it is not assault because no charges of any kind would be filed. For cases that are murky somewhere between these, each case would have details and facts that would be reviewed and presented for attorneys and court if the girl presses charges.

Meanwhile....after they've learned the basics, the kids who understand affirmative consent do not bother themselves with these what if's and are happily partnering up with those who consensually want to have sex with them, and having happy, healthy consensual sex!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Once upon a time, the rule was "If a woman is wearing revealing clothes, she's asking for it". If a woman *back then* wasn't sure what clothes were appropriate in a certain situation and was looking for guidelines, would @FrenchFry have blown off her concerns and told her "Life is a risk"?


If we were "back then", then FF would advise her with whatever information she had available "back then". 

You quoting her about life being a risk (and you forgot about the part that rules change) is from "now". Not "back then". We can't go back in time and educate women or men. If we could, what we would probably say would be "honey you look DIVINE!! So sad that you will be **** shamed and possibly raped just for being fabulous, and that the men around here will congratulate your rapists and shun you. If it helps you to know, in your daughter and grand-daughter's time, things will be different and we can actually show our ankles in public without getting raped! Also we can choose who we have sex with and we have birth control! Thank you for your efforts in your time that helped us get here in our now."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> So the 2nd point invalidates the first?


No. Quite the opposite.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> The 2-4% is a completely made up statistic with no foundation.
> 
> If you want to debate it some more, let me know and I'll point you to several reputable sources that agree with me.


I would be interested though I wonder, whether the source is reputable or not, how accurate the rates are. Sadly, false accusations are not prosecuted for the most part (if at all).


----------



## Faithful Wife

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Nobody will ever get written consent, that is just plain ridiculous. By the time you drafted up the legalese, *you both would be so over it, no one will get laid*. .


You are coming at it from the perspective that if a boner gets killed, it isn't worth it to get affirmative consent, you'd rather get laid. 

Affirmative consent does not look at the picture the way you have presented it. Affirmative consent says "get consent" not "get sex". If sex is foregone because everyone loses their boner just to talk about sex? Then you are better off, because not getting clear consent is the exact kind of thing that someone who wants to target you for false charges will be looking for.

Contrary to what you think, many of us highly sexual people use affirmative consent all the time, and so do college kids who are more concerned about actual consent than getting laid.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok taking the sentence as it is written - - yes. Of course it would be assault. You've given me no information other than scenes of kissing/other sexy/light petting, and then said what if "she did not welcome our action". Well, if she did not welcome your action _and you did it anyway_, then yes that is assault. How else would you define assault? *This implies you did know that she did not welcome the action*, of course.


No. No. No.

The scene as described directly states that I believed that she would welcome the kiss.

The "what if" is "what if I was wrong in my belief that she would welcome it".

I don't know how I could have made myself more clear.

If I knew that she wouldn't have welcomed it, I wouldn't have done it, of course.

I have made that clear many times.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> No. No. No.
> 
> The scene as described directly states that I believed that she would welcome the kiss.
> 
> The "what if" is "what if I was wrong in my belief that she would welcome it".


*But what if she never told you she felt assaulted and files charges on you the next day?*

Ok I am willing to play that game...however, we are still talking about a KISS. Right? That's the scenario you have presented. I had asked for any evidence of any other assault charge based on a KISS after a date, and none has been forthcoming. Yes, there are assault charges filed against the likes of Weinstein for unwanted kisses. That was at work, with women who worked for him. That was not on a date between two college kids.

So let's say she files charges. Who does she file them with? College police or actual police? Let's say actual police. They take her statement. She claims you kissed her but it was unwanted and she feels assaulted. Now hold on to your hats but....the police WILL ask her if she told you that she did not want the kiss, either before, during or after the kiss. Because intent matters to police, and the intent to assault someone can easily be mistaken if we are talking about a KISS at the end of a date.

So we can take 2 hypothetical scenarios....

1. She lies and says she did tell you to stop. In this case, the police may proceed and you will need to retain an attorney. This would really suck for you, and the woman is a criminal. From here, you are on your own. There is nothing about affirmative consent education that will protect you against an evil lying person. You need advice only from lawyers at this point.

2. She says no, she didn't actually tell you that either before, during or after, but she was feeling it and did not know how to say it. At this point, the police will tell her that because she did not give any indication that she didn't want the kiss, and therefore you likely thought she was consenting to the kiss, no charges will be filed. Hopefully he would also tell the girl to seek some counseling or talk to her mother.

So...there you go. That is my answer to the hypothetical scenario given, and adding some details myself so that I can answer.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I would be interested though I wonder, whether the source is reputable or not, how accurate the rates are. Sadly, false accusations are not prosecuted for the most part (if at all).


Nobody knows. That's the point.

Numbers are all over the place from 2% to 60+% :surprise: (I'd disregard the highest number).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> No. No. No.
> 
> The scene as described directly states that I believed that she would welcome the kiss.
> 
> The "what if" is "what if I was wrong in my belief that she would welcome it".
> 
> I don't know how I could have made myself more clear.
> 
> If I knew that she wouldn't have welcomed it, I wouldn't have done it, of course.
> 
> I have made that clear many times.


I seriously confess that I have lost track of what scenarios we are talking about. Scenario one has FF's husband basically saying I want to do this and her saying yes. No brainer. 

But I think your greater point is that if assault is determined by the whether or not it is welcomed which you cannot identify until after the fact. Do I have your point right? I think I will address it as best I can.

Seriously, no one wants to say I want to kiss you now, ok? I want to touch your arm now, Ok? ... etcetera. (I did think FF's husband was suave as hell.)

I have never heard precedence for a kiss objected to resulting in an assault charge.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Nobody knows. That's the point.
> 
> Numbers are all over the place from 2% to 60+% :surprise: (I'd disregard the highest number).


I think it is a (often reasonable) emotional response trigger when we hear False Accusation cries every time the word rape is uttered in the real world.


----------



## Buddy400

@FrenchFry, @NobodySpecial, @faithfulwife

Thank you for acknowledging that the situation could be problematic for men.

The issue is that if we're talking about "recommendations for how one should behave" then, by all means, "Affirmative Consent" is just fine. It's a worthwhile bit of advice. 

Keep in mind though, that this approach is not universally endorsed by all women. I suspect that when you get away from the more activist feminists and Ivy League colleges, it isn't as popular.

There' has also been a good deal of opposition from some notable women publicly.

But, what if we're talking about "Affirmative Consent" as a law (or, in colleges and businesses, as a rule)?

This very nearly passed in CA (Jerry Brown vetoed it). I think it might have passed in NY (although, curiously, it would only have applied on college campuses, as if young women not going to college or older women didn't need the same protections). Colleges are implementing it. Even in the court of public opinion (celebrities can / have lost their careers over this).

If people are going to jail, being expelled from school, fired from work or watching their careers disappear in a puff of smoke, then don't the rules need to be clearly defined? Whether an offense has been committed or not can't really just depend on the perception of the alleged victim, can it?


----------



## EllisRedding

Looks like Dave Chappelle had it right all along with the Love Contract ...

https://vimeo.com/183089808


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> But I think your greater point is that if assault is determined by the whether or not it is welcomed which you cannot identify until after the fact. Do I have your point right? .


YES! You have my point right.

Thank you


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> @FrenchFry, @NobodySpecial, @faithfulwife
> 
> Thank you for acknowledging that the situation could be problematic for men.
> 
> The issue is that if we're talking about "recommendations for how one should behave" then, by all means, "Affirmative Consent" is just fine. It's a worthwhile bit of advice.
> 
> Keep in mind though, that this approach is not universally endorsed by all women. I suspect that when you get away from the more activist feminists and Ivy League colleges, it isn't as popular.
> 
> There' has also been a good deal of opposition from some notable women publicly.
> 
> But, what if we're talking about "Affirmative Consent" as a law (or, in colleges and businesses, as a rule)?


Two things from me. One, I am really hesitant to place criminal law and college and business in one expectation bucket. A business that does not have a damned good sexual harassment policy is stupid. Is it right? NO. But I would not work there. I would not want a business to have the same burden of proof as a criminal court room to fire someone since that precedent would extend beyond this issue. Similar with colleges. The right to work somewhere or attend college is fundamentally different than criminal prosecution and should be examined separately. 

From a criminal perspective, the current definition of rape seems to be

"Rape in the United States is defined by the Department of Justice as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.""

I don't see a need for a different definition, maybe? What do you mean, exactly by affirmative consent as law? What changes do you envision (fear?)?



> This very nearly passed in CA (Jerry Brown vetoed it). I think it might have passed in NY (although, curiously, it would only have applied on college campuses, as if young women not going to college or older women didn't need the same protections). Colleges are implementing it. Even in the court of public opinion (celebrities can / have lost their careers over this).
> 
> If people are going to jail, being expelled from school, fired from work or watching their careers disappear in a puff of smoke, then don't the rules need to be clearly defined? Whether an offense has been committed or not can't really just depend on the perception of the alleged victim, can it?


Bear in mind that people can already be expelled from a school for other violations of of their code of conduct. So, while I am not sure what the best answer IS, I don't coming up with one for criminal proceedings and colleges is the correct one. I have yet to see one uniform policy for colleges, so I am not sure what I think of it. The college is in a bit of a bind.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> *But what if she never told you she felt assaulted and files charges on you the next day?*
> 
> Ok I am willing to play that game...however, we are still talking about a KISS. Right? That's the scenario you have presented. I had asked for any evidence of any other assault charge based on a KISS after a date, and none has been forthcoming. Yes, there are assault charges filed against the likes of Weinstein for unwanted kisses. That was at work, with women who worked for him. That was not on a date between two college kids.
> 
> So let's say she files charges. Who does she file them with? College police or actual police? Let's say actual police. They take her statement. She claims you kissed her but it was unwanted and she feels assaulted. Now hold on to your hats but....the police WILL ask her if she told you that she did not want the kiss, either before, during or after the kiss. Because intent matters to police, and the intent to assault someone can easily be mistaken if we are talking about a KISS at the end of a date.
> 
> So we can take 2 hypothetical scenarios....
> 
> 1. She lies and says she did tell you to stop. In this case, the police may proceed and you will need to retain an attorney. This would really suck for you, and the woman is a criminal. From here, you are on your own. There is nothing about affirmative consent education that will protect you against an evil lying person. You need advice only from lawyers at this point.
> 
> 2. She says no, she didn't actually tell you that either before, during or after, but she was feeling it and did not know how to say it. At this point, the police will tell her that because she did not give any indication that she didn't want the kiss, and therefore you likely thought she was consenting to the kiss, no charges will be filed. Hopefully he would also tell the girl to seek some counseling or talk to her mother.
> 
> So...there you go. That is my answer to the hypothetical scenario given, and adding some details myself so that I can answer.


If you were adjudicating my case, I'd be at be at ease.

The problem is that you (or someone with your views) probably won't be


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> YES! You have my point right.
> 
> Thank you


Kinda ****ty. And out of that ****tiness came the affirmative consent idea. I, personally, don't think we want to go down the road of codifying where to insert every yes into law. I don't think anyone else does either? Not sure about other posters. I *think *all we have right now is that affirmative consent remains damned good advice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> If you were adjudicating my case, I'd be at be at ease.
> 
> The problem is that you (or someone with your views) probably won't be


Well, if she is outright lying because she's an evil criminal, then even someone like me wouldn't necessarily believe you.

I do not see how anyone can protect themselves from something like that. It will end up being his word against hers. Sorry, yes there are evil *****es in the world, just like there are evil men in the world. None of us can protect ourselves from this in advance.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> In one of my previous jobs I worked in this field. The statistical percentage of rape allegations that are false are between 2-4%. So yes, it does happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 2-4% of the time. So no, the go-to response should NOT be "she's lying." I honestly think that for a subset of men, "she's lying" has replaced "her skirt was too short," and it is sickening. I do not think the majority of men on TAM feel that way. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple do, but that is NOT because of TAM. It is likely because of incel and RedPill type sites.
> 
> 
> 
> I know two very fine men whose careers were torpedoed unfairly because a student (in each case) falsely accused them of sexual misconduct. One wasn't going to get the grade she wanted. The other made a pass at HIM, he declined and distanced himself, and she got mad. I watched them lose their jobs, teaching credentials, etc. And even though both accusations were PROVEN to be false....neither one of them ever taught again. And the papers that were so quick to plaster the accusation weren't making their innocence front page news.
> 
> 
> 
> Still......2-4%. You don't decide it's all a bunch of lying women because of 2-4%



False allegations is not what is being discussed here though. I think we are discussing how easy it can be to end up on the wrong side on the law with this and how extra careful one has to be these days. That’s pretty much it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## 269370

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Nobody will ever get written consent, that is just plain ridiculous. By the time you drafted up the legalese, you both would be so over it, no one will get laid. And verbal consent is useless unless you record it, which is also a turnoff unless you carry around a VAR in which case there are legal implications in some states for recording private conversations with unknowing individuals. You might as well avoid the opposite sex if you want to be 100% safe.




Lets just have sex with dudes. Much easier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

One problem is that its possible to adjust laws / regulations to trade off between the number of rapists who go free and the number of innocent people who are falsely accused. There is not place to put that knob that doesn't have a serious problem one way or the other - or even both. 

Its not even clear what the goal is. How can one make a rational tradeoff between number of rapes and number of innocent people who are punished. 

No one wants to see rapists go free. No one wants innocent men punished, but inevitably BOTH happen.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Lets just have sex with dudes. Much easier.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you think that is a cut and dried solution, you are wrong.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> If you think that is a cut and dried solution, you are wrong.




Probably not cut and dried. Some lubrication might be required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy, what exactly is your goal? Is it to make sure you're doing the right thing in that women are not harmed, or is it just to prove that we women are a bunch of liars who tease men and deserve what we get? Because with your attitude and your words, I'm honestly not sure.


----------



## wild jade

RandomDude said:


> Can't speak for others but in my case of course. I want to be sure I don't hurt the ones I care about!!!
> 
> So far I've been very lucky considering I don't ask for permission. Never had a problem reading women though and I like to chalk it up with being an animal lover hence I read body language in different species including humans quite clearly
> 
> Still, I fear if even once, I can be wrong
> Also why I asked my girlfriend if I made her feel uncomfortable and she slapped me upside my head and told me to stop overthinking >.<


Sounds to me that you are coming from the right intentions -- and are not merely "lucky", but actually very good to those around you.

If you do accidentally hurt someone, I'm betting you'll do what you can to make amends.

All in all, I'd say you're good.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> No man here even has wondered what he should do if consent is not obvious.


That is *exactly* what this thread is about. And it has been asked and answered. 

But then the answer isn't accepted. Why not?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

What Buddy400 said.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> But there are lots of these stories online; like somebody touching someone else’s knee and being charged with assault, 15 years after the fact: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.ind...appropriate-everyday-sexism-a8027086.html?amp
> 
> It really is not that difficult to understand, and frankly, it really shouldn’t be. The problem is that women can’t have it both ways: if they want verbal clarity, then forget the whole taking charge thing. If they want a man to lead / take charge, then don’t complain if they get it wrong sometimes. Not so difficult hopefully.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lots of *these* stories. What exactly are *these* stories?

Adam Sandler getting a little lesson on personal space? Is it so terrible to receive such a lesson, or should we continue assuming that this type of behavior is the only way men will ever get sex and get married?

There's definitely a certain buzz and hype in the media around this issue, but let's remember that for those big stories, the accusations weren't false. Those big name stars were actually quite guilty of what they were accused of, but had gotten away with it for years and years because no one would believe the women who accused them. 

Since we're all agreed that those who are guilty of rape or assault should be punished for it, I really don't think we should be relying on those examples as proof for how difficult it is for men to avoid assault charges.

And since nothing happened to or about Adam Sandler except a little bit of finger waggling, that isn't such a great example either. Even the woman whose knee he grabbed brushed it off.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that *these* stories show that there is all of a sudden some terrible new situation where men's lives are being ruined everywhere because they *accidentally* pushed a beyond a woman's boundaries.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> Lots of *these* stories. What exactly are *these* stories?
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Sandler getting a little lesson on personal space? Is it so terrible to receive such a lesson, or should we continue assuming that this type of behavior is the only way men will ever get sex and get married?
> 
> 
> 
> There's definitely a certain buzz and hype in the media around this issue, but let's remember that for those big stories, the accusations weren't false. Those big name stars were actually quite guilty of what they were accused of, but had gotten away with it for years and years because no one would believe the women who accused them.
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're all agreed that those who are guilty of rape or assault should be punished for it, I really don't think we should be relying on those examples as proof for how difficult it is for men to avoid assault charges.
> 
> 
> 
> And since nothing happened to or about Adam Sandler except a little bit of finger waggling, that isn't such a great example either. Even the woman whose knee he grabbed brushed it off.
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that *these* stories show that there is all of a sudden some terrible new situation where men's lives are being ruined everywhere because they *accidentally* pushed a beyond a woman's boundaries.




Then you must be living in a vacuum. If there is any suggestion whatsoever, anything to do with that type of accusation (and accusation only), your career is over immediately. The agents, companies and endorsement agencies are not going to wait for the verdict. I’m sorry but you have no idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> One problem is that its possible to adjust laws / regulations to trade off between the number of rapists who go free and the number of innocent people who are falsely accused. There is not place to put that knob that doesn't have a serious problem one way or the other - or even both.
> 
> Its not even clear what the goal is. How can one make a rational tradeoff between number of rapes and number of innocent people who are punished.
> 
> No one wants to see rapists go free. No one wants innocent men punished, but inevitably BOTH happen.


I think what is being missed in the discussion is that there is a sense that men want an ironclad set of rules, short of stepping out of life, to stay on the right side of the law and are unhappy that there isn't one. Women seem unsympathetic to this reality since an ironclad set of actions to avoid rape or sexual assault is not and can not be had. It is the sea we have been swimming in forever.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Then you must be living in a vacuum. If there is any suggestion whatsoever, anything to do with that type of accusation (and accusation only), your career is over immediately. The agents, companies and endorsement agencies are not going to wait for the verdict. I’m sorry but you have no idea.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I certainly expect that this happens. I have also seen the exact opposite. Well thought out polices have protected people I have worked with in the past.


----------



## uhtred

Lots of men (billions), they don't want the same thing. Neither do the billions of women. So if you view either "side" as having a coherent idea, things get really confusing. 

Some men are happy with things as they are. Some want better legal protections against false rape accusations. Some are confused by the behavior of some women and want clarity. Some want to find a way to use the rules to get away with assault. 

Some women are worried about assault and want iron clad rules to protect them. Some want less regimented sexual behavior in general but want protection against being assaulted.. Some blame men in general for assault, some think is a small minority that is the problem. 


*I* want clear communication, but I believe that it doesn't need to be verbal to be clear. I want sex crimes treated in a way that is consistent with other violent offenses in terms of evidence requirements, trials, and the responsibilities of people outside of the criminal justice system. I want college students to drink less because I think that would stop more rapes than any of the other rules changes. 





NobodySpecial said:


> I think what is being missed in the discussion is that there is a sense that men want an ironclad set of rules, short of stepping out of life, to stay on the right side of the law and are unhappy that there isn't one. Women seem unsympathetic to this reality since an ironclad set of actions to avoid rape or sexual assault is not and can not be had. It is the sea we have been swimming in forever.


----------



## uhtred

Lives get destroyed both ways. 






NobodySpecial said:


> I certainly expect that this happens. I have also seen the exact opposite. Well thought out polices have protected people I have worked with in the past.


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> Lives get destroyed both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly expect that this happens. I have also seen the exact opposite. Well thought out polices have protected people I have worked with in the past.
Click to expand...

So are we discussing workplace harassment or consent among people who are dating? Totally different things.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Lots of men (billions), they don't want the same thing. Neither do the billions of women. So if you view either "side" as having a coherent idea, things get really confusing.


Oh sure. Even the narratives get all mixedy uppy.

Some men are happy with things as they are. Some want better legal protections against false rape accusations. Some are confused by the behavior of some women and want clarity. Some want to find a way to use the rules to get away with assault. 

Some women are worried about assault and want iron clad rules to protect them. Some want less regimented sexual behavior in general but want protection against being assaulted.. Some blame men in general for assault, some think is a small minority that is the problem. 


**I* want clear communication, but I believe that it doesn't need to be verbal to be clear. *I want sex crimes treated in a way that is consistent with other violent offenses in terms of evidence requirements, trials, and the responsibilities of people outside of the criminal justice system. I want college students to drink less because I think that would stop more rapes than any of the other rules changes.[/QUOTE]

Here is where I lose you. The notion that doing one thing (kissing) is consent for *anything else* was actually a new revelation to one poster. No fault to that poster. Only recently, within the past several decades, has this even been set into precedent in courts that doing a thing does not consent to more things. It seems as obvious as heck to me. Color me confused if I am a young person kissing my new BF, and he takes that to mean I have said yes to going all the way...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> So are we discussing workplace harassment or consent among people who are dating? Totally different things.


Are and* should be*.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are we discussing workplace harassment or consent among people who are dating? Totally different things.
> 
> 
> 
> Are and* should be*.
Click to expand...

Is why it is confusing that the workplace stuff is brought up in a consent discussion.


----------



## uhtred

Different things but a lot of the same results, but with different scales.


Women will often leave college or jobs if they have been harassed and the harasser isn't expelled / fired. This can have large scale education or career effects.

Men can be fired or expelled based on claims of harassment. This can have large scale education or career effects. 


Women who are raped can suffer life long trauma.

Men who are convicted of rape can wind up marked as "sex offenders" for the rest of their lives. 


The consequences for the harasser or rapist are reasonable - IF they are guilty. The consequences are very severe if they are not guilty. 





Faithful Wife said:


> So are we discussing workplace harassment or consent among people who are dating? Totally different things.


----------



## uhtred

We have to be very careful reading what I am saying, not what other people have said. 

I have not said that kissing gives consent to other things. Eg, if someone is kissing you that doesn't mean that they have consented to sex. No question there. 

The question regards gradual changes in activities. Not wanting to be graphic, but let me give a concrete example.

After a date, A says to B, "can I kiss you". B says yes, the start kissing. 

The kissing grows gradually more intense. Does A have to ask " may I french kiss you", or can they judge from B's reactions and general enthusiasm that a tiny bit of tongue would be OK. Obviously if B pulls back, that shows a lack of consent, but if B responds positively, I would take that as consent for french kissing even though no words were exchanged.

If the are french kissing I would assume its OK for A to put their arms around B, since most people consider a hug less intimate than a french kiss.

If the kissing continues I would consider it OK for A to move their hands gradually over B's body. If B pulls back, that is removing consent. If B continues to kiss enthusiastically, I believe that gives consent.

We continue to maybe sliding hands across the chest, under a shirt, removing clothes, etc etc, all the way until they are engaging in a wide range of sexual activities.

I think that can all be consented to without any words being exchanged because B's enthusiastic reactions have indicated consent for each small step. B can withdraw consent at any time by ceasing to respond enthusiastically or telling A to stop.

I think its important because if consent is only defined by words, it seems so absurd that very few people will follow the rules. *consent* is extremely important, but I think that the mechanism by which consent is communicated can vary. Words can and should always be used to withdraw consent if there is any misunderstanding. 


To me sexual activity is a continuum, not a sex of individual actions. The various actions all blend into each other, so consent should be a continuous thing, not a set of gates with a specific consent for each one. The key (when its not a long term relationship where consent is understood), is that activities change gradually enough and provide enough warning for the other party to respond. This is pretty typical for how humans engage in sexual activity (unless there is some agreed-upon game). 



Or to simplify: I see consent as something that is actively given continuously, not a set of questions and responses. I think this is actually how most people behave. 







NobodySpecial said:


> Oh sure. Even the narratives get all mixedy uppy.
> 
> Some men are happy with things as they are. Some want better legal protections against false rape accusations. Some are confused by the behavior of some women and want clarity. Some want to find a way to use the rules to get away with assault.
> 
> Some women are worried about assault and want iron clad rules to protect them. Some want less regimented sexual behavior in general but want protection against being assaulted.. Some blame men in general for assault, some think is a small minority that is the problem.
> 
> 
> **I* want clear communication, but I believe that it doesn't need to be verbal to be clear. *I want sex crimes treated in a way that is consistent with other violent offenses in terms of evidence requirements, trials, and the responsibilities of people outside of the criminal justice system. I want college students to drink less because I think that would stop more rapes than any of the other rules changes.


Here is where I lose you. The notion that doing one thing (kissing) is consent for *anything else* was actually a new revelation to one poster. No fault to that poster. Only recently, within the past several decades, has this even been set into precedent in courts that doing a thing does not consent to more things. It seems as obvious as heck to me. Color me confused if I am a young person kissing my new BF, and he takes that to mean I have said yes to going all the way...[/QUOTE]


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Different things but a lot of the same results, but with different scales.
> 
> 
> Women will often leave college or jobs if they have been harassed and the harasser isn't expelled / fired. This can have large scale education or career effects.
> 
> Men can be fired or expelled based on claims of harassment. This can have large scale education or career effects.
> 
> 
> Women who are raped can suffer life long trauma.
> 
> Men who are convicted of rape can wind up marked as "sex offenders" for the rest of their lives.
> 
> 
> The consequences for the harasser or rapist are reasonable - IF they are guilty. The consequences are very severe if they are not guilty.


Yes. So? What is your point?


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> Different things but a lot of the same results, but with different scales.
> 
> 
> Women will often leave college or jobs if they have been harassed and the harasser isn't expelled / fired. This can have large scale education or career effects.
> 
> Men can be fired or expelled based on claims of harassment. This can have large scale education or career effects.
> 
> 
> Women who are raped can suffer life long trauma.
> 
> Men who are convicted of rape can wind up marked as "sex offenders" for the rest of their lives.
> 
> 
> The consequences for the harasser or rapist are reasonable - IF they are guilty. The consequences are very severe if they are not guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are we discussing workplace harassment or consent among people who are dating? Totally different things.
Click to expand...

Harassment and consent are two different topics.

However, your conflating the two topics on this thread (and a few others did also) does point out to me that for both topics, some men are still more concerned with not being falsely accused than with learning actual consent or actual anti harassment ideals. Not saying you, but for several men it seems that the well being of women in the the workplace or in the dating world is less important than themselves not being “falsely accused” of anything.

This always comes across to me like this person really doesn’t get it. They are lost in their own fear and don’t see that women’s fears of real actual things that happen to us are finally being considered for the first time in history. We for the first time are being protected by the law, by the same courts that used to throw out a rape charge if our skirt was too short. All they see is “wait I am not a rapist and I am offended that I could be falsely accused of being one”. 

What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts? Oh that’s right....they want us to quietly just accept their escalating moves on our body and don’t complain about it. Because talking about how you really feel is possibly going to prevent me from having sex.

I know you are not one of those men. But I also don’t see why you would bring workplace harassment into the discussion at all. It seems to be an attempt to muddy the discussion. It is one more version of “but what if, what if, what if.” Those what ifs make a man sound like he simply doesn’t want to hear and absorb the 1,000 ways we already answered all the what if’s.

Like NS (or FF?) said...we women get to live with the uncertainty of what ifs all our lives and there is no way to protect ourselves from being assaulted or raped in most circumstances. If a predator has you at close range already, it’s usually too late. You may get lucky and injure the guy slightly....meanwhile he has injured you for life and there’s no medicine for it. Now you also get the fun task of retelling the tale that most horrifies you over and over to police, medical staff, your own partner/friends/parents. 

But men still believe they have a higher risk of a false charge than the risk women have of actual assault or rape. Sigh...

Again I know you don’t think that, U. But I also don’t like seeing the constant conflation. It works against the message. A separate post for workplace harassment would be good.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Faithful Wife said:


> I honestly don't quite understand what some of you guys are trying to get at. When you describe a fully consensual scene, and then ask if it was assault? It just seems like you are trying to make a point, yet I have no clue what that point is.
> 
> Many have already made the point that sometimes sexual activity happens that everyone involved wanted and enjoyed and was consensual, even though no one spoke any words. Yep, that happens all the time! And hey, sometimes it was the very first time for something, and it was also a major turn on! Taking that activity and making an example out of it and then asking "was this assault?" doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> Color me confused.


The point that we are trying to make is that you hear about some sexual assault case. Then you think of the scenarios you have been in the past where your actions could have been construed as sexual assault.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Faithful Wife said:


> I answered for myself. Buddy described what his wife did.
> 
> If you want to speculate about what a hypothetical woman who really did not want to be kissed and he kissed her anyway would do (because she "froze"), then you would have to find a woman who knows how that feels and ask her.
> 
> But where are all those women who are waiting around for men to kiss them just so they can file assault charges?
> 
> Oh right...on college campuses right?
> 
> I would like to see an example of assault charges that have actually been filed against someone for kissing them at the end of a date. Just for the kiss, since that is the scenario put forth.
> 
> IOW, even if a woman wasn't happy about being kissed afterwards (because she "froze" and did not speak up before he kissed her), she is not likely to file assault charges. And I'd love to read any case where this scenario has happened and ended in an assault charge.


When I hear about woman coming forth years later, I can see this happening. Like with Cosby. He assaults someone. Then when it gets in the news, other women that he might of slept with years ago think about their encounter with him. At the time, they didn't feel totally comfortable. They might have just gone along with him. Now years later, they think, Hey, I didn't give consent. He just did it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Harassment and consent are two different topics.
> 
> However, your conflating the two topics on this thread (and a few others did also) does point out to me that for both topics, some men are still more concerned with not being falsely accused than with learning actual consent or actual anti harassment ideals. Not saying you, but for several men it seems that the well being of women in the the workplace or in the dating world is less important than themselves not being “falsely accused” of anything.


Astute.


> This always comes across to me like this person really doesn’t get it. They are lost in their own fear and don’t see that women’s fears of real actual things that happen to us are finally being considered for the first time in history. We for the first time are being protected by the law, by the same courts that used to throw out a rape charge if our skirt was too short. All they see is “wait I am not a rapist and I am offended that I could be falsely accused of being one”.


Yes. 



> What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts? Oh that’s right....they want us to quietly just accept their escalating moves on our body and don’t complain about it.


No. Too many people it has simply not been part of their reality. They don't WANT us to just accept... They would prefer a social construct where this just does not happen or where justice is clear and immediate. They even think that it is. The idea that this is not the case is NEW to them. Not their monkeys, not their circus. But it is not nefarious. For example, I HAPPEN to have a big problem with the way fathers are treated in family court. But for many, many women, it is just not on their radar as a problem of social justice in general. Not their monkeys, not their circus. Then there is the segment of society that does not care that much. And then the segment who really just sees women as objects. These other segments are the segments that decent men just don't see because it is not part of their reality.



> Because talking about how you really feel is possibly going to prevent me from having sex.
> 
> I know you are not one of those men. But I also don’t see why you would bring workplace harassment into the discussion at all. It seems to be an attempt to muddy the discussion. It is one more version of “but what if, what if, what if.” Those what ifs make a man sound like he simply doesn’t want to hear and absorb the 1,000 ways we already answered all the what if’s.
> 
> Like NS (or FF?) said...we women get to live with the uncertainty of what ifs all our lives and there is no way to protect ourselves from being assaulted or raped in most circumstances. If a predator has you at close range already, it’s usually too late. You may get lucky and injure the guy slightly....meanwhile he has injured you for life and there’s no medicine for it. Now you also get the fun task of retelling the tale that most horrifies you over and over to police, medical staff, your own partner/friends/parents.
> 
> But men still believe they have a higher risk of a false charge than the risk women have of actual assault or rape. Sigh...
> 
> Again I know you don’t think that, U. But I also don’t like seeing the constant conflation. It works against the message. A separate post for workplace harassment would be good.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SadSamIAm said:


> When I hear about woman coming forth years later, I can see this happening. Like with Cosby. He assaults someone. Then when it gets in the news, other women that he might of slept with years ago think about their encounter with him. At the time, they didn't feel totally comfortable. They might have just gone along with him. Now years later, they think, Hey, I didn't give consent. He just did it.


OR times have changed and victim's charges are not just dismissed. The environment for justice has changed. That is what a court of law is for.


----------



## personofinterest

"What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts? Oh that’s right....they want us to quietly just accept their escalating moves on our body and don’t complain about it. "
THIS is what I read in some places.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> "*What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts*? Oh that’s right....they want us to quietly just accept their escalating moves on our body and don’t complain about it. "
> THIS is what I read in some places.


What is really happening is that many men (on TAM included) don't propose we do anything since this is not on their radar. Then they often react with fear based self preservation instincts when their worldview is challenged.


----------



## anonmd

Just glad I'm not single <g>. 

If I was, I have no particular objection to seeking affirmative consent since it seems to be dumb not to these days. It is a cognitively dissonant thought though given a 25 year old frame of reference. I do lean to the get it in writing side though, sorry women. Can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## 269370

anonmd said:


> Just glad I'm not single <g>.
> 
> 
> 
> If I was, I have no particular objection to seeking affirmative consent since it seems to be dumb not to these days. It is a cognitively dissonant thought though given a 25 year old frame of reference. I do lean to the get it in writing side though, sorry women. Can't have your cake and eat it too.




They are not only eating it, they also manage to somehow be discussing their own, totally separate cake, that nobody else is talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> They are not only eating it, they also manage to somehow be discussing their own, totally separate cake, that nobody else is talking about.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting there are several people who had a pretty decent conversation. I think it is you who has largely had a different one in recent pages.


----------



## NobodySpecial

anonmd said:


> Just glad I'm not single <g>.
> 
> If I was, I have no particular objection to seeking affirmative consent since it seems to be dumb not to these days. It is a cognitively dissonant thought though given a 25 year old frame of reference. I do lean to the get it in writing side though, sorry women. Can't have your cake and eat it too.


Two things. One, get it in writing! Rock it. Two, why is this expression not can't EAT your cake and HAVE it too? Wouldn't that make more sense?


----------



## anonmd

inmyprime said:


> They are not only eating it, they also manage to somehow be discussing their own, totally separate cake, that nobody else is talking about.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Could be a good sorting mechanism. The group of women who are sex positive with a good attitude might be slightly offended and taken aback but you can get past that and laugh about it (the please sign here part). The other group is gonna run screaming from the room <g>, let me know if you change your mind 

The cognitive dissonant part is based on my out of date experience I would think it would go 5 / 95 but maybe these days it is better. I wouldn't think no more than 50 / 50 but who knows. Somebody needs to survey a bunch of horny 20 something women> . I on the other hand would be left in the pool of dried up 50 somethings which makes it still a bit of a quandry. Oh to be 25 again!


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> I do lean to the get it in writing side though, sorry women. Can't have your cake and eat it too.


Interesting since I have more than once suggested getting it in writing on this thread.

Some men said "yeah right like that's ever going to happen" in mockery of me, and you are saying "can't have your cake and eat it too" in mockery of women, assuming women would somehow object to putting it in writing.

Trust me, it is not a "gotcha" to women who understand the need for consent, to get their consent.


----------



## anonmd

Faithful Wife said:


> Interesting since I have more than once suggested getting it in writing on this thread.
> 
> Some men said "yeah right like that's ever going to happen" in mockery of me, and you are saying "can't have your cake and eat it too" in mockery of women, assuming women would somehow object to putting it in writing.
> 
> Trust me, it is not a "gotcha" to women who understand the need for consent, to get their consent.



Just the group of women who would run screaming from the room. I'm supportive but it's gotta be universal. Make it a law.


----------



## NobodySpecial

anonmd said:


> Just the group of women who would run screaming from the room. I'm supportive but it's gotta be universal. Make it a law.


I am trying to figure if this post is a serious legislative suggestion? Or are you being facetious?


----------



## uhtred

Popping up several messages you asked if we were discussing harassment or consent. I was pointing out that there are significant similarities between the two with regard to either failing to punish the guilty, or with accidentally punishing the innocent. 

I wasn't sure why you asked in the first place so I assume I missed your point.



NobodySpecial said:


> Yes. So? What is your point?


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Popping up several messages you asked if we were discussing harassment or consent. I was pointing out that there are significant similarities between the two with regard to either failing to punish the guilty, or with accidentally punishing the innocent.
> 
> I wasn't sure why you asked in the first place so I assume I missed your point.


There really is not that much similarity in my view. But I thought you meant to say something more than just it is hard not to get screwed by this thing called life.


----------



## uhtred

I didn't realize I was the first to introduce workplace harassment into the discussion, I thought is was already being discussed, but its a really long thread so I may have lost track. 

In some cases workplace harassment can involve consent: One form or harassment is a supervisor (or even coworker) constantly badgering someone for a date or sexual activities. Its possible for workplace romances, even between bosses and employees to be consenting (though usually against company rules), but without the consent, the same behavior can become harassment. 

There are other forms of harassment that are not related in a direct way to consent. 


I don't know about others, but I think that in general unpunished crimes, and punishment of innocent people are both problems and there is almost always a way to trade one off against the other - but rarely a way to make both as low as I would like. This is a bit of a sore point with me because I believe that the US as far more factually innocent people in prison than I am comfortable with. I think *most* people in prison are guilty, but I want a ratio that is much larger than "most". I feel like the old "better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man be punished" is about right. I understand that other people may want other ratios. 






Faithful Wife said:


> Harassment and consent are two different topics.
> 
> However, your conflating the two topics on this thread (and a few others did also) does point out to me that for both topics, some men are still more concerned with not being falsely accused than with learning actual consent or actual anti harassment ideals. Not saying you, but for several men it seems that the well being of women in the the workplace or in the dating world is less important than themselves not being “falsely accused” of anything.
> 
> This always comes across to me like this person really doesn’t get it. They are lost in their own fear and don’t see that women’s fears of real actual things that happen to us are finally being considered for the first time in history. We for the first time are being protected by the law, by the same courts that used to throw out a rape charge if our skirt was too short. All they see is “wait I am not a rapist and I am offended that I could be falsely accused of being one”.
> 
> What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts? Oh that’s right....they want us to quietly just accept their escalating moves on our body and don’t complain about it. Because talking about how you really feel is possibly going to prevent me from having sex.
> 
> I know you are not one of those men. But I also don’t see why you would bring workplace harassment into the discussion at all. It seems to be an attempt to muddy the discussion. It is one more version of “but what if, what if, what if.” Those what ifs make a man sound like he simply doesn’t want to hear and absorb the 1,000 ways we already answered all the what if’s.
> 
> Like NS (or FF?) said...we women get to live with the uncertainty of what ifs all our lives and there is no way to protect ourselves from being assaulted or raped in most circumstances. If a predator has you at close range already, it’s usually too late. You may get lucky and injure the guy slightly....meanwhile he has injured you for life and there’s no medicine for it. Now you also get the fun task of retelling the tale that most horrifies you over and over to police, medical staff, your own partner/friends/parents.
> 
> But men still believe they have a higher risk of a false charge than the risk women have of actual assault or rape. Sigh...
> 
> Again I know you don’t think that, U. But I also don’t like seeing the constant conflation. It works against the message. A separate post for workplace harassment would be good.


----------



## anonmd

NobodySpecial said:


> I am trying to figure if this post is a serious legislative suggestion? Or are you being facetious?


I'm not sure, really. My thinking is kinda fluid here. 

I am supportive of the idea of affirmative consent.

I know it'd be fine with some women, how many is some? I don't know, my personal experience is out of date. I hope it is a lot. I REALLY would like women to take some goddamn personal responsibility here. Which is *not to say* I am blaming the women. Do something to fix this problem. 


So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later.


----------



## uhtred

The idea of getting consent in writing is worth considering. What I don't know how to fix though is that writing only indicates consent at the time of the writing, while it is OK for people to withdraw consent at a later time. 

Requiring encounters to be recorded (in some inaccessible encrypted way) would in theory work, but it seems like there are a huge number of ways this could go badly wrong. Universal surveillance does solve this problem, but introduces many others.

I see two different problems: getting consent, and proving that one got consent. 

I believe the first is easy if the people involved are generally of good will. The second seems very difficult. 




Faithful Wife said:


> Interesting since I have more than once suggested getting it in writing on this thread.
> 
> Some men said "yeah right like that's ever going to happen" in mockery of me, and you are saying "can't have your cake and eat it too" in mockery of women, assuming women would somehow object to putting it in writing.
> 
> Trust me, it is not a "gotcha" to women who understand the need for consent, to get their consent.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> Two things. One, get it in writing! Rock it. Two, why is this expression not can't EAT your cake and HAVE it too? Wouldn't that make more sense?



Yes, because any sane woman that is with a newish partner, is actually going to sign such a form upon request, instead of running away form the insane person. 

You do understand what that means: once the woman signs it, she has given her explicit consent to be done (implicitly) ANYTHING to her, including rape. And if she changes her mind during the actual act, there is no possibility to reverse that because the document is signed.

Sometimes I really wonder where people leave their brains 🧠...(no offence). 

Both women AND men need protection.

The ones that are still looking for dates can figure it out and work on the wording...

I will be watching from the sidelines (not in a perverty way )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. *No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later*.


As long as a person believes the bolded is the "problem", that person is never going to understand the need for affirmative consent or how to use it.


----------



## musicftw07

Faithful Wife said:


> anonmd said:
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. *No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later*.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as a person believes the bolded is the "problem", that person is never going to understand the need for affirmative consent or how to use it.
Click to expand...

I don't it as "the" problem, but I do believe it is "a" problem.

You're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a female. We're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a male. They're two different standpoints, so it stands to reason that they might differ.

One can have compassion for someone else's experience, but they may never be able to directly experience it due to factors beyond their control. Thus they have a different viewpoint.

I don't ever find it wise to ridicule someone for seeing the risks that apply to them in a given situation. They may differ from the risks you might experience, but that doesn't make them any less valid.


----------



## anonmd

Well, I believe we are in a transition period here. If you can't at least acknowledge the grey you are trying to eliminate then you will never reach a solution supported by all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

musicftw07 said:


> I don't it as "the" problem, but I do believe it is "a" problem.
> 
> You're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a female. We're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a male. They're two different standpoints, so it stands to reason that they might differ.
> 
> One can have compassion for someone else's experience, but they may never be able to directly experience it due to factors beyond their control. Thus they have a different viewpoint.
> 
> I don't ever find it wise to ridicule someone for seeing the risks that apply to them in a given situation. They may differ from the risks you might experience, but that doesn't make them any less valid.


It is not that I do not see or have sympathy for men who have been falsely accused (I'm talking about consent here, not workplace harassment). It is just that I feel if a man is more concerned with being falsely accused than he is concerned about actually learning how and why to get and give affirmative consent, then he just doesn't get it. Assuming the men here who feel that way have not been falsely accused themselves, their concern for false accusations at a higher level than concern for their wives and daugthers and dates well being makes them seem to me to have only personal concerns and don't really want to hear about WHY consent is needed and HOW to do it. They just want to give us an endless list of "what if what if what if" and then each time we answer how to handle the "what if" they presented, they ignore the answer and ask another "what if".

If any of these guys instead were saying "oh ok, yeah I could do that and I would be as protected as possible while also protecting my date/girlfriend/wife", then I would see that they are concerned for for both themselves and the women in their lives and women in general.

But no - there's no acknowledgement of our many answers to their many what ifs. There are just more what ifs.

Sorry - but I lost my sympathy for those guys. 

They need a special class in "how to avoid a false charge" instead of "how and why to use affirmative consent".


----------



## Faithful Wife

anonmd said:


> Well, I believe we are in a transition period here. If you can't at least acknowledge the grey you are trying to eliminate then you will never reach a solution supported by all.


People who understand the need for and know how to use affirmative consent also understand how they can protect themselves from false charges (as much as is possible). No one can protect against an evil person who is deliberately lying about you for whatever reason. That case has nothing to do with consent, just as an actual rapist has nothing to do with consent.

It is just curious to me that all the nay sayers about AC don't actually know or understand it. If they did, they would see why it actually protects everyone, not just women.

Again - you will never be able to protect yourself from an evil ***** who is willing to commit a crime in order to try and frame you. Just as AC will not protect us against actual rapists and predators.


----------



## musicftw07

Faithful Wife said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't it as "the" problem, but I do believe it is "a" problem.
> 
> You're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a female. We're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a male. They're two different standpoints, so it stands to reason that they might differ.
> 
> One can have compassion for someone else's experience, but they may never be able to directly experience it due to factors beyond their control. Thus they have a different viewpoint.
> 
> I don't ever find it wise to ridicule someone for seeing the risks that apply to them in a given situation. They may differ from the risks you might experience, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that I do not see or have sympathy for men who have been falsely accused (I'm talking about consent here, not workplace harassment). It is just that I feel if a man is more concerned with being falsely accused than he is concerned about actually learning how and why to get and give affirmative consent, then he just doesn't get it. Assuming the men here who feel that way have not been falsely accused themselves, their concern for false accusations at a higher level than concern for their wives and daugthers and dates well being makes them seem to me to have only personal concerns and don't really want to hear about WHY consent is needed and HOW to do it. They just want to give us an endless list of "what if what if what if" and then each time we answer how to handle the "what if" they presented, they ignore the answer and ask another "what if".
> 
> If any of these guys instead were saying "oh ok, yeah I could do that and I would be as protected as possible while also protecting my date/girlfriend/wife", then I would see that they are concerned for for both themselves and the women in their lives and women in general.
> 
> But no - there's no acknowledgement of our many answers to their many what ifs. There are just more what ifs.
> 
> Sorry - but I lost my sympathy for those guys.
> 
> They need a special class in "how to avoid a false charge" instead of "how and why to use affirmative consent".
Click to expand...

Affirmative consent doesn't alleviate the risk of a false charge if the woman decides she didn't affirmatively consent ex post facto.

You're also asking men to place your needs above theirs. Why?


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Yes, because any sane woman that is with a newish partner, is actually going to sign such a form upon request, instead of running away form the insane person.
> 
> You do understand what that means: once the woman signs it, she has given her explicit consent to be done (implicitly) ANYTHING to her, including rape. And if she changes her mind during the actual act, there is no possibility to reverse that because the document is signed.


I hope your line of work is not contract law.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> I hope your line of work is not contract law.




Haha, my god, the irony.

You have seen the movie Bedazzled?

It’s the same thing but with bodies, rather than souls.

Please tell me at what point you would be willing to sign such a contract? Before or after the guy puts on the rapist mask?

The ‘what ifs’ is precisely what lawyers work all day long to account for, because somebody always tries to find a loophole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Here's the deal. There is no sure fire way to make 200% certain you will never ever get falsely accused. Life sucks. Then you die.


----------



## Faithful Wife

musicftw07 said:


> Affirmative consent doesn't alleviate the risk of a false charge if the woman decides she didn't affirmatively consent ex post facto.
> 
> You're also asking men to place your needs above theirs. Why?


To your first point, that is correct. Which is exactly what I said in my last post. No one can protect themselves from an evil person who is going to commit a crime against you by filing false charges.

To your second point, with AC, both men and women's needs are protected and cared for. No ones needs are placed above the other.

If you are talking again about a man's need to not be falsely accused, sorry but since I am not an evil, criminal liar, I do not know how women like that think and can offer no help and also, I have no way to protect a man from that other woman so...how is it that I am supposed to place his "need" to not be falsely accused anywhere? It has nothing to do with me or AC.

Any man (and I don't know any personally but they do exist) who has been falsely accused has my sympathy and the accuser has my utter contempt. Beyond that, I am in no way able to offer anything that assists a man to protect himself against a liar.

I have never had a man not place my well being above his "need" to have sex, if that's what you mean by "needs". If he did, I would not consider him a man anymore.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Haha, my god, the irony.
> 
> You have seen the movie Bedazzled?
> 
> It’s the same thing but with bodies, rather than souls.
> 
> Please tell me at what point you would be willing to sign such a contract? Before or after the guy puts on the rapist mask?
> 
> The ‘what ifs’ is precisely what lawyers work all day long to account for, because somebody always tries to find a loophole.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are a very strange person. Go get your tin foil hat now.


----------



## personofinterest

"
SEARCH IN THE CURRENT
AND SHOW ME
uhtred
online
Member
Join: Jun 2016
Mentions: 119
Posts: 5492

about 2 hours ago · #431
Re: Consent and responsibility
Popping up several messages you asked if we were discussing harassment or consent. I was pointing out that there are significant similarities between the two with regard to either failing to punish the guilty, or with accidentally punishing the innocent. 

I wasn't sure why you asked in the first place so I assume I missed your point.

NobodySpecial said:
Original Post
Yes. So? What is your point?
NobodySpecial
online
Member
Join: Nov 2013
Mentions: 76
Posts: 6750

about 2 hours ago · #432
Re: Consent and responsibility
uhtred said:
Original Post
Popping up several messages you asked if we were discussing harassment or consent. I was pointing out that there are significant similarities between the two with regard to either failing to punish the guilty, or with accidentally punishing the innocent. 

I wasn't sure why you asked in the first place so I assume I missed your point.


There really is not that much similarity in my view. But I thought you meant to say something more than just it is hard not to get screwed by this thing called life.
uhtred
online
Member
Join: Jun 2016
Mentions: 119
Posts: 5492

about 2 hours ago · #433
Re: Consent and responsibility
I didn't realize I was the first to introduce workplace harassment into the discussion, I thought is was already being discussed, but its a really long thread so I may have lost track. 

In some cases workplace harassment can involve consent: One form or harassment is a supervisor (or even coworker) constantly badgering someone for a date or sexual activities. Its possible for workplace romances, even between bosses and employees to be consenting (though usually against company rules), but without the consent, the same behavior can become harassment. 

There are other forms of harassment that are not related in a direct way to consent. 

I don't know about others, but I think that in general unpunished crimes, and punishment of innocent people are both problems and there is almost always a way to trade one off against the other - but rarely a way to make both as low as I would like. This is a bit of a sore point with me because I believe that the US as far more factually innocent people in prison than I am comfortable with. I think *most* people in prison are guilty, but I want a ratio that is much larger than "most". I feel like the old "better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man be punished" is about right. I understand that other people may want other ratios. 



Faithful Wife said:
Original Post
Harassment and consent are two different topics.

However, your conflating the two topics on this thread (and a few others did also) does point out to me that for both topics, some men are still more concerned with not being falsely accused than with learning actual consent or actual anti harassment ideals. Not saying you, but for several men it seems that the well being of women in the the workplace or in the dating world is less important than themselves not being “falsely accused” of anything.

This always comes across to me like this person really doesn’t get it. They are lost in their own fear and don’t see that women’s fears of real actual things that happen to us are finally being considered for the first time in history. We for the first time are being protected by the law, by the same courts that used to throw out a rape charge if our skirt was too short. All they see is “wait I am not a rapist and I am offended that I could be falsely accused of being one”. 

What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts? Oh that’s right....they want us to quietly just accept their escalating moves on our body and don’t complain about it. Because talking about how you really feel is possibly going to prevent me from having sex.

I know you are not one of those men. But I also don’t see why you would bring workplace harassment into the discussion at all. It seems to be an attempt to muddy the discussion. It is one more version of “but what if, what if, what if.” Those what ifs make a man sound like he simply doesn’t want to hear and absorb the 1,000 ways we already answered all the what if’s.

Like NS (or FF?) said...we women get to live with the uncertainty of what ifs all our lives and there is no way to protect ourselves from being assaulted or raped in most circumstances. If a predator has you at close range already, it’s usually too late. You may get lucky and injure the guy slightly....meanwhile he has injured you for life and there’s no medicine for it. Now you also get the fun task of retelling the tale that most horrifies you over and over to police, medical staff, your own partner/friends/parents. 

But men still believe they have a higher risk of a false charge than the risk women have of actual assault or rape. Sigh...

Again I know you don’t think that, U. But I also don’t like seeing the constant conflation. It works against the message. A separate post for workplace harassment would be good.
anonmd
online
Member
Join: Oct 2014
Mentions: 23
Posts: 1183

about 1 hour ago · #434
Re: Consent and responsibility
NobodySpecial said:
Original Post
I am trying to figure if this post is a serious legislative suggestion? Or are you being facetious?


I'm not sure, really. My thinking is kinda fluid here. 

I am supportive of the idea of affirmative consent.

I know it'd be fine with some women, how many is some? I don't know, my personal experience is out of date. I hope it is a lot. I REALLY would like women to take some goddamn personal responsibility here. Which is not to say I am blaming the women. Do something to fix this problem. 

So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later.
uhtred
online
Member
Join: Jun 2016
Mentions: 119
Posts: 5492

about 1 hour ago · #435
Re: Consent and responsibility
The idea of getting consent in writing is worth considering. What I don't know how to fix though is that writing only indicates consent at the time of the writing, while it is OK for people to withdraw consent at a later time. 

Requiring encounters to be recorded (in some inaccessible encrypted way) would in theory work, but it seems like there are a huge number of ways this could go badly wrong. Universal surveillance does solve this problem, but introduces many others.

I see two different problems: getting consent, and proving that one got consent. 

I believe the first is easy if the people involved are generally of good will. The second seems very difficult. 

Faithful Wife said:
Original Post
Interesting since I have more than once suggested getting it in writing on this thread.

Some men said "yeah right like that's ever going to happen" in mockery of me, and you are saying "can't have your cake and eat it too" in mockery of women, assuming women would somehow object to putting it in writing.

Trust me, it is not a "gotcha" to women who understand the need for consent, to get their consent.
inmyprime
online
Member
Join: Dec 2016
Mentions: 132
Posts: 4083
London

about 1 hour ago · #436
Re: Consent and responsibility
NobodySpecial said:
Original Post
Two things. One, get it in writing! Rock it. Two, why is this expression not can't EAT your cake and HAVE it too? Wouldn't that make more sense?


Yes, because any sane woman that is with a newish partner, is actually going to sign such a form upon request, instead of running away form the insane person. 

You do understand what that means: once the woman signs it, she has given her explicit consent to be done (implicitly) ANYTHING to her, including rape. And if she changes her mind during the actual act, there is no possibility to reverse that because the document is signed.

Sometimes I really wonder where people leave their brains 🧠...(no offence). 

Both women AND men need protection.

The ones that are still looking for dates can figure it out and work on the wording...

I will be watching from the sidelines (not in a perverty way )

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Faithful Wife
online
Member
Join: Oct 2012
Mentions: 160
Posts: 12297

about 1 hour ago · #437
Re: Consent and responsibility
anonmd said:
Original Post

So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later.


As long as a person believes the bolded is the "problem", that person is never going to understand the need for affirmative consent or how to use it.
musicftw07
online
Member
Join: Jun 2016
Mentions: 4
Posts: 358

36 minutes ago · #438
Faithful Wife said:
Original Post
anonmd said:
Original Post

So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later.


As long as a person believes the bolded is the "problem", that person is never going to understand the need for affirmative consent or how to use it.


I don't it as "the" problem, but I do believe it is "a" problem.

You're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a female. We're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a male. They're two different standpoints, so it stands to reason that they might differ.

One can have compassion for someone else's experience, but they may never be able to directly experience it due to factors beyond their control. Thus they have a different viewpoint.

I don't ever find it wise to ridicule someone for seeing the risks that apply to them in a given situation. They may differ from the risks you might experience, but that doesn't make them any less valid.

anonmd
online
Member
Join: Oct 2014
Mentions: 23
Posts: 1183

32 minutes ago · #439
Re: Consent and responsibility
Well, I believe we are in a transition period here. If you can't at least acknowledge the grey you are trying to eliminate then you will never reach a solution supported by all.
Faithful Wife
online
Member
Join: Oct 2012
Mentions: 160
Posts: 12297

24 minutes ago · #440
Re: Consent and responsibility
musicftw07 said:
Original Post
I don't it as "the" problem, but I do believe it is "a" problem.

You're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a female. We're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a male. They're two different standpoints, so it stands to reason that they might differ.

One can have compassion for someone else's experience, but they may never be able to directly experience it due to factors beyond their control. Thus they have a different viewpoint.

I don't ever find it wise to ridicule someone for seeing the risks that apply to them in a given situation. They may differ from the risks you might experience, but that doesn't make them any less valid.


It is not that I do not see or have sympathy for men who have been falsely accused (I'm talking about consent here, not workplace harassment). It is just that I feel if a man is more concerned with being falsely accused than he is concerned about actually learning how and why to get and give affirmative consent, then he just doesn't get it. Assuming the men here who feel that way have not been falsely accused themselves, their concern for false accusations at a higher level than concern for their wives and daugthers and dates well being makes them seem to me to have only personal concerns and don't really want to hear about WHY consent is needed and HOW to do it. They just want to give us an endless list of "what if what if what if" and then each time we answer how to handle the "what if" they presented, they ignore the answer and ask another "what if".

If any of these guys instead were saying "oh ok, yeah I could do that and I would be as protected as possible while also protecting my date/girlfriend/wife", then I would see that they are concerned for for both themselves and the women in their lives and women in general.

But no - there's no acknowledgement of our many answers to their many what ifs. There are just more what ifs.

Sorry - but I lost my sympathy for those guys. 

They need a special class in "how to avoid a false charge" instead of "how and why to use affirmative consent"."

Exactly!!!

They're just arguing for the sake of needing to be "right." Their view of women blinks like a neon sign.

If they all had the character of Random Dude, we'd have world peace by now ;


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Here's the deal. There is no sure fire way to make 200% certain you will never ever get falsely accused. Life sucks. Then you die.


But what about this scenario, and what about that scenario, and what if she changes her mind, and what if she lies, and what if someone else lies, and what if first she said no and I kept going but I stopped at kissing, and what if..................blah blah blah.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> Here's the deal. There is no sure fire way to make 200% certain you will never ever get falsely accused. Life sucks. Then you die.




And nobody is trying to exclude that risk 200%.

We are just pointing out the risks and get shot down.

By UNDERSTANDING risk, you are more likely to minimise it, both for you and your (potential, consenting or not) partner.

I not sure how many more straw men I can have for dinner before I need to pump my stomach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> You are a very strange person. Go get your tin foil hat now.




I’m actually quite loveable, believe it or not 


I shall do just that. With your consent. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> "
> SEARCH IN THE CURRENT
> AND SHOW ME
> uhtred
> online
> Member
> Join: Jun 2016
> Mentions: 119
> Posts: 5492
> 
> about 2 hours ago · #431
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> Popping up several messages you asked if we were discussing harassment or consent. I was pointing out that there are significant similarities between the two with regard to either failing to punish the guilty, or with accidentally punishing the innocent.
> 
> I wasn't sure why you asked in the first place so I assume I missed your point.
> 
> NobodySpecial said:
> Original Post
> Yes. So? What is your point?
> NobodySpecial
> online
> Member
> Join: Nov 2013
> Mentions: 76
> Posts: 6750
> 
> about 2 hours ago · #432
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> uhtred said:
> Original Post
> Popping up several messages you asked if we were discussing harassment or consent. I was pointing out that there are significant similarities between the two with regard to either failing to punish the guilty, or with accidentally punishing the innocent.
> 
> I wasn't sure why you asked in the first place so I assume I missed your point.
> 
> 
> There really is not that much similarity in my view. But I thought you meant to say something more than just it is hard not to get screwed by this thing called life.
> uhtred
> online
> Member
> Join: Jun 2016
> Mentions: 119
> Posts: 5492
> 
> about 2 hours ago · #433
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> I didn't realize I was the first to introduce workplace harassment into the discussion, I thought is was already being discussed, but its a really long thread so I may have lost track.
> 
> In some cases workplace harassment can involve consent: One form or harassment is a supervisor (or even coworker) constantly badgering someone for a date or sexual activities. Its possible for workplace romances, even between bosses and employees to be consenting (though usually against company rules), but without the consent, the same behavior can become harassment.
> 
> There are other forms of harassment that are not related in a direct way to consent.
> 
> I don't know about others, but I think that in general unpunished crimes, and punishment of innocent people are both problems and there is almost always a way to trade one off against the other - but rarely a way to make both as low as I would like. This is a bit of a sore point with me because I believe that the US as far more factually innocent people in prison than I am comfortable with. I think *most* people in prison are guilty, but I want a ratio that is much larger than "most". I feel like the old "better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man be punished" is about right. I understand that other people may want other ratios.
> 
> 
> 
> Faithful Wife said:
> Original Post
> Harassment and consent are two different topics.
> 
> However, your conflating the two topics on this thread (and a few others did also) does point out to me that for both topics, some men are still more concerned with not being falsely accused than with learning actual consent or actual anti harassment ideals. Not saying you, but for several men it seems that the well being of women in the the workplace or in the dating world is less important than themselves not being “falsely accused” of anything.
> 
> This always comes across to me like this person really doesn’t get it. They are lost in their own fear and don’t see that women’s fears of real actual things that happen to us are finally being considered for the first time in history. We for the first time are being protected by the law, by the same courts that used to throw out a rape charge if our skirt was too short. All they see is “wait I am not a rapist and I am offended that I could be falsely accused of being one”.
> 
> What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts? Oh that’s right....they want us to quietly just accept their escalating moves on our body and don’t complain about it. Because talking about how you really feel is possibly going to prevent me from having sex.
> 
> I know you are not one of those men. But I also don’t see why you would bring workplace harassment into the discussion at all. It seems to be an attempt to muddy the discussion. It is one more version of “but what if, what if, what if.” Those what ifs make a man sound like he simply doesn’t want to hear and absorb the 1,000 ways we already answered all the what if’s.
> 
> Like NS (or FF?) said...we women get to live with the uncertainty of what ifs all our lives and there is no way to protect ourselves from being assaulted or raped in most circumstances. If a predator has you at close range already, it’s usually too late. You may get lucky and injure the guy slightly....meanwhile he has injured you for life and there’s no medicine for it. Now you also get the fun task of retelling the tale that most horrifies you over and over to police, medical staff, your own partner/friends/parents.
> 
> But men still believe they have a higher risk of a false charge than the risk women have of actual assault or rape. Sigh...
> 
> Again I know you don’t think that, U. But I also don’t like seeing the constant conflation. It works against the message. A separate post for workplace harassment would be good.
> anonmd
> online
> Member
> Join: Oct 2014
> Mentions: 23
> Posts: 1183
> 
> about 1 hour ago · #434
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> NobodySpecial said:
> Original Post
> I am trying to figure if this post is a serious legislative suggestion? Or are you being facetious?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure, really. My thinking is kinda fluid here.
> 
> I am supportive of the idea of affirmative consent.
> 
> I know it'd be fine with some women, how many is some? I don't know, my personal experience is out of date. I hope it is a lot. I REALLY would like women to take some goddamn personal responsibility here. Which is not to say I am blaming the women. Do something to fix this problem.
> 
> So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later.
> uhtred
> online
> Member
> Join: Jun 2016
> Mentions: 119
> Posts: 5492
> 
> about 1 hour ago · #435
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> The idea of getting consent in writing is worth considering. What I don't know how to fix though is that writing only indicates consent at the time of the writing, while it is OK for people to withdraw consent at a later time.
> 
> Requiring encounters to be recorded (in some inaccessible encrypted way) would in theory work, but it seems like there are a huge number of ways this could go badly wrong. Universal surveillance does solve this problem, but introduces many others.
> 
> I see two different problems: getting consent, and proving that one got consent.
> 
> I believe the first is easy if the people involved are generally of good will. The second seems very difficult.
> 
> Faithful Wife said:
> Original Post
> Interesting since I have more than once suggested getting it in writing on this thread.
> 
> Some men said "yeah right like that's ever going to happen" in mockery of me, and you are saying "can't have your cake and eat it too" in mockery of women, assuming women would somehow object to putting it in writing.
> 
> Trust me, it is not a "gotcha" to women who understand the need for consent, to get their consent.
> inmyprime
> online
> Member
> Join: Dec 2016
> Mentions: 132
> Posts: 4083
> London
> 
> about 1 hour ago · #436
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> NobodySpecial said:
> Original Post
> Two things. One, get it in writing! Rock it. Two, why is this expression not can't EAT your cake and HAVE it too? Wouldn't that make more sense?
> 
> 
> Yes, because any sane woman that is with a newish partner, is actually going to sign such a form upon request, instead of running away form the insane person.
> 
> You do understand what that means: once the woman signs it, she has given her explicit consent to be done (implicitly) ANYTHING to her, including rape. And if she changes her mind during the actual act, there is no possibility to reverse that because the document is signed.
> 
> Sometimes I really wonder where people leave their brains 🧠...(no offence).
> 
> Both women AND men need protection.
> 
> The ones that are still looking for dates can figure it out and work on the wording...
> 
> I will be watching from the sidelines (not in a perverty way )
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> Faithful Wife
> online
> Member
> Join: Oct 2012
> Mentions: 160
> Posts: 12297
> 
> about 1 hour ago · #437
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> anonmd said:
> Original Post
> 
> So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later.
> 
> 
> As long as a person believes the bolded is the "problem", that person is never going to understand the need for affirmative consent or how to use it.
> musicftw07
> online
> Member
> Join: Jun 2016
> Mentions: 4
> Posts: 358
> 
> 36 minutes ago · #438
> Faithful Wife said:
> Original Post
> anonmd said:
> Original Post
> 
> So maybe an actual law is the way to go. Something titled the "Affirmative Consent / Affirmative Defense Act". It has to be balanced and cover both issues. No more going along and changing your mind 3 days or 25 years later.
> 
> 
> As long as a person believes the bolded is the "problem", that person is never going to understand the need for affirmative consent or how to use it.
> 
> 
> I don't it as "the" problem, but I do believe it is "a" problem.
> 
> You're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a female. We're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a male. They're two different standpoints, so it stands to reason that they might differ.
> 
> One can have compassion for someone else's experience, but they may never be able to directly experience it due to factors beyond their control. Thus they have a different viewpoint.
> 
> I don't ever find it wise to ridicule someone for seeing the risks that apply to them in a given situation. They may differ from the risks you might experience, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
> 
> anonmd
> online
> Member
> Join: Oct 2014
> Mentions: 23
> Posts: 1183
> 
> 32 minutes ago · #439
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> Well, I believe we are in a transition period here. If you can't at least acknowledge the grey you are trying to eliminate then you will never reach a solution supported by all.
> Faithful Wife
> online
> Member
> Join: Oct 2012
> Mentions: 160
> Posts: 12297
> 
> 24 minutes ago · #440
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> musicftw07 said:
> Original Post
> I don't it as "the" problem, but I do believe it is "a" problem.
> 
> You're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a female. We're looking at it from the risk standpoint of a male. They're two different standpoints, so it stands to reason that they might differ.
> 
> One can have compassion for someone else's experience, but they may never be able to directly experience it due to factors beyond their control. Thus they have a different viewpoint.
> 
> I don't ever find it wise to ridicule someone for seeing the risks that apply to them in a given situation. They may differ from the risks you might experience, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
> 
> 
> It is not that I do not see or have sympathy for men who have been falsely accused (I'm talking about consent here, not workplace harassment). It is just that I feel if a man is more concerned with being falsely accused than he is concerned about actually learning how and why to get and give affirmative consent, then he just doesn't get it. Assuming the men here who feel that way have not been falsely accused themselves, their concern for false accusations at a higher level than concern for their wives and daugthers and dates well being makes them seem to me to have only personal concerns and don't really want to hear about WHY consent is needed and HOW to do it. They just want to give us an endless list of "what if what if what if" and then each time we answer how to handle the "what if" they presented, they ignore the answer and ask another "what if".
> 
> If any of these guys instead were saying "oh ok, yeah I could do that and I would be as protected as possible while also protecting my date/girlfriend/wife", then I would see that they are concerned for for both themselves and the women in their lives and women in general.
> 
> But no - there's no acknowledgement of our many answers to their many what ifs. There are just more what ifs.
> 
> Sorry - but I lost my sympathy for those guys.
> 
> They need a special class in "how to avoid a false charge" instead of "how and why to use affirmative consent"."
> 
> Exactly!!!
> 
> They're just arguing for the sake of needing to be "right." Their view of women blinks like a neon sign.
> 
> If they all had the character of Random Dude, we'd have world peace by now ;




Is this the Russians hacking again? 🤪


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> If they all had the character of Random Dude, we'd have world peace by now ;



Yeah....You must not have been here the last time he got some time out...(no offence random dude; I was kind of cheering for you. Or with you. I can’t remember).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

I have no idea what happened with that crazy post! Please delete it. It won't let me lol


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> I’m actually quite loveable, believe it or not
> 
> 
> I shall do just that. With your consent.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That has nothing to do wtit me. You don't need my consent. You are on your own.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> That has nothing to do wtit me. You don't need my consent. You are on your own.



Is there really nothing that can make you laugh? I will try to make it my ambition; making SomebodySpecial laugh.

Do you like feminist jokes? 

What’s the difference between a feminist and a gun? A gun only has one trigger.

Shhhhhh... God is coming: and is SHE pissed!

Oh I know:

Q: What did one saggy boob say to the other saggy boob? 
A: "We better get some support before someone thinks we're nuts!"

I am telling these jokes with my tinfoil hat btw, just FYI.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Yeah....You must not have been here the last time he got some time out...(no offence random dude; I was kind of cheering for you. Or with you. I can’t remember).


Yeah was kinda thinking WTF, I saw my name next to world peace... like... really?

That's kinda not possible :rofl:

But flattered though, that someone thinks I'm not all bad, so screw you IMP  (jokes)


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.

Carol Tavris is a social psychologist and author of the feminist classic, The Mismeasure of Woman, and, with Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me). She says she is troubled by the blurring of distinctions between rape (notably by predatory males), unwanted sex (where one party agrees to sex not out of desire but to please or placate the partner), and the kind of consensual sex where both parties are so drunk they can barely remember what happened—and one of them later regrets it. She says, “Calling all of these kinds of sexual encounters ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ doesn’t teach young women how to learn what they want sexually, let alone how to communicate what they want, or don’t want. It doesn’t teach them to take responsibility for their decisions, for their reluctance to speak up. Sexual communication is really hard—you don’t learn how to do it in a few weekends.”

Tavris also believes holding only men responsible for their sexual behavior has pernicious effects on women because it supports a victim identity that is already too prevalent in our society. “It’s so much easier to be a victim than to admit culpability, admit your own involvement, admit that you made a mistake,” she says. “It’s much easier to say it’s all his fault. Look, sometimes it is all his fault. That’s called rape. But ambiguities and unexpected decisions are part of many encounters, especially sexual ones.”


----------



## wild jade

SadSamIAm said:


> The point that we are trying to make is that you hear about some sexual assault case. Then you think of the scenarios you have been in the past where your actions could have been construed as sexual assault.


That's what I said. Then I got my head bit off for it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Is there really nothing that can make you laugh? I will try to make it my ambition; making SomebodySpecial laugh.
> 
> Do you like feminist jokes?
> 
> What’s the difference between a feminist and a gun? A gun only has one trigger.
> 
> Shhhhhh... God is coming: and is SHE pissed!
> 
> Oh I know:
> 
> Q: What did one saggy boob say to the other saggy boob?
> A: "We better get some support before someone thinks we're nuts!"
> 
> I am telling these jokes with my tinfoil hat btw, just FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How would you know? 

I grabbed a coffee cup this morning (not in my own house). I looked at it and read "I like your" with a picture of a chicken. "I like your chicken""? I asked my daughter. She rolled her eyes and dope slapped me. Took a while to stop laughing. My kids can make me laugh without trying.

I forget sometimes that you guys think I am an uptight witch with a stick up my butt.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Then you must be living in a vacuum. If there is any suggestion whatsoever, anything to do with that type of accusation (and accusation only), your career is over immediately. The agents, companies and endorsement agencies are not going to wait for the verdict. I’m sorry but you have no idea.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What? Adam Sandler's career is over? 

If you're a celebrity and you can't handle the press making ridiculous sensationalized stories out of nothing, then you should get out of the business.

I've yet to see anyone lose their job over such an accusation. Unless they've been found guilty, of course.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.
> 
> Carol Tavris is a social psychologist and author of the feminist classic, The Mismeasure of Woman, and, with Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me). She says she is troubled by the blurring of distinctions between rape (notably by predatory males), unwanted sex (where one party agrees to sex not out of desire but to please or placate the partner), and the kind of consensual sex where both parties are so drunk they can barely remember what happened—and one of them later regrets it. She says, “Calling all of these kinds of sexual encounters ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ doesn’t teach young women how to learn what they want sexually, let alone how to communicate what they want, or don’t want. It doesn’t teach them to take responsibility for their decisions, for their reluctance to speak up. Sexual communication is really hard—you don’t learn how to do it in a few weekends.”
> 
> Tavris also believes holding only men responsible for their sexual behavior has pernicious effects on women because it supports *a victim identity that is already too prevalent in our society*. “It’s so much easier to be a victim than to admit culpability, admit your own involvement, admit that you made a mistake,” she says. “It’s much easier to say it’s all his fault. Look, sometimes it is all his fault. That’s called rape. But ambiguities and unexpected decisions are part of many encounters, especially sexual ones.”


There is ... not yet movement... that I have heard about in the public sphere that makes sense to me. The social acceptance of injustice is GOOD. The understanding of the conditions under which the marginalized live is good. But the best personal response is individual grit. I don't know what that looks like.


----------



## wild jade

I work at a college campus, and the reality is that people are very well aware of the differences between rape, sexual assault, and drunken stupidity. These form the basis of the workshops and initiatives to help educate students on issues of consent and safe practices.

As for only men being held accountable, that's just not true. Women are mostly the ones taking these workshops, although they are offered to men as well. 

The goal isn't to victimize men, it is to make everyone aware of risks, keep people safe, and yes, empower young women to say no when they mean no.


----------



## wild jade

What really puzzles me is this belief that the issue of consent is new.

No, it's not. It's been around for decades and decades. When I spoke to my husband about this conversation, his reaction was basically "of course. Who wants sex if she's not into it?"


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> How would you know?
> 
> 
> 
> I grabbed a coffee cup this morning (not in my own house). I looked at it and read "I like your" with a picture of a chicken. "I like your chicken""? I asked my daughter. She rolled her eyes and dope slapped me. Took a while to stop laughing.



Sorry, I don’t get it  
We might have an incompatibility in humour. ☹



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> Buddy, what exactly is your goal? Is it to make sure you're doing the right thing in that women are not harmed, or is it just to prove that we women are a bunch of liars who tease men and deserve what we get? Because with your attitude and your words, I'm honestly not sure.


I have no goals involving myself. I'm happily married and never plan to be anything else.

I am concerned about men being falsely accused and suffering consequences they don't deserve.

I am very concerned about rules and laws being put in place based on "Affirmative Consent" rather than "No means No" because affirmative consent is a much harder concept to enforce. (See California and New York).

I am concerned about the future of man / female relationships.

I do not think women are liars who tease men and deserve what we get. I DO worry about what the current environment is doing for women's expectations. I do feel that the most extreme women are trying to make poor sex a crime (at least a misdemeanor).

There was an incident at Ohio University where a man was performing oral sex in public on a woman, There was a video which showed the woman seemingly encouraging it (pulling his head towards her. When the video went public, the woman showed up at the police station to loge a sexual assault claim. The DA, wisely, took it to a grand jry, which declined to press charges. In the comments, most people though this was preposterous (men and women).

However, there was one woman commenter who was confused. The woman in the video had been drinking, therefore was unable to give consent, and therefore she couldn't understand why it wasn't sexual assault.

Young woman are also being convinced after the fact (often months or years later) that they've been victims of sexual assault when they never considered themselves victims at the time.

This is worrisome.


----------



## NobodySpecial

inmyprime said:


> Sorry, I don’t get it
> We might have an incompatibility in humour. ☹
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It was not a female poultry. It was a male. I like your ... It was a present from my sister to her BF. And my daughter thought I was being stupid... cuz I was. I dunno. Stupid is funny.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> It was not a female poultry. It was a male. I like your ... It was a present from my sister to her BF. And my daughter thought I was being stupid... cuz I was. I dunno. Stupid is funny.



Aaaaaah. Ok, I would not have got it if you haven’t mentioned MALE poultry....I wasn’t sure why ‘I like your chick’ was hilarious....

Maybe we still have a chance wrt humour....if we explain stupid jokes to each other, it’s kind of funny too. As long as we don’t have to argue about consent and rapisms anymore!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Kinda ****ty. And out of that ****tiness came the affirmative consent idea. *I, personally, don't think we want to go down the road of codifying where to insert every yes into law*. I don't think anyone else does either? Not sure about other posters. I *think *all we have right now is that affirmative consent remains damned good advice.


And, yet, there ARE legislatures doing exactly that.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, if she is outright lying *because she's an evil criminal*, then even someone like me wouldn't necessarily believe you.
> 
> I do not see how anyone can protect themselves from something like that. It will end up being his word against hers. Sorry, yes there are evil *****es in the world, just like there are evil men in the world. None of us can protect ourselves from this in advance.


It doesn't have to be due to evil.

Have you and another person ever listened to the same person but thought they said different things?

Be in the same situation but later found you have differing memories of what happened?

She may have thought it was obvious that she didn't want to be kissed. I could just as easily have believed that she did.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> One problem is that its possible to adjust laws / regulations to trade off between the number of rapists who go free and the number of innocent people who are falsely accused. There is not place to put that knob that doesn't have a serious problem one way or the other - or even both.
> 
> Its not even clear what the goal is. How can one make a rational tradeoff between number of rapes and number of innocent people who are punished.
> 
> No one wants to see rapists go free. No one wants innocent men punished, but inevitably BOTH happen.


Blackstone's formulation ("It's better that one guilty man go free than ten innocent men suffer") is a bedrock concept in Anglo-American jurisprudence.

Interestingly (from wikipedia):

_Authoritarian personalities tend to take the opposite view; Bismarck is believed to have stated that "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape".[1] Pol Pot made similar remarks.[14] Wolfgang Schäuble referenced this principle while saying that it is not applicable to the context of preventing terrorist attacks.[15] Former American Vice President **** Cheney said that his support of American use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) against suspected terrorists was unchanged by the fact that 25% of CIA detainees subject to that treatment were later proven to be innocent, including one who died of hypothermia in CIA custody. "I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that in fact were innocent." Asked whether the 25% margin was too high, Cheney responded, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. ... I'd do it again in a minute." 

Liberal columnist Ezra Klein supported California's SB 967 "Affirmative Consent" law with the same reasoning as Cheney's supported "enhanced interrogation techniques". While claiming the law was "terrible" and could be used to punish people who did not commit rape, Klein states "its overreach is precisely its value" and "ugly problems don't always have pretty solutions"_.

So, if someone wants to be on (Richard) Cheney's (or Pol Pot's) side of this issue, have at it.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> That is *exactly* what this thread is about. And it has been asked and answered.
> 
> But then the answer isn't accepted. Why not?


Only someone consumed by confirmation bias could come to that conclusion.

I have never experienced you to be anything else.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts?


I would like to see increased dependence on a "No means No" standard. It is a clear boundary and there is no room for miss-interpretation.

Apparently, many women feel uncomfortable saying "No" or they "freeze up". If this is the case, then I recommend taking funding from Affirmative Consent training and reassigning it to assertiveness training for women.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Is why it is confusing that the workplace stuff is brought up in a consent discussion.


It is often the same thing.

Unless there is no sexual intermixing of the genders among people working at the same company (I believe that this is a rarity), consent is still important (and just as easy to get wrong. 

One definition of "sexual assault" is typically "unwanted advances". How does one know they're unwanted without making them. 

Also, workplace issues can include off-site activity. A man has dinner with a co-worker. Based on his interpretation of the evening, he may believe that his co-worker would welcome a kiss. He kisses her and she does not object. The next day his co-worker (who thought it was obvious she had no interest in a personal relationship) reports him to HR and he subsequently losses his job (and when his old company is contacted for a reference, they mention he was let go due to a sexual assault accusation).


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> "What would these men propose we do instead of affirmative consent education efforts? Oh that’s right....they want us to quietly just accept their escalating moves on our body and don’t complain about it. "
> THIS is what I read in some places.


See my response to FW


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> As long as a person believes the bolded is the "problem", that person is never going to understand the need for affirmative consent or how to use it.


I assume that you are unaware of the many cases where exactly that (very delayed reporting) happened?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> It is not that I do not see or have sympathy for men who have been falsely accused (I'm talking about consent here, not workplace harassment). It is just that I feel if a man is more concerned with being falsely accused than he is concerned about actually learning how and why to get and give affirmative consent, then he just doesn't get it. Assuming the men here who feel that way have not been falsely accused themselves, their concern for false accusations at a higher level than concern for their wives and daugthers and dates well being makes them seem to me to have only personal concerns and don't really want to hear about WHY consent is needed and HOW to do it. They just want to give us an endless list of "what if what if what if" and then each time we answer how to handle the "what if" they presented, they ignore the answer and ask another "what if".
> 
> If any of these guys instead were saying "oh ok, yeah I could do that and I would be as protected as possible while also protecting my date/girlfriend/wife", then I would see that they are concerned for for both themselves and the women in their lives and women in general.
> 
> But no - there's no acknowledgement of our many answers to their many what ifs. There are just more what ifs.
> 
> Sorry - but I lost my sympathy for those guys.
> 
> They need a special class in "how to avoid a false charge" instead of "how and why to use affirmative consent".


I think the fear of being falsely accused is it is one of the most dreaded and common fears people have (at least men). There have been more than a few movies on that topic for a reason.

Let's find a way for women to support a socially desirable outcome which entails a realistic chance of being falsely accused.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Yes, because any sane woman that is with a newish partner, is actually going to sign such a form upon request, instead of running away form the insane person.
> 
> You do understand what that means: once the woman signs it, she has given her explicit consent to be done (implicitly) ANYTHING to her, including rape. And if she changes her mind during the actual act, there is no possibility to reverse that because the document is signed.
> 
> Sometimes I really wonder where people leave their brains ��...(no offence).
> 
> Both women AND men need protection.
> 
> The ones that are still looking for dates can figure it out and work on the wording...
> 
> I will be watching from the sidelines (not in a perverty way )
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I get what you're saying.

The consent for would become as worthless as the ones you sign when you visit a doctor (or install software). 

Who ever really reads those?


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> It is just curious to me that all the nay sayers about AC don't actually know or understand it. If they did, they would see why it actually protects everyone, not just women.


It won't solve anything (legally). A rapist will simply say that the woman consented, even though she did no such thing.

This happens all the time now. The woman says she was assaulted, the man says it was consensual.

Either way, "He said, she said".


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Here's the deal. There is no sure fire way to make 200% certain you will never ever get falsely accused. Life sucks. Then you die.


How about this? 

Here's the deal. There is no sure fire way to make 200% certain you will never be sexually assaulted. Life sucks. Then you die.

Of course, I would never actually say that to a woman.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## Buddy400

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Carol Tavris is a social psychologist and author of the feminist classic, The Mismeasure of Woman, and, with Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me). She says she is troubled by the blurring of distinctions between rape (notably by predatory males), unwanted sex (where one party agrees to sex not out of desire but to please or placate the partner), and the kind of consensual sex where both parties are so drunk they can barely remember what happened—and one of them later regrets it. She says, “Calling all of these kinds of sexual encounters ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ doesn’t teach young women how to learn what they want sexually, let alone how to communicate what they want, or don’t want. It doesn’t teach them to take responsibility for their decisions, for their reluctance to speak up. Sexual communication is really hard—you don’t learn how to do it in a few weekends.”
> 
> Tavris also believes holding only men responsible for their sexual behavior has pernicious effects on women because it supports a victim identity that is already too prevalent in our society. “It’s so much easier to be a victim than to admit culpability, admit your own involvement, admit that you made a mistake,” she says. “It’s much easier to say it’s all his fault. Look, sometimes it is all his fault. That’s called rape. But ambiguities and unexpected decisions are part of many encounters, especially sexual ones.”


The thing is, there are a LOT of women saying the same thing, usually feminists of an earlier wave.

So the resistance isn't just from Neanderthal guys. 

Far from it.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I get what you're saying.
> 
> The consent for would become as worthless as the ones you sign when you visit a doctor (or install software).
> 
> Who ever really reads those?



No I was serious: I don’t see how signing a form (provided this becomes acceptable practice and women don’t get freaked out when presented with one), will not make the issue much worse. 

Imagine a woman signing it and the guy proceeds doing anything he wants to her, since he now legally can. 
Even if she changes her mind throughout or even if there are acts she doesn’t want him to perform or he is too forceful and she doesn’t want or like it anymore. The court of law will be on the side of the guy. The woman has no protection anymore and is unable to change her mind. She basically signs her body off to the guy for him to do whatever he pleases.

You can’t have a universal form for a situation that is potentially...fluid. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> You don’t have to, we already know this. I believe three of the women in this thread have already experienced this.


The difference is that I and the overwhelming majority of men are sympathetic to sexual assault against women (and 99.8% of us would kill a ****ing rapist if we had the chance).

Men say that they're concerned about false accusations, women just blow off their concerns.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

I think it's virtually impossible to ever be falsely accused if I make her feel safe with me, not coerced and she feels she is able to withdraw consent at any time without me turning into a *********. YMMV


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> How about this?
> 
> Here's the deal. There is no sure fire way to make 200% certain you will never be sexually assaulted. Life sucks. Then you die.
> 
> Of course, I would never actually say that to a woman.


You don't have to. We already know it. We have always known it.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> You don't have to. We already know it. We have always known it.




Great!!! Everyone agrees. Can we all go out for some consensual drinks now? 🥂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

I don't have any statistics. I have never met anyone, male or female who said anything to indicate that they thought sexual assault was OK. 

Such people clearly exist, as a rather infamous video of a high level politician in the US shows. How many, I have no idea. 






FrenchFry said:


> You highly over estimate the sympathy of men.


----------



## wild jade

FrenchFry said:


> You highly over estimate the sympathy of men.


And underestimate the sympathy of women.


----------



## wild jade

FrenchFry said:


> You don’t have to, we already know this. I believe three of the women in this thread have already experienced this.


At least 3. There are those who have told their stories, and those who have not.


----------



## wild jade

PigglyWiggly said:


> I think it's virtually impossible to ever be falsely accused if I make her feel safe with me, not coerced and she feels she is able to withdraw consent at any time without me turning into a *********. YMMV


No man I know has ever been falsely accused, or has even ever really worried about it.

No, correction. One man I know was falsely accused by a student who decided she didn't like her marks and wanted to cause some drama. It was hard on him, but he was soon cleared and she got in trouble for it.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

This was a surprisingly thoughtful and educational thread...


... and has suddenly devolved into a "men are bad, women are good" platform.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> This was a surprisingly thoughtful and educational thread...
> 
> 
> ... and has suddenly devolved into a "men are bad, women are good" platform.


Rocky, There are definitely posters on this board whose immediate reaction is to stuff their internet fingers in their internet ears and hum nee neee neee nee to themselves while reading Men Are Bad no matter what is said. We all have filters as a result of our experiences. It remains sad that even good dudes sometimes simply will not hear women's experiences. They know better what really happens with men out there. BS they know what THEY do. I know what I have experienced. Come to the ladies lounge and tell me that that is not so, and I might reply.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

I mentioned this thread to my wife. She told me that when she was young (90s) , nearly every guy she dated seemed to be a "pusher" and didn't seem to really be interested in getting consent first. Is it possible that most of this mindset in guys is born from immaturity where sex is often only about getting an orgasm for the guy?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> Rocky, There are definitely posters on this board whose immediate reaction is to stuff their internet fingers in their internet ears and hum nee neee neee nee to themselves while reading Men Are Bad no matter what is said. We all have filters as a result of our experiences. It remains sad that even good dudes sometimes simply will not hear women's experiences. They know better what really happens with men out there. BS they know what THEY do. I know what I have experienced. Come to the ladies lounge and tell me that that is not so, and I might reply.


Of course we all have our personal experiences, and they usually color our perceptions. 

As I said, for the most part, this has been a very thoughtful, and in many posts, and insightful thread, even in posts what may cast some men in a poor light. It's been good discussion with more thought than knee-jerk. 33 pretty darn good pages.

Then we suddenly get the general statement "You highly over estimate the sympathy of men" shortly followed up with the necessary corollary "And underestimate the sympathy of women.." Not just "some dudes" but dudes in general. Ditto women. 

I shouldn't complain though. I guess I'm surprised this thing lasted 33+ pages before the gender warriors came out.


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Of course we all have our personal experiences, and they usually color our perceptions.
> 
> As I said, for the most part, this has been a very thoughtful, and in many posts, and insightful thread, even in posts what may cast some men in a poor light. It's been good discussion with more thought than knee-jerk. 33 pretty darn good pages.
> 
> Then we suddenly get the general statement "You highly over estimate the sympathy of men" shortly followed up with the necessary corollary "And underestimate the sympathy of women.." Not just "some dudes" but dudes in general. Ditto women.
> 
> I shouldn't complain though. I guess I'm surprised this thing lasted 33+ pages before the gender warriors came out.


?????

Now I'm confused. @Buddy400 makes a blanket claim that virtually all men have sympathy for women and virtually no women have sympathy for men.

What he says isn't "gender warrior". But calling him out on that all of sudden ruins the thread and makes it all knee jerk reactions that men are bad and women are good?????

As I recall, there has been plenty of sympathy expressed regarding false accusations of men. 

Is it so terrible to point out where the actual statistics are? 

Because that's what drives the affirmative consent movement.

@PigglyWiggly gets it. None of this is about attacking men.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## personofinterest

PigglyWiggly said:


> I mentioned this thread to my wife. She told me that when she was young (90s) , nearly every guy she dated seemed to be a "pusher" and didn't seem to really be interested in getting consent first. Is it possible that most of this mindset in guys is born from immaturity where sex is often only about getting an orgasm for the guy?


And this is what is going on some in this thread. I think some people realize their tactics in 90s might get them in trouble today. And instead of just adapting or letting bygones be bygones they need to PROVE their game in 1992 wasn't coercive.

If it was, own it and don't do it again. Why is it some sort of personal affront 25 years later?

I had some crappy habits 25 years ago too. So what?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> ?????
> 
> Now I'm confused. @Buddy400 makes a blanket claim that virtually all men have sympathy for women and virtually no women have sympathy for men.
> 
> What he says isn't "gender warrior". But calling him out on that all of sudden ruins the thread and makes it all knee jerk reactions that men are bad and women are good?????
> 
> As I recall, there has been plenty of sympathy expressed regarding false accusations of men.
> 
> Is it so terrible to point out where the actual statistics are?
> 
> Because that's what drives the affirmative consent movement.
> 
> @PigglyWiggly gets it. None of this is about attacking men.


Nothing wrong with pointing out actual statistics. I'm sure we all acknowledge that actual assault is far more prevalent than false accusations. Valid point that had merit in this discussion.

I don't think that invalidates the claim that most men are sympathetic to actual assault.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> And this is what is going on some in this thread. I think some people realize their tactics in 90s might get them in trouble today. And instead of just adapting or letting bygones be bygones they need to PROVE their game in 1992 wasn't coercive.
> 
> If it was, own it and don't do it again. Why is it some sort of personal affront 25 years later?
> 
> *I had some crappy habits 25 years ago too. So what?*



Some personal history: In the late 80s (teenager) I cheated on damn near every gal I dated. It was due to immaturity, lack of self worth, lack of respect and just generally being a POS. When I "grew up" and actually became a man worth his salt, it was very painful to look back at what I was and what I had done to those gals. That shame was even higher after my daughter was born. Extrapolate from that what you will.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> I was sharing my own experience with a situation where there could have been a dubious consent situation and I got a Pol Pot lecture in return. Forgive me, but this is generally what happens when so called commiseration happens. If is not immediate acquiescence on the or sufficient noises made in deference to another, it escalates. I don’t care if you feel like a productive discussion is ruined because of a lack of qualifier - obviously I don’t feel like it was really that fruitful either.


I think the Blackstone formulation is applicable.

An activist testifying before congress said something along the lines of "100 men being treated unfairly is worth it if it prevents one woman from being sexually assaulted" (I'll come up with the actual verbatim quote if you feel it's needed). It's not so surprising that someone would say something like that. What I found appalling is that the audience erupted in cheers. That really seems to be where we are these days (or, at least, where we're headed to).

I was pleasantly surprised to see Wikipedia (a generally left leaning site) point out that it's generally the Authoritarians who say stuff like that.

I actually thought Pol Pot was a bit too far (I figured Richard Cheney would be bad enough) and considered taking it out, but that would have put a suspicious ellipse in the middle of the quote.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> And this is what is going on some in this thread. I think some people realize their tactics in 90s might get them in trouble today. And instead of just adapting or letting bygones be bygones they need to PROVE their game in 1992 wasn't coercive.
> 
> If it was, own it and don't do it again. Why is it some sort of personal affront 25 years later?
> 
> I had some crappy habits 25 years ago too. So what?


I didn't think (and don't think) my actions in 1989 were coercive.

My wife, who would have been the victim, certainly didn't (and doesn't) think I was coercive. She thought it was perfect.

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that, if the same thing happened in today's environment and I had misjudged my wife to be's receptiveness, it's conceivable that it might be seen as sexual assault. 

And, my not taking that action wouldn't have just hurt me (according to many women here, I was just trying to get laid), it would have hurt my wife since she believes that meeting and marrying me was the best thing that ever happened to her.


----------



## SadSamIAm

PigglyWiggly said:


> I mentioned this thread to my wife. She told me that when she was young (90s) , nearly every guy she dated seemed to be a "pusher" and didn't seem to really be interested in getting consent first. Is it possible that most of this mindset in guys is born from immaturity where sex is often only about getting an orgasm for the guy?


I agree. I think this is how it was when I was a teenager/ early adult. Men pushed for sex. Women would allow guys to try. Get to first base, second base, third base, etc. At some point the women might stop the guy. But he tried until she stopped him. This happened several times with me. It seemed like a game. Get close. Try to get her turned on. See how far she would allow me to go. It was fun and exciting. I think (and hope) it was for both of us. 

At the time, I never felt like I pushed past what the girls were comfortable with. I stopped a few times because I could feel they were uncomfortable. Sometimes they stopped me and I stopped. Sometimes they stopped me, I stopped and then we started again. Sometimes they pretty much forced me to continue.

Now many years later, I wonder if I took advantage of some of them. I feel a couple took advantage of me. There was never a written contract or even a verbal one. The consent or lack of consent was pretty much universally physical.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> I was sharing my own experience with a situation where there could have been a dubious consent situation and I got a Pol Pot lecture in return.


My Blackstone formulation post was a direct response to Ultred (who I quoted).

I don't recall anything you said that my post would have been a response to.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Red Sonja said:


> I don't dress provocatively, ever. I am very physically fit but that can't be it? I do have what most consider traditionally "masculine interests" and am therefore around men more often than most women?
> 
> The same thing happens to my two best girlfriends here so maybe something about Los Angeles?




Not dressing provocatively (in other words, not showing overt interest in sex), can be very sexy to a lot of men. I'm female, and I always find being "obviously" sexy a *total* turn-off. So, I imagine I have male counterparts.

Yes, being physically fit could be a big part of it. It's not really common to be super physically fit. I lived in SoCal for years, plenty of out of shape fatties around.

And yeah, there is *definitely* something about Los Angeles. Love a lot of things about it; hate even more.:wink2:


----------



## notmyrealname4

Faithful Wife said:


> or if they are a normal guy and mean it in* a consensual ongoing negotiations way.* We can’t tell which guys know the difference, especially when guys who are talking about *ongoing negotiations* say something implying “well I’ll never know how far I can get if I don’t push for more will I?” Since an octopus would say this too, it sounds dangerous to us.




"ongoing negotiations" in a sexual sense is one of the biggest vagina-drier-uppers that I can think of.

I've come to realize that I am almost completely about feeling when it comes to sex. If the mood and feeling isn't there; it's not worth pushing and prodding and nagging.

Realize you are probably using that term for the benefit of the thread; not necessarily advocating this approach for everyone.


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy400 said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is going on some in this thread. I think some people realize their tactics in 90s might get them in trouble today. And instead of just adapting or letting bygones be bygones they need to PROVE their game in 1992 wasn't coercive.
> 
> If it was, own it and don't do it again. Why is it some sort of personal affront 25 years later?
> 
> I had some crappy habits 25 years ago too. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think (and don't think) my actions in 1989 were coercive.
> 
> My wife, who would have been the victim, certainly didn't (and doesn't) think I was coercive. She thought it was perfect.
> 
> The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that, if the same thing happened in today's environment and I had misjudged my wife to be's receptiveness, it's conceivable that it might be seen as sexual assault.
> 
> And, my not taking that action wouldn't have just hurt me (according to many women here, I was just trying to get laid), it would have hurt my wife since she believes that meeting and marrying me was the best thing that ever happened to her.
Click to expand...

Your experience is a great story.

But what I read you doing is dismissing the idea of coercion as real and definitive consent because 29 years ago something worked for you.

Instead of trying to dismiss the need for consent in 2018 because it was different 29 years ago, it is that hard to agree that knowing you have consent is a good thing and proceeding without it might not be the best idea in 2018?

I really dont get why every time rape and assault comes up, the FIRST thing some men do is bring up false accusations and all the ways no might mean yes? Do these men REALLY not see how dismissive that is and how it comes across??? Or do they just not c


----------



## uhtred

I think that the hostility here is unnecessary. 

I think everyone on this thread, male and female would like to see fewer rapes, and fewer false accusations. 

I think everyone on this thread agrees that both rapes and accusations happen. 

I don't think anyone has solid statistics on the number of either, thought there is probably better data on rapes. 

I think (but not sure) everyone agrees that rapes are more common than men being punished as a result of a false accusation.


The only real disagreement I see is in how to adjust laws and behaviors to try to reduce both of these problems, combined with the unfortunate reality that there may be no way to reduce one without increasing the other.


----------



## RandomDude

uhtred said:


> I didn't realize I was the first to introduce workplace harassment into the discussion, I thought is was already being discussed, but its a really long thread so I may have lost track.
> 
> In some cases workplace harassment can involve consent: One form or harassment is a supervisor (or even coworker) constantly badgering someone for a date or sexual activities. Its possible for workplace romances, even between bosses and employees to be consenting (though usually against company rules), but without the consent, the same behavior can become harassment.
> 
> There are other forms of harassment that are not related in a direct way to consent.


----------



## RandomDude

PigglyWiggly said:


> I mentioned this thread to my wife. She told me that when she was young (90s) , nearly every guy she dated seemed to be a "pusher" and didn't seem to really be interested in getting consent first. Is it possible that most of this mindset in guys is born from immaturity where sex is often only about getting an orgasm for the guy?





SadSamIAm said:


> I agree. I think this is how it was when I was a teenager/ early adult. Men pushed for sex. Women would allow guys to try. Get to first base, second base, third base, etc. At some point the women might stop the guy. But he tried until she stopped him. This happened several times with me. It seemed like a game. Get close. Try to get her turned on. See how far she would allow me to go. It was fun and exciting. I think (and hope) it was for both of us.
> 
> At the time, I never felt like I pushed past what the girls were comfortable with. I stopped a few times because I could feel they were uncomfortable. Sometimes they stopped me and I stopped. Sometimes they stopped me, I stopped and then we started again. Sometimes they pretty much forced me to continue.
> 
> Now many years later, I wonder if I took advantage of some of them. I feel a couple took advantage of me. There was never a written contract or even a verbal one. The consent or lack of consent was pretty much universally physical.


Hmmm, in the 90s I was still in puberty. Still, I have a similar style to you guys, I do take the initiative in overcoming the physical barriers, which isn't sexual by nature. Due to multiculturalism there was also a wider range of expectations, for women in western culture it's quite common for the woman to make the first physical move. I never liked that to be honest, the touches, licking on my ear, grabbing my crotch, to me I always liked the chase. With my girlfriend the first ever physical contact was when I guided her with my hand softly on her back to lead her out of my workplace where she came to meet me, I always thought it was a gentlemanly thing to do. I'm not sure if I'm pushy though, like for example later I put my arms around her shoulder, but when she seemed tense/uncomfortable I pulled away and never tried again. She didn't remove it herself. She was wondering why I removed my arm and told me later she was confused and if she seemed uncomfortable she was just shy. Still as I was quite sensitive to her signals even if I could be wrong. She surprised me at the end by actually wrapping her arms around me and almost kissed me but was shy.

When we first kissed as I wanted it to be special so I let her come the remaining distance with her lips. I just never liked the idea of just pushing my lips onto her and surprising her, some girls may think that's a good first kiss but not my style. When it came to the sexual barriers I never pushed her, and things just happened naturally, like it was in the change rooms when she told me to strip, and then I told her that isn't fair if I'm the only one and it all started from there. She stripped herself. She was smiling, teasing, giggling, but we weren't even totally sexual, the staff probably didn't believe us but whatever. I never had the attitude of getting to sexual bases, since I wanted it to be right as much as she did. When it became sexual though the physical barriers were already broken as we were hugging, holding hands, kissing, and it just seemed like the next step and it was very natural. When it comes to consent in this case, I initiated it with my hands but asked her along the way if she likes it / enjoys it, which was a yes all the way so I continued. I never asked for sex, or permission to touch her, but I followed my instincts and sought active communication all along the way.

Maybe that's why I've always been safe with my style. Even with FWBs in the past I focused on the friend side of the equation as well and wanted sex to be a mutual experience. I have my pride as a sexual lover as well so I would be very disappointed with myself if I ended up giving her bad sex, let alone make her feel uncomfortable. With FWB arrangements the consent had to be verbal, because I knew sex can play with people's emotions so I had to make sure regardless that if she gives it up she's giving it up knowing that I will never love her or have a relationship with her.

I'm not so sure if this makes me pushy as I never sought consent when initiating, those in this thread don't seem to think so neither does my girlfriend and I never had problems. But is it just my active communication with my partners that makes it different with me? Or am I actually doing the wrong thing - which if I was, then I hope my girlfriend is the last one and only woman I end up with from now on (which I hope anyway).


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> Your experience is a great story.
> 
> But what I read you doing is dismissing the idea of coercion as real and definitive consent because 29 years ago something worked for you.
> 
> Instead of trying to dismiss the need for consent in 2018 because it was different 29 years ago, it is that hard to agree that knowing you have consent is a good thing and proceeding without it might not be the best idea in 2018?


No, I am certain that coercion is real and a serious problem (after all, I do have a daughter and actually care about daughters who are not mine).

I am sure that some of those women (girls?) who men (boys) "pushed" back in the day weren't actually playing a game where they knew the rules ("let him go until you told him to stop and then he would stop"). I am now certain that many of those girls actually didn't feel comfortable saying "Stop!" and that they therefore felt they were being pushed into unwanted sex (hence the triggering by so many women here). And woman, as the weaker sex (that generalization is okay, right?) are in always in very real danger of being physically threatened by stronger men.

Here's the part that women can't seem to accept; most of the guys didn't know that. They thought women said "stop" when they wanted to stop.

So, now we've determined that there's a problem, women (especially young women) felt that they were being coerced into unwanted sex acts.

That's a problem that needs a solution.

My solution is for women (especially young women) to spend more time figuring out what they should allow ahead of time and get more comfortable saying "No!" when boundaries are crossed. This works because the woman is the one party who absolutely knows what she wants (or, at least, she should).

It seems that many women think the solution is for women to depend on men to do the right thing and either verbally ask for consent (which is fine) or to expect men to correctly read their non-verbal signals (undependable and fraught with danger). I wouldn't want to leave my daughter's happiness in the hands of others (especially socially awkward men who have trouble reading non-verbal cues). I'd rather depend on her having the confidence and assertiveness to say "No!'. Then, if needed, yell "NO!".

If I were a woman, I'd want to be in charge of my own destiny, not be forced into a situation where I am dependent on the ability of a man to read my non-verbal cues (the kindness of strangers). 

There ARE men who will refuse to stop when a woman says "No". But, they aren't going to ask for consent either.



personofinterest said:


> I really dont get why every time rape and assault comes up, the FIRST thing some men do is bring up false accusations and all the ways no might mean yes? Do these men REALLY not see how dismissive that is and how it comes across??? Or do they just not c


Well, false accusations are a problem and I believe it happens a lot more often then women here seem to believe (read "Campus Rape Frenzy"). Many times the man did something questionable but has paid a price that seems to have been overkill (Garrison Keilor, Al Franken, etc).

"Kill them all and let God sort them out" may have worked for medieval bishops, but I don't recommend it in modern times.

As far as "all the ways no might mean yes", I've only seen one man here who suggested that that may sometimes be the case (and he later claimed he was misunderstood).

Also, some women prefer men to initiate and would find signing a contract first (which, to be honest, IS the only way for a man to be certain that he's protecting himself) to be a buzzkill.

As for those women who tell men who worried about false accusations "then just don't have sex"; I really do think that's victim blaming. Just like telling a woman not to wear skimpy clothing in public places if she doesn't want to be assaulted is victim blaming.


----------



## personofinterest

It comes down to choices.

It hit me that I have choices too. I can choose to drop the rope.

It's time to do so.


----------



## RandomDude

Buddy400 said:


> No, I am certain that coercion is real and a serious problem (after all, I do have a daughter and actually care about daughters who are not mine).
> 
> I am sure that some of those women (girls?) who men (boys) "pushed" back in the day weren't actually playing a game where they knew the rules ("let him go until you told him to stop and then he would stop"). I am now certain that many of those girls actually didn't feel comfortable saying "Stop!" and that they therefore felt they were being pushed into unwanted sex (hence the triggering by so many women here). And woman, as the weaker sex (that generalization is okay, right?) are in always in very real danger of being physically threatened by stronger men.
> 
> Here's the part that women can't seem to accept; most of the guys didn't know that. They thought women said "stop" when they wanted to stop.
> 
> So, now we've determined that there's a problem, women (especially young women) felt that they were being coerced into unwanted sex acts.
> 
> That's a problem that needs a solution.
> 
> My solution is for women (especially young women) to spend more time figuring out what they should allow ahead of time and get more comfortable saying "No!" when boundaries are crossed. This works because the woman is the one party who absolutely knows what she wants (or, at least, she should).
> 
> It seems that many women think the solution is for women to depend on men to do the right thing and either verbally ask for consent (which is fine) or to expect men to correctly read their non-verbal signals (undependable and fraught with danger). I wouldn't want to leave my daughter's happiness in the hands of others (especially socially awkward men who have trouble reading non-verbal cues). I'd rather depend on her having the confidence and assertiveness to say "No!'. Then, if needed, yell "NO!".
> 
> If I were a woman, I'd want to be in charge of my own destiny, not be forced into a situation where I am dependent on the ability of a man to read my non-verbal cues (the kindness of strangers).
> 
> There ARE men who will refuse to stop when a woman says "No". But, they aren't going to ask for consent either.


This also reminds me of how I was judged repeatedly for actually having FWBs. The women consented, but I was still using them for sex. So it's not possible for the women to be using me too? We were using each other for pleasure with full consent and I'm to blame for it because I'm the guy?

Maybe even with full consent the guy is to blame?

Hell reminds me of a few FWBs that did develop emotions and felt hurt when I moved on, thankfully none of them had the nerve to press charges. But if they did - what defence would I have? One of them even got her cousins onto me because I didn't want a relationship and she felt used. Come to think of it I've been fking lucky actually.



> Well, false accusations are a problem and I believe it happens a lot more often then women here seem to believe (read "Campus Rape Frenzy"). Many times the man did something questionable but has paid a price that seems to have been overkill (Garrison Keilor, Al Franken, etc).
> 
> "Kill them all and let God sort them out" may have worked for medieval bishops, but I don't recommend it in modern times.
> 
> As far as "all the ways no might mean yes", I've only seen one man here who suggested that that may sometimes be the case (and he later claimed he was misunderstood).
> 
> Also, some women prefer men to initiate and would find signing a contract first (which, to be honest, IS the only way for a man to be certain that he's protecting himself) to be a buzzkill.
> 
> As for those women who tell men who worried about false accusations "then just don't have sex"; I really do think that's victim blaming. Just like telling a woman not to wear skimpy clothing in public places if she doesn't want to be assaulted is victim blaming.


Hell not to mention, as someone else pointed out, signing a legal document to have sex won't protect you from him if you signed it, then wanted him to stop midway and he kept going! Argh!


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> It seems that many women think the solution is for women to depend on men to do the right thing and either verbally ask for consent (which is fine) or to expect men to correctly read their non-verbal signals (undependable and fraught with danger). I wouldn't want to leave my daughter's happiness in the hands of others (especially socially awkward men who have trouble reading non-verbal cues). I'd rather depend on her having the confidence and assertiveness to say "No!'. Then, if needed, yell "NO!".



Yes exactly. If a woman doesn’t clearly state that she doesn’t want something AT THE TIME and later decides she didn’t like it
....or didn’t actually want it
....or felt ‘pressured’
....or felt frozen because she didn’t know what else to do
....or or or or

I have all the sympathies for the woman not having been able to be clearer, for whatever reason, but it should NOT be the guy’s problem, after the fact.

I read this a lot of the times: “but I felt emotionally overpowered” or “I didn’t know how to speak up” or “what else was I supposed to do?”

You could kick the guy in the nuts if he is hard of hearing for a start. I think rape should only be classified as rape when there was physical struggle, not emotional one (within the person). Because nobody is a mind reader nor Sigmund Freud, trying to work out whether you will like something in advance or not. And the normal response is to resist, if you don’t want something. Women applaud kicking a guy if he cat calls a woman in public, but suddenly it becomes ok to not show that something isn’t welcome within an intimate situation.

For the record, I have never been in a situation where it wasn’t clear to me but I read a lot of #metoo stories and some of it is really irritating attention-seeking bs.

Plus I can see how the same situation playing out now, could easily result in a sexual harassment charge, if nobody is actually talking (which most of the time, nobody does). That is not because I feel guilty’ of something I did in the past, it is because some of this stuff has become absurd IN THE PRESENT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

RandomDude said:


> This also reminds me of how I was judged repeatedly for actually having FWBs. The women consented, but I was still using them for sex. So it's not possible for the women to be using me too? We were using each other for pleasure with full consent and I'm to blame for it because I'm the guy?
> 
> *Maybe even with full consent the guy is to blame?*


I hope that I'm making a little progress here (always an optimist) and I know that I shouldn't be liking your post.....

But really, this is a very honest expression of the state of mind of many guys these days.

It's not a good thing (for men or women).


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Yes exactly. If a woman doesn’t clearly state that she doesn’t want something AT THE TIME and later decides she didn’t like it
> ....or didn’t actually want it
> ....or felt ‘pressured’
> *....or felt frozen because she didn’t know what else to do*
> ....or or or or
> 
> I have all the sympathies for the woman not having been able to be clearer, for whatever reason, but it should NOT be the guy’s problem, after the fact.
> 
> I read this a lot of the times: “but I felt emotionally overpowered” or “I didn’t know how to speak up” or “what else was I supposed to do?”
> 
> You could kick the guy in the nuts if he is hard of hearing for a start. I think rape should only be classified as rape when there was physical struggle, not emotional one (within the person). Because nobody is a mind reader nor Sigmund Freud, trying to work out whether you will like something in advance or not. And the normal response is to resist, if you don’t want something. Women applaud kicking a guy if he cat calls a woman in public, but suddenly it becomes ok to not show that something isn’t welcome within an intimate situation.
> 
> For the record, I have never been in a situation where it wasn’t clear to me but I read a lot of #metoo stories and some of it is really irritating attention-seeking bs.
> 
> Plus I can see how the same situation playing out now, could easily result in a sexual harassment charge, if nobody is actually talking (which most of the time, nobody does). That is not because I feel guilty’ of something I did in the past, it is because some of this stuff has become absurd IN THE PRESENT.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The frozen part is very tricky, because I understand the freeze response out of fear, like, there's "fight" "flight" or "freeze". Personally I have standards that if a woman is passed out/frozen/deadfish/etc I would simply apologise that I'm not comfortable with it and leave (nice way of saying you turn me off). But there are alot of women who simply spread eagle and let the guy do their thing and a guy could assume consent and/or maybe not even want to reject her and make her feel inadequate. That's why it's tough, probably the toughest scenario out of all of them.


----------



## RandomDude

Buddy400 said:


> I hope that I'm making a little progress here (always an optimist) and I know that I shouldn't be liking your post.....
> 
> But really, this is a very honest expression of the state of mind of many guys these days.
> 
> It's not a good thing (for men or women).


Yes and it's enough that for some time I took full responsibility of hurting the woman even though it was a mutual agreement between both me and my partner that there was to be no relationship and went celibate for a while until some members of this forum who understood me helped me out of it. But this forum also reflects real life impressions, several also judged me as they judged me in real life for having FWBs. I'm sure they would still judge me for it.


----------



## 269370

RandomDude said:


> The frozen part is very tricky, because I understand the freeze response out of fear, like, there's "fight" "flight" or "freeze". Personally I have standards that if a woman is passed out/frozen/deadfish/etc I would simply apologise that I'm not comfortable with it and leave (nice way of saying you turn me off). But there are alot of women who simply spread eagle and let the guy do their thing and a guy could assume consent and/or maybe not even want to reject her and make her feel inadequate. That's why it's tough, probably the toughest scenario out of all of them.



Yes, provided you KNEW she ‘froze up’. Who the hell wouldn’t stop? (It you are a normal person). If you are caught up in the moment and have no idea that she ‘froze up’ because she was afraid, should you then be called a rapist afterwards? That was more my question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

I've heard and read several times something like this:

Woman 1: This guy was pestering me for sex and I didn't want to.

Woman 2: So, what did you do?

Woman 1: I gave him a blow job so that he would leave me alone.

Me: *WTF?!?!?!*


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Yes, provided you KNEW she ‘froze up’. Who the hell wouldn’t stop? (It you are a normal person). If you are caught up in the moment and have no idea that she ‘froze up’ because she was afraid, should you then be called a rapist afterwards? That was more my question.


It's tricky really, when I think of freezing/deadfish, I think of:
1) She looks like she's dead, not moving, just dead
2) She spreads eagles, makes no sound, not showing me that she's enjoying it like not wrapping her legs, not arching her back, etc etc
Both cases I would stop and leave.

But if she's just like, playing along because of fear, like actually actively having sex, moaning, giving signals she's enjoying it, a guy won't be able to tell. I know I wouldn't be able to. I wouldn't call that guy a rapist, but the whole thing I would consider really tragic and shattering for all parties involved. 

Even with the second case it's still tricky, because most cases sex isn't what you see in porn. That's simply how people have sex. So hell, I don't even know how to answer that.


----------



## RandomDude

Buddy400 said:


> I've heard and read several times something like this:
> 
> Woman 1: This guy was pestering me for sex and I didn't want to.
> 
> Woman 2: So, what did you do?
> 
> Woman 1: I gave him a blow job so that he would leave me alone.
> 
> Me: *WTF?!?!?!*


Yeah that's a WTF to me as well but it happens.


----------



## 269370

RandomDude said:


> It's tricky really, when I think of freezing/deadfish, I think of:
> 
> 1) She looks like she's dead, not moving, just dead
> 
> 2) She spreads eagles, makes no sound, not showing me that she's enjoying it like not wrapping her legs, not arching her back, etc etc
> 
> Both cases I would stop and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> But if she's just like, playing along because of fear, like actually actively having sex, moaning, giving signals she's enjoying it, a guy won't be able to tell. I know I wouldn't be able to. I wouldn't call that guy a rapist, but the whole thing I would consider really tragic and shattering for all parties involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Even with the second case it's still tricky, because most cases sex isn't what you see in porn. That's simply how people have sex. So hell, I don't even know how to answer that.




Yeah...it sounds like most partner’s of the men who complain about the quality of their sex life on TAM are no2.

Many virgins will act like no1 (my guess). My wife was possibly like this, I can’t remember now 100%. I think she was scared and nervous it would be painful as she didn’t know what to expect at the time. Nor did I. We both lost our virginity to each other. But I think I asked her if I should continue before proceeding rather than just leaving her. If I just left, I think it would have traumatised her!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Nothing wrong with pointing out actual statistics. I'm sure we all acknowledge that actual assault is far more prevalent than false accusations. Valid point that had merit in this discussion.
> 
> I don't think that invalidates the claim that most men are sympathetic to actual assault.


Yes, absolutely, most men are sympathetic about sexual assault.

Which makes it all the more baffling when they oppose something so simple as affirmative consent.

Let's remember that the context for affirmative consent is schools -- places where kids tend to be very immature, often experiencing life without their parents for the very fist time. They are buying kegs, but they have no idea how to drink. They are having sex, but they have no idea how to care about one another.

These kids are experimenting with their wild side, taking all sorts of crazy risks. We have girls who are stupid enough to get blackout drunk, and pass out in "rape rooms" where guys go in and have sex with barely conscious women. 

We have drunk boys who chant -- and believe -- that no means yes, and yes means anal, and acting accordingly.

Meanwhile, most of these kids are under 21 and the university is responsible for them.. In an environment like this, the only goal is to educate and attempt to keep people as safe as possible.

Affirmative consent is only about understanding that sex should be good for everyone who is involved.


----------



## wild jade

RandomDude said:


> Hell reminds me of a few FWBs that did develop emotions and felt hurt when I moved on, thankfully none of them had the nerve to press charges. But if they did - what defence would I have? One of them even got her cousins onto me because I didn't want a relationship and she felt used. Come to think of it I've been fking lucky actually.



fWB is a very different thing than rape, and I'm not sure why you want to conflate them?

Only a psycho woman would press rape charges because her feelings were hurt.

And yes, there are psycho women out there, no doubt. But most are not.

I'm not sure why so many are so absolutely convinced that after-the-fact charges are just about "hurt feelings" or "regret". No. After the fact charges are about getting justice for actual wrong being done.


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Yeah...it sounds like most partner’s of the men who complain about the quality of their sex life on TAM are no2.
> 
> Many virgins will act like no1 (my guess). My wife was possibly like this, I can’t remember now 100%. I think she was scared and nervous it would be painful as she didn’t know what to expect at the time. Nor did I. We both lost our virginity to each other. But I think I asked her if I should continue before proceeding rather than just leaving her. If I just left, *I think it would have traumatised her!*


Yeah that's why even though my standards kept me safe, looking back I did make a few women feel inadequate in my youth. I wasn't mean about it, just told them I wasn't comfortable with it, some were shocked, others tried to get me to stay but I was like, turned off completely I just wanted to leave. And I would leave if the sexual compatibility just isn't there.

But I guess I simply never loved them, or anyone until recently. With your wife like me with my girlfriend who was more just shy, you played it safe, and that's what I meant about seeking active communication. You were also patient with your wife which is a good thing, and even without seeking verbal consent, having active communication otherwise I wonder if this compromise is enough.


----------



## RandomDude

wild jade said:


> fWB is a very different thing than rape, and I'm not sure why you want to conflate them?
> 
> Only a psycho woman would press rape charges because her feelings were hurt.
> 
> And yes, there are psycho women out there, no doubt. But most are not.
> 
> I'm not sure why so many are so absolutely convinced that after-the-fact charges are just about "hurt feelings" or "regret". No. After the fact charges are about getting justice for actual wrong being done.


Well that FWB of mine who got hurt didn't press charges but she still sought 'justice' outside of the law. I defended myself but still incurred injuries that cost a few thousand dollars at the time when I wasn't financially established. Guess she's one of the psycho ones but I agree most are not. 

Its a different situation yes, but it's the lack of responsibility on her part, and the common views that even in FWBs the man is responsible for everything (from non psychos), that disturbs me. And when it comes to responsibility that's what makes it related to this topic of consent.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> Yes, absolutely, most men are sympathetic about sexual assault.
> 
> Which makes it all the more baffling when they oppose something so simple as affirmative consent.
> 
> Let's remember that the context for affirmative consent is schools -- places where kids tend to be very immature, often experiencing life without their parents for the very fist time. They are buying kegs, but they have no idea how to drink. They are having sex, but they have no idea how to care about one another.
> 
> These kids are experimenting with their wild side, taking all sorts of crazy risks. We have girls who are stupid enough to get blackout drunk, and pass out in "rape rooms" where guys go in and have sex with barely conscious women.
> 
> We have drunk boys who chant -- and believe -- that no means yes, and yes means anal, and acting accordingly.
> 
> Meanwhile, most of these kids are under 21 and the university is responsible for them.. In an environment like this, the only goal is to educate and attempt to keep people as safe as possible.
> 
> Affirmative consent is only about understanding that sex should be good for everyone who is involved.


It seems to me, maybe based on some outlying stories, that not a lot of people understand the operating definition of affirmative consent. Maybe that overlap between good, sympathetic guys, and guys who are up in arms about affirmative consent don't realize that it just means there must be clear, unambiguous approval to continue, not necessarily that they must physically stop every 30 seconds to explicitly ask for, and wait for audible, enthusiastic verbal permission to continue. All the definitions I've seen, including those in use at college campuses, to not require this, and allow for actions to be the means of consent. Just thinking out loud here, I don't know for sure, but maybe the "good guys" who rail against affirmative consent, simply misunderstand what it means. Lots of hysteria out there driving fear. And while largely unrelated to the concept of affirmative consent, a few highly publicized false accusation cases add fuel to the fire.

On a side note, I find it interesting that the drinking age is lower in Europe but they have far fewer alcohol problems. I know I was allowed to drink in a supervised manner in my home before I was of legal age, and so when I went out into the world, I already knew a great deal about how alcohol affected me and didn't do a lot of those stupid things college kids do. It was nice being able to have a drink with my 19 year old son with dinner when we were vacationing in France. It think maybe our puritan attitudes about alcohol may be more harmful than good. To link this thought to the topic at hand, I wonder if young women might do better at these college parties if they had a little experience with alcohol before being on their own.


----------



## RandomDude

wild jade said:


> Yes, absolutely, most men are sympathetic about sexual assault.
> 
> Which makes it all the more baffling when they oppose something so simple as affirmative consent.
> 
> *Let's remember that the context for affirmative consent is schools -- places where kids tend to be very immature, often experiencing life without their parents for the very fist time. They are buying kegs, but they have no idea how to drink. They are having sex, but they have no idea how to care about one another.
> 
> These kids are experimenting with their wild side, taking all sorts of crazy risks. We have girls who are stupid enough to get blackout drunk, and pass out in "rape rooms" where guys go in and have sex with barely conscious women.
> 
> We have drunk boys who chant -- and believe -- that no means yes, and yes means anal, and acting accordingly.*
> 
> Meanwhile, most of these kids are under 21 and the university is responsible for them.. In an environment like this, the only goal is to educate and attempt to keep people as safe as possible.
> 
> Affirmative consent is only about understanding that sex should be good for everyone who is involved.


Yes. This is a part of youth culture that I believe is pretty messed up as well.

My girlfriend mentioned that several of her friends who are studying, get involved with such environments. Once, she gave in to experience this environment and was also assaulted. She was strong enough to fight her way out however, but she was still inappropriately touched. When I talked to her about it, I was going to hunt down the guy who did it, but she took responsibility for putting herself in that situation and talked me down from any violence. Yes, she wasn't responsible for what the guy did, but she took responsibility for what she did and the decisions she made. That's what I mean by taking responsibility, and I don't believe its victim-blaming is it?



Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> It seems to me, maybe based on some outlying stories, that not a lot of people understand the operating definition of affirmative consent. Maybe that overlap between good, sympathetic guys, and guys who are up in arms about affirmative consent don't realize that it just means there must be clear, unambiguous approval to continue, not necessarily that they must physically stop every 30 seconds to explicitly ask for, and wait for audible, enthusiastic verbal permission to continue. All the definitions I've seen, including those in use at college campuses, to not require this, and allow for actions to be the means of consent. Just thinking out loud here, I don't know for sure, but maybe the "good guys" who rail against affirmative consent, simply misunderstand what it means. Lots of hysteria out there driving fear. And while largely unrelated to the concept of affirmative consent, a few highly publicized false accusation cases add fuel to the fire.
> 
> On a side note, I find it interesting that the drinking age is lower in Europe but they have far fewer alcohol problems. I know I was allowed to drink in a supervised manner in my home before I was of legal age, and so when I went out into the world, I already knew a great deal about how alcohol affected me and didn't do a lot of those stupid things college kids do. It was nice being able to have a drink with my 19 year old son with dinner when we were vacationing in France. It think maybe our puritan attitudes about alcohol may be more harmful than good. To link this thought to the topic at hand, I wonder if young women might do better at these college parties if they had a little experience with alcohol before being on their own.


Actually, the drinking age in my country is 18 and we still have folks doing stupid things.

Then again we have adults in their 30s and 40s also doing stupid things when drunk so meh. Not everyone understands responsible drinking.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

RandomDude said:


> Actually, the drinking age in my country is 18 and we still have folks doing stupid things.
> 
> Then again we have adults in their 30s and 40s also doing stupid things when drunk so meh. Not everyone understands responsible drinking.


I just know that, for instance, Germany and France have far less problem with DUI than the US, especially among young people. I don't know if that, in and of itself, is relevant. Surely there are other variables at play as well.


----------



## Red Sonja

notmyrealname4 said:


> Not dressing provocatively (in other words, not showing overt interest in sex), can be very sexy to a lot of men. I'm female, and I always find being "obviously" sexy a *total* turn-off. So, I imagine I have male counterparts.
> 
> Yes, being physically fit could be a big part of it. It's not really common to be super physically fit. I lived in SoCal for years, plenty of out of shape fatties around.


Physically fit men and women are very common around these parts ... maybe it's because I live in a beach town inside Los Angeles county?

By not dressing provocatively I meant not flashing a lot of skin ... no cleavage, miniskirts, booty shorts, etc. It looks silly on a woman my age (> 60), no matter how physically fit I am.


----------



## EllisRedding

I think some of fears by men when it comes to false accusations is thanks in part to social media. Before, there was usually some sort of legal proceeding with minimal people involved outside of the parties involved. Now all it takes is someone going on FB/Twitter/Instagram where a bunch of strangers will act as judge, jury, and executioner. The damage from that can be very real.

I forget who the actor was, but IIRC the woman he had sex with accused him of not reading her non verbal cues and knowing when to stop. Basically, she engaged in sexual acts with him, but b/c she wasn't enjoying it much he should have known. Of course she went to social media to post about it. Fortunately she did get blasted over this, but still there were people ready to lynch this guy (aside from him now being embarrassed publicly). 

I do understand that the above scenario is probably the rare one. As much as I think social media has been great to let people have a voice where they wouldn't otherwise, it has also created this mob mentality (in particular guilty until proven innocent).


----------



## NobodySpecial

PigglyWiggly said:


> I mentioned this thread to my wife. She told me that when she was young (90s) , nearly every guy she dated seemed to be a "pusher" and didn't seem to really be interested in getting consent first. Is it possible that most of this mindset in guys is born from immaturity where sex is often only about getting an orgasm for the guy?


I don't think it is about orgasm at all. Most boys learn how to do that themselves quite young. I think teens and young men are socialized, often not openly or consciously, that sexual interaction *with females* is something you work (connive, deceive, pressure) to get. (Even within this thread the metaphor of closing a sale was brought up.) There are many things they are seeking. I think my daughter hit the nail on the head when she was commenting on the teens who request nudes from her when they don't even know her. They are growing up themselves and seeking sexual/romantic validation when they don't know how. They are raised in a vacuum of misinformation or information lack around sexuality that is par for the course when our social commentary on sexuality, love and romance is so weird.

At some point maturity is reached for most. For some (many? I don't know) it isn't. Sex clearly remains something some men feel they get off women. In much the same way the dialog has opened the door to open racism recently, the door has been opened to things like incels speaking openly about the evil women who deny them what they want....


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> No, I am certain that coercion is real and a serious problem (after all, I do have a daughter and actually care about daughters who are not mine).
> 
> I am sure that some of those women (girls?) who men (boys) "pushed" back in the day weren't actually playing a game where they knew the rules ("let him go until you told him to stop and then he would stop"). I am now certain that many of those girls actually didn't feel comfortable saying "Stop!" and that they therefore felt they were being pushed into unwanted sex (hence the triggering by so many women here). And woman, as the weaker sex (that generalization is okay, right?) are in always in very real danger of being physically threatened by stronger men.
> 
> Here's the part that women can't seem to accept; most of the guys didn't know that. They thought women said "stop" when they wanted to stop.
> 
> So, now we've determined that there's a problem, women (especially young women) felt that they were being coerced into unwanted sex acts.
> 
> That's a problem that needs a solution.
> 
> My solution is for women (especially young women) to spend more time figuring out what they should allow ahead of time and get more comfortable saying "No!" when boundaries are crossed. This works because the woman is the one party who absolutely knows what she wants (or, at least, she should).
> 
> It seems that many women think the solution is for women to depend on men to do the right thing and either verbally ask for consent (which is fine) or to expect men to correctly read their non-verbal signals (undependable and fraught with danger).


I have never thought the affirmative consent idea was an educational process for women. I have always thought of it as an educational tool for men. How to not get stuck in the consent trap.



> I wouldn't want to leave my daughter's happiness in the hands of others (especially socially awkward men who have trouble reading non-verbal cues). I'd rather depend on her having the confidence and assertiveness to say "No!'. Then, if needed, yell "NO!".
> 
> If I were a woman, I'd want to be in charge of my own destiny, not be forced into a situation where I am dependent on the ability of a man to read my non-verbal cues (the kindness of strangers).


The non-verbal cue reading dialog is one you likely won't find among most women and young women. For myself, the only time I was no willing to give crystal clear verbal non verbal communication was when I feared GETTING HURT.


----------



## NobodySpecial

RandomDude said:


> This also reminds me of how I was judged repeatedly for actually having FWBs.


Seeking to not be judged is an entire 'nother matter. That there are people who DO view men as evil sex seeking scums who view women of no other worth is a reality as well. With them, you cannot win. As a feminist myself, I LIKE the ability to enter in an FWB relationship if that is what we both want. It is fundamentally not about equality to view a man as somehow more responsible for my sexuality than I am. I find that as offensive as anything else... if I were to tend to get offended.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> As for those women who tell men who worried about false accusations "then just don't have sex"; I really do think that's victim blaming. Just like telling a woman not to wear skimpy clothing in public places if she doesn't want to be assaulted is victim blaming.


I agree with this. I, obviously, don't think that many men understand the experience of other men coming at us with the attitude that consent is a barrier to them getting the sex they want. I can see this kind of comment being a reaction to that. It is not right. But I can understand it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

wild jade said:


> fWB is a very different thing than rape, and I'm not sure why you want to conflate them?
> 
> Only a psycho woman would press rape charges because her feelings were hurt.
> 
> And yes, there are psycho women out there, no doubt. But most are not.
> 
> I'm not sure why so many are so absolutely convinced that after-the-fact charges are just about "hurt feelings" or "regret". No. After the fact charges are about getting justice for actual wrong being done.


Because it happens. I don't know about hurt feelings. But I do know of young women who feared the consequences in the form of over bearing parents or reputation or pregnancy blaming force after the fact. The disconnect comes when people expand the prevalence of this to cast shadows of doubt on the reality of rape.


----------



## uhtred

I think part of the problem is in exactly what is meant by "affirmative consent". 

For some people it means that your partner is actively and participating in what is going on. For others it is specifically *verbal* consent, with a query / response at multiple stages.

Then combine that with the gap between "bad sexual behavior" and "sexual assault", and things get very confusing. I think that people need to be a bit clearer about what they mean by each term.


Schools I think sometimes overly simplify what are in fact rather complex problems. 







wild jade said:


> Yes, absolutely, most men are sympathetic about sexual assault.
> 
> Which makes it all the more baffling when they oppose something so simple as affirmative consent.
> 
> Let's remember that the context for affirmative consent is schools -- places where kids tend to be very immature, often experiencing life without their parents for the very fist time. They are buying kegs, but they have no idea how to drink. They are having sex, but they have no idea how to care about one another.
> 
> These kids are experimenting with their wild side, taking all sorts of crazy risks. We have girls who are stupid enough to get blackout drunk, and pass out in "rape rooms" where guys go in and have sex with barely conscious women.
> 
> We have drunk boys who chant -- and believe -- that no means yes, and yes means anal, and acting accordingly.
> 
> Meanwhile, most of these kids are under 21 and the university is responsible for them.. In an environment like this, the only goal is to educate and attempt to keep people as safe as possible.
> 
> Affirmative consent is only about understanding that sex should be good for everyone who is involved.


----------



## personofinterest

uhtred said:


> I think part of the problem is in exactly what is meant by "affirmative consent".
> 
> For some people it means that your partner is actively and participating in what is going on. For others it is specifically *verbal* consent, with a query / response at multiple stages.
> 
> Then combine that with the gap between "bad sexual behavior" and "sexual assault", and things get very confusing. I think that people need to be a bit clearer about what they mean by each term.
> 
> 
> Schools I think sometimes overly simplify what are in fact rather complex problems.


TRUE

Schools go off on a reactionary wild hair and wrote up "policies" that just make things more confusing. A lot of it is due to "RIGHT NOW!!" pressure a university feels is there ever IS an assault. We do the same thing after shootings and other events. We have to slap something in writing and make it law YESTERDAY while emotions are high. Good policies rarely get written when emotions are high.

I wonder if that is a good early dating question instead of asking during making out. I could see a new couple discussing what they think about what constitutes consent over dinner without too much angst. Especially if the attraction is obvious. I know it wouldn't bother me if a man asked me what made me feel most comfortable in a relationship when it came to consent. Then I could say, "as long as I am responsive and enjoying it and not stopping you, you're fine." And for me, responsive and enjoying it would be kissing back, moving toward, sounds of enjoyment. That way you aren't trying to figure it out in the heat of the moment.

I know some people would rather not have to talk about it at all. They would prefer a set of absolute and definitive green lights or red lights that will apply to every woman/man. But that is not going to happen.

Just like there is no guarantee, even if I try everything to be careful, that a new man I go out with won't try to assault me, there is no guarantee, even if she's moaning and saying "Yes! Yes!" that no crazy woman will ever accuse a man of assault falsely.

There is no way to legislate guarantees. 

And it's not just a man's responsibility or just a woman's responsibility. It's both. All the time. If we are trying to figure out how little responsibility we can get away with, we are doing it wrong.


----------



## uhtred

It reminds me of the craziness of prop 65 California over trying to limit carcinogens. Someone decided that it would be good to warn people about *all* possibly carcinogenic materials. So now the are warning signs saying "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm" on a huge range of things and places. 

It may be technically true, but I really want a very different sign a a place that is generating Plutonium dust from the sign at a gas station. By warning about *everything* they warn about nothing. 


Similarly I'd rather students were taught what to me is the essentials of consent:

If you are not happy with what is going on, say "stop", and if someone says "stop", then stop

If someone is unable to to say stop due to intoxication or any other reason, stop 

If someone is not actively participating, stop. 

If unsure whether there is consent, stop and get clarification.

The limit on what "pressure" you can apply to someone for sex, is to tell them that you will stop dating them if they don't have sex. 


The above addresses the great majority of consent issues and can easily be applied. It won't fix every single case, but nothing will. 



I saw a study (can't find it now) that all the specific verbal consent training that all college students get was being almost entirely ignored because it didn't make sense in real life. 








personofinterest said:


> TRUE
> 
> Schools go off on a reactionary wild hair and wrote up "policies" that just make things more confusing. A lot of it is due to "RIGHT NOW!!" pressure a university feels is there ever IS an assault. We do the same thing after shootings and other events. We have to slap something in writing and make it law YESTERDAY while emotions are high. Good policies rarely get written when emotions are high.
> 
> I wonder if that is a good early dating question instead of asking during making out. I could see a new couple discussing what they think about what constitutes consent over dinner without too much angst. Especially if the attraction is obvious. I know it wouldn't bother me if a man asked me what made me feel most comfortable in a relationship when it came to consent. Then I could say, "as long as I am responsive and enjoying it and not stopping you, you're fine." And for me, responsive and enjoying it would be kissing back, moving toward, sounds of enjoyment. That way you aren't trying to figure it out in the heat of the moment.
> 
> I know some people would rather not have to talk about it at all. They would prefer a set of absolute and definitive green lights or red lights that will apply to every woman/man. But that is not going to happen.
> 
> Just like there is no guarantee, even if I try everything to be careful, that a new man I go out with won't try to assault me, there is no guarantee, even if she's moaning and saying "Yes! Yes!" that no crazy woman will ever accuse a man of assault falsely.
> 
> There is no way to legislate guarantees.
> 
> And it's not just a man's responsibility or just a woman's responsibility. It's both. All the time. If we are trying to figure out how little responsibility we can get away with, we are doing it wrong.


----------



## anonmd

The database seems to be experiencing technical difficulties. Posts displayed are stopping @ 520 with 521-541 hidden.


----------



## samyeagar

Buddy400 said:


> I hope that I'm making a little progress here (always an optimist) and I know that I shouldn't be liking your post.....
> 
> But really, this is a very honest expression of the state of mind of many guys these days.
> 
> It's not a good thing (for men or women).


And consent in the presence of alcohol where both consumed of their own free will, and both are intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent. I think most men have a good idea where that would end up if things later went south...


----------



## personofinterest

samyeagar said:


> And consent in the presence of alcohol where both consumed of their own free will, and *both are intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent*. I think most men have a good idea where that would end up if things later went south...


In this case, they better charge both or neither.


----------



## wild jade

RandomDude said:


> Yes. This is a part of youth culture that I believe is pretty messed up as well.
> 
> My girlfriend mentioned that several of her friends who are studying, get involved with such environments. Once, she gave in to experience this environment and was also assaulted. She was strong enough to fight her way out however, but she was still inappropriately touched. When I talked to her about it, I was going to hunt down the guy who did it, but she took responsibility for putting herself in that situation and talked me down from any violence. Yes, she wasn't responsible for what the guy did, but she took responsibility for what she did and the decisions she made. That's what I mean by taking responsibility, and I don't believe its victim-blaming is it?


At what point, though, would she be justified in pressing charges?

Good for your gf for fighting off the assault. And good for her for recognizing that even going to one of these types of parties is about as risky as it gets. I don't think it's victim blaming to acknowledge these things.

But when does it cross the line and actually be his fault -- to the point where she can press charges without being told that she is partially responsible, should never have gone to that party, and should know more about saying no?


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> On a side note, I find it interesting that the drinking age is lower in Europe but they have far fewer alcohol problems. I know I was allowed to drink in a supervised manner in my home before I was of legal age, and so when I went out into the world, I already knew a great deal about how alcohol affected me and didn't do a lot of those stupid things college kids do. It was nice being able to have a drink with my 19 year old son with dinner when we were vacationing in France. It think maybe our puritan attitudes about alcohol may be more harmful than good. To link this thought to the topic at hand, I wonder if young women might do better at these college parties if they had a little experience with alcohol before being on their own.


Puritan attitudes about alcohol and puritan attitudes about sex. Turns out it's a terrible combination for keeping young people safe.


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> Schools I think sometimes overly simplify what are in fact rather complex problems.


You have no idea what we're dealing with. Yes, agreed, some schools have written some pretty far-out policies around this, ones that don't make sense. But these policies are at least heading in the right direction compared to the oversimplifications of the past. 

With the old policies, sexual assault was routinely swept under the carpet as "just bad sexual behavior", if even that much was acknowledged. Mostly schools just wanted to pretend that there was nothing to see, nothing go on, no issues at all because they were more concerned about bad press and reputation than they were the safety of the minors living on their campuses. 

I don't know where you want to draw the line between bad sexual behavior and assault, but pretending that there's no problem at all, so a school can tout its reputation as a safe place to be, is definitely not a good solution.


----------



## personofinterest

Sexual assault is a criminal issue, not an academic 1. In my ideal world schools would have nothing to do with the process of investigating or prosecuting or dismissing sexual assault cases. And my ideal world they would be required to report anything reported to them directly to the police. This whole body of people within the school dealing with it would go away and it would be strictly a police matter. Add to that, anyone who is found to be making false accusations needs to face the same prosecution the person accused of sexual assault would have faced with the same sentence. Rape carries a sentence in a lot of States of at least 10 years put a couple of these liars in jail for that amount of time and maybe there wouldn't be as much lying about it. I don't mean those muddy he said she said unfortunate situations. I mean that very very tiny tiny tiny percent of women who outright lie about sexual assault. They need to go to jail just like the rapist would have had he actually existed.


----------



## wild jade

We don't have anything to do with the process of investigating or prosecuting or dismissing sexual assault cases. What we have is essentially a city of people, many of them living on property, where we need to encourage, enforce, and maintain certain standards of behavior.

Obviously when there are criminal behaviors involved, the police are called. 

But even so, we still have a campus community to safeguard that is completely independent of what the police can or should be doing.


----------



## personofinterest

wild jade said:


> We don't have anything to do with the process of investigating or prosecuting or dismissing sexual assault cases. What we have is essentially a city of people, many of them living on property, where we need to encourage, enforce, and maintain certain standards of behavior.
> 
> Obviously when there are criminal behaviors involved, the police are called.
> 
> But even so, we still have a campus community to safeguard that is completely independent of what the police can or should be doing.


 I work with a University as well, and we have a campus police force that is a part of the city police force. I think this is actually the best way to handle it. They are not their own little force in their own little campus bubble. They are actually part of the city police force. They just happen to be specifically assigned to the college campus. I mean, we could say that about any large entity. A large hospital complex is basically a city of people. I've seen high schools that were as big as colleges. Criminal matters are still police matters. They don't need extra people deciding criminal matters with any of these other entities.

Here's the deal… any policy that attempts to make women on campus safer by putting innocent men on campus at greater risk is not a good policy. It's not a start. It's not heading in the right direction. It's a badd policy. Come up with something else or don't implement the


----------



## samyeagar

personofinterest said:


> I work with a University as well, and we have a campus police force that is a part of the city police force. I think this is actually the best way to handle it. They are not their own little force in their own little campus bubble. They are actually part of the city police force. They just happen to be specifically assigned to the college campus. I mean, we could say that about any large entity. A large hospital complex is basically a city of people. I've seen high schools that were as big as colleges. Criminal matters are still police matters. They don't need extra people deciding criminal matters with any of these other entities.
> 
> Here's the deal… any policy that attempts to make women on campus safer by putting innocent men on campus at greater risk is not a good policy. It's not a start. It's not heading in the right direction. It's a badd policy. Come up with something else or don't implement the


Not that it would ever happen for all kinds of reasons, but I think possibly the single biggest change that could be made to significantly reduce collegiate sexual related incidents would be to set a very draconian zero tolerance alcohol policy, on and off campus. Wholesale roundups and expulsions. Caught drinking? Gone. Video from and off campus party with a beer in your hand? Gone. Along with everyone else in the video. Even if it was just limited to only situations where there is alleged wrong doing, immediate expulsion of one or both parties if alcohol is involved, and referral of the incident to outside law enforcement. The problem with that would be the concern that a victim would be less likely to come forward and report if they could be subject to expulsion as well. The flip side to that is simply putting responsibilities where they belong, and holding a person accountable for their own actions.

But no, I think so long as alcohol is an accepted, and from many students point of view, an expected part of the college experience, this will continue to be a rampant issue, regardless of all of the consent training and awareness.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> At what point, though, would she be justified in pressing charges?
> 
> Good for your gf for fighting off the assault. And good for her for recognizing that even going to one of these types of parties is about as risky as it gets. I don't think it's victim blaming to acknowledge these things.
> 
> But when does it cross the line and actually be his fault -- to the point where she can press charges without being told that she is partially responsible, should never have gone to that party, and should know more about saying no?




When she’s PHYSICALLY trying to get out of a situation she doesn’t want to be in and he won’t let her or if there is a fight. Because a lot of sexual / physical stuff happens on a non verbal level, it stands to reason that the line is crossed when the woman is not only verbally but also physically showing and making it clear that she doesn’t want something. Though verbal ‘no’ should be more than plenty.

Unfortunately guys don’t always take a no for a no and girls don’t always verbalise the no properly but there should be little misunderstanding in a situation when the woman is physically trying to leave but she is not able to. 
In an ideal world, verbal clarification should suffice but it’s not ideal and not always clear (from either side) what the situation is. (Although 95% of the time, i would guess, it is pretty clear).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

personofinterest said:


> I work with a University as well, and we have a campus police force that is a part of the city police force. I think this is actually the best way to handle it. They are not their own little force in their own little campus bubble. They are actually part of the city police force. They just happen to be specifically assigned to the college campus. I mean, we could say that about any large entity. A large hospital complex is basically a city of people. I've seen high schools that were as big as colleges. Criminal matters are still police matters. They don't need extra people deciding criminal matters with any of these other entities.
> 
> Here's the deal… any policy that attempts to make women on campus safer by putting innocent men on campus at greater risk is not a good policy. It's not a start. It's not heading in the right direction. It's a badd policy. Come up with something else or don't implement the


No one anywhere is saying that they need "extra" people deciding criminal matters for the police. They are saying that the campus has certain rules, codes of conduct that everyone must adhere to. And yes, every other institution -- and workplace -- has these as well. You can't just be a homeless person and set up a tent in a hospital or a corporate hallway. If you are harassing staff you will be expelled. If you are making other people there uncomfortable, you will be asked to leave or put somewhere on your own. If you cause trouble in a store or restaurant you may be barred from going there again. 

No one is putting innocent men at greater risk. They are deciding on codes of conduct applicable to everyone. And since "no means no" ended up with women being unsafe, they're looking to even the balance.


----------



## personofinterest

I'm not referring to a list of rules. Like I said, I work at a University. I have a copy of R code of conduct in my office. I'm talking about these little committees that universities said up to decide if something actually happened in lieu of or be for police get involved. Those little committees who were deciding this kind of thing need to go away. Sexual assault and false allegations are not matters for a University committee or panel. They are issues for the police to decide. 

And yes, when 2 students are incredibly drunk, and the default position is to blame the mail, then men are in fact at greater risk.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> When she’s PHYSICALLY trying to get out of a situation she doesn’t want to be in and he won’t let her or if there is a fight. Because a lot of sexual / physical stuff happens on a non verbal level, it stands to reason that the line is crossed when the woman is not only verbally but also physically showing and making it clear that she doesn’t want something. Though verbal ‘no’ should be more than plenty.
> 
> Unfortunately guys don’t always take a no for a no and girls don’t always verbalise the no properly but there should be little misunderstanding in a situation when the woman is physically trying to leave but she is not able to.
> In an ideal world, verbal clarification should suffice but it’s not ideal and not always clear (from either side) what the situation is. (Although 95% of the time, i would guess, it is pretty clear).


What about the Brock Turners of the world? In that case there was actually someone who not only witnessed, but actually did something about it. In most cases there isn't a witness, or the witnesses don't really care. 

Hence the need for education.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> In this case, they better charge both or neither.


I don't understand this. Becoming intoxicated is not illegal. If one person is lying there and another person is not lying there but doing something TO the person just lying there, what is the person that is just lying there to be charged with? Illegally not preparing for what might happen to you when you drink too much?


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> What about the Brock Turners of the world? In that case there was actually someone who not only witnessed, but actually did something about it. In most cases there isn't a witness, or the witnesses don't really care.
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the need for education.



What about it? Wasn’t he convicted?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't understand this. Becoming intoxicated is not illegal. If one person is lying there and another person is not lying there but doing something TO the person just lying there, what is the person that is just lying there to be charged with? Illegally not preparing for what might happen to you when you drink too much?


So women are not held responsible for what happens while they are blind drunk, but men are.

The above scenario is very different from having what was drunken sex on Friday night then waking up Saturday morning, being embarrassed, and deciding it was rape.

And if one doesn't remember what happened the next day.....how can they then somehow magically remember that they were just lying there?


----------



## personofinterest

And NO ONE on this thread has said there is not a need for education. What people are saying is that you can't just deem innocent men "collateral damage for the greater good." If you are going to address it, you need to address both sides.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> So women are not held responsible for what happens while they are blind drunk, but men are.


I would think people are responsible for what they DO. Not what they don't do.



> The above scenario is very different from having what was drunken sex on Friday night then waking up Saturday morning, being embarrassed, and deciding it was rape.


Obviously. 



> And if one doesn't remember what happened the next day.....how can they then somehow magically remember that they were just lying there?


Witnesses.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> I would think people are responsible for what they DO. Not what they don't do.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> Witnesses.


Then it is NOT a he said she said scenario like many of these things can be. When people witness a rape, it's whole other thing.

It's really important to read in context and to interpret in line with the actual theme of a thread than to pull out one phrase in isolation.

The percentage of women who falsely accuse is much smaller than the couple of "those Kind" of men would have us believe, but those women ARE still out there. And like I said, if we are going to address sexual assault, we don't need to sacrifice innocent men in the process.

And if two drunk people have participatory sex...either both of them are rapists or neither of them are.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> Then it is NOT a he said she said scenario like many of these things can be. When people witness a rape, it's whole other thing.
> 
> It's really important to read in context and to interpret in line with the actual theme of a thread than to pull out one phrase in isolation.
> 
> The percentage of women who falsely accuse is much smaller than the couple of "those Kind" of men would have us believe, but those women ARE still out there. And like I said, if we are going to address sexual assault, we don't need to sacrifice innocent men in the process.
> 
> And if two drunk people have participatory sex...either both of them are rapists or neither of them are.


I find inferring what someone has said in a post by assuming their response in the context of a quite long thread is a mistake and will often reply to a singular post. ymmv.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> I find inferring what someone has said in a post by assuming their response in the context of a quite long thread is a mistake and will often reply to a singular post. ymmv.



True, it can definitely go either way.

I just found out that all staff and faculty here have required training on the newest policies regarding Title IX and sexual assault next week. I will be interested to see what is said.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

This may not be the case here, but in many cases the "mandatory" training policies are put in place to protect the company, not always to find the best solutions. 

IE why legislating personal actions isn't always the most practical answer in many situations.


----------



## personofinterest

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> This may not be the case here, but in many cases the "mandatory" training policies are put in place to protect the company, not always to find the best solutions.
> 
> IE why legislating personal actions isn't always the most practical answer in many situations.


Last time it began with a review of Title IX, information about some letter written by someone a few years ago that suddenly became policy at some schools and then was rescinded because of the indefinable can of worms it opened up, and then information about where to go or to send students if there was a case or suspected case of abuse, harassment, or assault.

I expect this may be much the same. I kind of zoned out last time, to be honest, because it was late in the day. But I am going to pay better attention to especially the middle part this time.

With classes starting, there has been a lot of information and meetings offered to students about being responsible and respectful of others' space, how to avoid assault, how to report things, etc.


----------



## RandomDude

wild jade said:


> At what point, though, would she be justified in pressing charges?
> 
> Good for your gf for fighting off the assault. And good for her for recognizing that even going to one of these types of parties is about as risky as it gets. I don't think it's victim blaming to acknowledge these things.
> 
> But when does it cross the line and actually be his fault -- to the point where she can press charges without being told that she is partially responsible, should never have gone to that party, and should know more about saying no?


He did let her go after she got physical and broke free. He did not pursue further.

He did end up with another one of her friends, who my girlfriend said just played along and let him have his way with her without saying no or fighting him off, even though she said later to her girlfriends she didn't really want it.

Quite troubling really.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> No one anywhere is saying that they need "extra" people deciding criminal matters for the police. They are saying that the campus has certain rules, codes of conduct that everyone must adhere to. And yes, every other institution -- and workplace -- has these as well. You can't just be a homeless person and set up a tent in a hospital or a corporate hallway. If you are harassing staff you will be expelled. If you are making other people there uncomfortable, you will be asked to leave or put somewhere on your own. If you cause trouble in a store or restaurant you may be barred from going there again.
> 
> No one is putting innocent men at greater risk. They are deciding on codes of conduct applicable to everyone. And since "no means no" ended up with women being unsafe, they're looking to even the balance.


The problem is comparing being expelled from school as a student to expelling a homeless person from a hospital.

The homeless person expelled from a hospital suffers little harm.

A young African-American man on scholarship at Harvard being expelled for sexual assault is quite a bit different. Most men expelled from college for sexual assault are unable to enroll in any other college (imagine what would happen to a school that admitted a student previously expelled elsewhere for sexual assault who repeats!).

If he breaks the law, call the police and if he's found guilty, lock him up for as long as you like.

Just don't pretend that expelling young men from college isn't that big a deal.


----------



## personofinterest

You are exactly right, Buddy.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> What about it? Wasn’t he convicted?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You suggested that the real line of "no" was physical resistance.

I was just pointing out that sometimes people don't physically resist for a reason. 

And most times there are no witnesses.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> The problem is comparing being expelled from school as a student to expelling a homeless person from a hospital.
> 
> The homeless person expelled from a hospital suffers little harm.
> 
> A young African-American man on scholarship at Harvard being expelled for sexual assault is quite a bit different. Most men expelled from college for sexual assault are unable to enroll in any other college (imagine what would happen to a school that admitted a student previously expelled elsewhere for sexual assault who repeats!).
> 
> If he breaks the law, call the police and if he's found guilty, lock him up for as long as you like.
> 
> Just don't pretend that expelling young men from college isn't that big a deal.


Yes, expulsion is a bit deal, and no one takes it lightly. But ...

-Students are often expelled. Usually it's for cheating, sometimes failing, but it can be other things.
-Students who are expelled often go to other colleges. Including those who were expelled for sexual assault. Including those who were high profile in the media cases involving sexual assault

Also, no one, as far as I know, has died from being expelled from school. But there have been many deaths of homeless people who were denied a warm place to sleep on a freezing cold night.


----------



## wild jade

RandomDude said:


> He did let her go after she got physical and broke free. He did not pursue further.
> 
> He did end up with another one of her friends, who my girlfriend said just played along and let him have his way with her without saying no or fighting him off, even though she said later to her girlfriends she didn't really want it.
> 
> Quite troubling really.


Agreed. It is troubling.

It's also why affirmative consent is actually a really good idea. 

Because yes, you can say that women should be more like your gf and just fight off any man that crosses her boundaries.

But at the same time, who would want to be that guy? YUCK!


----------



## RandomDude

wild jade said:


> Agreed. It is troubling.
> 
> It's also why affirmative consent is actually a really good idea.
> 
> Because yes, you can say that women should be more like your gf and just fight off any man that crosses her boundaries.
> 
> But at the same time, who would want to be that guy? YUCK!


True, but sadly, because that guy managed to get laid, he and others are going to be encouraged that what he did is a way to get sex. Bad sex sure, but young guys, they don't know any better. I wouldn't call him a rapist as there's a difference between bad sex and rape.

With this alcoholic and hookup culture too and non-committed sex being the norm these days, you simply have to remove yourself from situations like that if you don't want it.


----------



## uhtred

I think you underestimate the seriousness of expulsion - It will change someone's entire life. If I had been expelled from college (no reason to think it might have happened), my life would be dramatically different and dramatically worse that it is now. 

Expulsion for cause - sexual assault, gross cheating (though that is rarely a cause for expulsion) is fine, but expelling an innocent person really is horrible. At the very least the financial damage runs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Children die by throwing themselves in front of trains because they failed to get into the college that they want. Its not a small issue.

Again - no problem with expelling the guilty. I am just very uncomfortable with a college trying what should be a criminal case - they are simply not set up to do that in an unbiased fashion.




wild jade said:


> Yes, expulsion is a bit deal, and no one takes it lightly. But ...
> 
> -Students are often expelled. Usually it's for cheating, sometimes failing, but it can be other things.
> -Students who are expelled often go to other colleges. Including those who were expelled for sexual assault. Including those who were high profile in the media cases involving sexual assault
> 
> Also, no one, as far as I know, has died from being expelled from school. But there have been many deaths of homeless people who were denied a warm place to sleep on a freezing cold night.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> I think you underestimate the seriousness of expulsion - It will change someone's entire life. If I had been expelled from college (no reason to think it might have happened), my life would be dramatically different and dramatically worse that it is now.
> 
> Expulsion for cause - sexual assault, gross cheating (though that is rarely a cause for expulsion) is fine, but expelling an innocent person really is horrible. At the very least the financial damage runs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> 
> Children die by throwing themselves in front of trains because they failed to get into the college that they want. Its not a small issue.
> 
> Again - no problem with expelling the guilty. I am just very uncomfortable with a college trying what should be a criminal case - they are simply not set up to do that in an unbiased fashion.


And, keep in mind that expulsions for sexual assault are made using the "more likely than not" standard of evidence, which means you could be 51% certain he was guilty and he's still expelled. And the committees are typically run by activists predisposed to see things one way. And, if you found the guy innocent, that would lead to an open investigation by the Dept of Education (which then gets reported on: "the department of Education has six open investigations of Yale's handling of Sexual Assault cases"). Also, often the person doing the investigation is often responsible for also judging the case and determining the punishment (that was the path recommended by Obama's department). 

When people like @wild jade are willing to discuss this and stop ignoring ruining innocent lives as "collateral damage", there will be a lot less backlash.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> And, keep in mind that expulsions for sexual assault are made using the "more likely than not" standard of evidence,



I wonder if more likely than not is the standard for eviction for something like plagiarism.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder if more likely than not is the standard for eviction for something like plagiarism.


Maybe. I'd like to see the number of plagiarism case brought vs guilty verdicts and the same for sexual assault. Also (I assume we're talking plagiarism by students, not faculty), how many students found guilty of plagiarism are expelled? Are schools found to have a insufficient number of guilty verdicts for plagiarism investigated by the government?


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy400 said:


> Maybe. I'd like to see the number of plagiarism case brought vs guilty verdicts and the same for sexual assault. Also (I assume we're talking plagiarism by students, not faculty), how many students found guilty of plagiarism are expelled? Are schools found to have a insufficient number of guilty verdicts for plagiarism investigated by the government?


I just got through creating some training on this. There must be solid evidence of plagiarism, and it almost NEVER results in expulsion. The consequences usually range from a 0 on the project to an F in the course.

So yea....the standard of evidence for copying and pasting on your thesis is MUCH more stringent than the life-ruining accusation of assault.

Sounds completely fair, right????????


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Maybe. I'd like to see the number of plagiarism case brought vs guilty verdicts and the same for sexual assault. Also (I assume we're talking plagiarism by students, not faculty), how many students found guilty of plagiarism are expelled? Are schools found to have a insufficient number of guilty verdicts for plagiarism investigated by the government?


A college or university is allowed to have a higher standard of behavior for their students than the criminal enforcement for their admittance. Students pay mucho dinero for more than just the academics of their degree but also their reputation.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder if more likely than not is the standard for eviction for something like plagiarism.


Plagiarism is much easier to prove either guilt or innocence. If you have a copy of what was supposedly plagiarized from, it's generally pretty easy to determine if meaningful comment was repeated without proper attribution.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Plagiarism is much easier to prove either guilt or innocence. If you have a copy of what was supposedly plagiarized from, it's generally pretty easy to determine if meaningful comment was repeated without proper attribution.


What I am trying to get at is that, as I state above, a college or university can and should have a higher standard that the criminal system for attendance at their institutions. I wonder what that standard is along other expulsion worthy offenses. (Incidentally plagiarism is not limited strictly to copying text.)


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> What I am trying to get at is that, as I state above, *a college or university can and should have a higher standard that the criminal system for attendance at their institutions.* I wonder what that standard is along other expulsion worthy offenses. (Incidentally plagiarism is not limited strictly to copying text.)


I agree. I may be perceiving this completely incorrectly, but it sound like you may be using a higher threshold for attendance to justify a lower threshold for due process. Certainly, there are things that should have you removed from campus which might not actually put you in jail. That is the difference in threshold for attendance vs threshold for criminality. However, even if the threshold is lower for expulsion than for incarceration, there should be no less diligence put into ensuring the innocent are not punished in either case.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I agree. I may be perceiving this completely incorrectly, but it sound like you may be using a higher threshold for attendance to justify a lower threshold for due process.


Nope. I don't have enough information to support such a justification. I simply asked the question.



> Certainly, there are things that should have you removed from campus which might not actually put you in jail.


Whoever up-thread mentioned who mentioned the ridiculous culture of alcohol use and abuse hit the nail on the head IMO.



> That is the difference in threshold for attendance vs threshold for criminality. However, even if the threshold is lower for expulsion than for incarceration, there should be no less diligence put into ensuring the innocent are not punished in either case.


Why? Not saying it should or should not. But I wonder what your point is.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> Nope. I don't have enough information to support such a justification. I simply asked the question.
> 
> 
> Whoever up-thread mentioned who mentioned the ridiculous culture of alcohol use and abuse hit the nail on the head IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Not saying it should or should not. But I wonder what your point is.


The why is because innocent people should not be subject to negative outcomes. There is no reason to suggest that that is any less meaningful in expulsion than incarceration. As has been noted above, expulsion can have horrendous, long term, life altering consequences. It should not be visited lightly upon anyone. A "more likely than not" threshold is entirely inadequate for such consequences. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is far more appropriate. Without a similar threshold, and investigative regime, a simple false accusation could lead to an expulsion, and would almost certainly do so if the case reviewer had a predisposition.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> The why is because innocent people should not be subject to negative outcomes. There is no reason to suggest that that is any less meaningful in expulsion than incarceration. As has been noted above, expulsion can have horrendous, long term, life altering consequences. It should not be visited lightly upon anyone. A "more likely than not" threshold is entirely inadequate for such consequences. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is far more appropriate. Without a similar threshold, and investigative regime, a simple false accusation could lead to an expulsion, and would almost certainly do so if the case reviewer had a predisposition.



I don't think that expulsion being seen as "less meaningful" than incarceration has any bearing at all. Beyond a reasonable doubt is right and necessary because you are taking from someone their Constitutional right to liberty. There is no Constitutional right to attendance at a college or university. I am not suggesting that innocent babies should be thrown out with the proverbial bath water. But that we should keep the narrative where it belongs which is why I suggested comparing to the threshold of evidence for any expulsion offense.


----------



## personofinterest

So where does the narrative belong?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't think that expulsion being "less meaningful" than incarceration has any bearing at all. Beyond a reasonable doubt is right and necessary because you are taking from someone their Constitutional right to liberty. There is no Constitutional right to attendance at a college or university. I am not suggesting that innocent babies should be thrown out with the proverbial bath water. But that we should keep the narrative where it belongs which is why I suggested comparing to the threshold of evidence for any expulsion offense.


If you want to define "liberty" very strictly then no, expulsion doesn't deny liberty. Dude is still free to walk the streets. But you have stripped him of his liberty to get an education. You have stripped him of his liberty to improve his earning potential. You have stripped him of a good many very meaningful liberties. 

And even if you do go with a very strict definition, many criminal convictions may not involve incarceration. They may be resolved by paying a hefty fine or by performing community service, or simply by denying the offender the ability to pursue his provession (i.e. revocation of a license to practice medicine). None of these involve eliminating their "constitutional right to liberty," but they do still require the same threshold for conviction and punishment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "keep the narrative where it belongs." What exactly is "the narrative" you are referring to and where do you think "it belongs?"


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> So where does the narrative belong?


NOT comparing criminality to college admittance but college admittance to college admittance.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> NOT comparing criminality to college admittance but college admittance to college admittance.


Okay. But that does nothing to justify applying a lower threshold for execution of punishment. I know you have not personally advocated for that, but it remains a valid concern. 

Whether or not one chooses to compare criminality to college attendance doesn't change the fact that backroom cabals shouldn't be making life altering decisions for others.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Here is the path we go down when we lower a valid threshold:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Protecting-Due-Process-in/241137


----------



## personofinterest

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Okay. But that does nothing to justify applying a lower threshold for execution of punishment. I know you have not personally advocated for that, but it remains a valid concern.
> 
> Whether or not one chooses to compare criminality to college attendance doesn't change the fact that backroom cabals shouldn't be making life altering decisions for others.


Exactly. This concept is not that hard. The fact that a committee has to work harder to prove plagiarism than it does to prove an assault accusation is, quite frankly, disgusting. And as more and more of these committees are populated with a particular type of female faculty member, more young men will become evidenceless victims of this very thinly veiled bias.


----------



## RandomDude

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Here is the path we go down when we lower a valid threshold:
> 
> https://www.chronicle.com/article/Protecting-Due-Process-in/241137


Wow... so in summary, this young lady destroyed a life because she didn't want to be seen as a **** by her roommate, and yet invited another guy for sex the next day? lol And having his life ruined, the college still refused to acknowledge the evidence to overturn their decision, citing federal laws. Now that's insanity.

In my country, it's the other way round in universities (what you guys call colleges). The universities say that the responsibility to find the accused guilty or innocent falls within the criminal justice system, not theirs. Which is correct. However citing the fact that apparently only 6 out of 150+ reported sexual assault cases result in a conviction, activists are now seeking to reform the system to be like the U.S. Yes, using the low stats to justify it regardless of whether or not these allegations are false or not.

Now sure, the activists are right that the universities should do more. They accuse the universities of covering it up to save their reputation, which if they are doing so, is also wrong. They should report it to the police (But definitely not have extrajudicial courts!) But then the counsellors don't report to the police citing client confidentiality... and the mess continues.

Why don't they just go to the damn police?!


----------



## Buddy400

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Okay. But that does nothing to justify applying a lower threshold for execution of punishment. I know you have not personally advocated for that, but it remains a valid concern.
> 
> Whether or not one chooses to compare criminality to college attendance doesn't change the fact that backroom cabals shouldn't be making life altering decisions for others.


It's truly amazing. Usually, if you say something like "we should minimize the chances of bad things happening to innocent people", you hear murmurs of agreement.

Yet, on this issue, you get technical disputes and hand waving from people trying hard to pretend that they don't know what the point is.


----------



## Randy Lafever

Eh, for millennia the balance has been way over on one side (male), in the past few decades it has swung and, as usual, there is some overcorrection. Maybe it will even out, maybe it won't. Everybody is learning as we go, here. 

Nothing to get too worked up over.


----------



## wild jade

personofinterest said:


> I just got through creating some training on this. There must be solid evidence of plagiarism, and it almost NEVER results in expulsion. The consequences usually range from a 0 on the project to an F in the course.
> 
> So yea....the standard of evidence for copying and pasting on your thesis is MUCH more stringent than the life-ruining accusation of assault.
> 
> Sounds completely fair, right????????


OMG. Where do you work? That is absolutely not true where I am -- or across the board.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Maybe. I'd like to see the number of plagiarism case brought vs guilty verdicts and the same for sexual assault. Also (I assume we're talking plagiarism by students, not faculty), how many students found guilty of plagiarism are expelled? Are schools found to have a insufficient number of guilty verdicts for plagiarism investigated by the government?


Most students who are found guilty of sexual assault are not expelled either. Most times they are at most suspended, often they are educated.

The whole "schools are out to ruin young men's lives" narrative is ridiculously overblown and completely misses the mark as to what is really going on.


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> I think you underestimate the seriousness of expulsion - It will change someone's entire life. If I had been expelled from college (no reason to think it might have happened), my life would be dramatically different and dramatically worse that it is now.


No, I am not underestimating the seriousness of expulsion, I'm trying to put it into perspective.

The reality is that most kids who are expelled move on to another school. Their lives are not ruined, even if they think so for a few minutes right after it happened.

The reality is that there are no "backroom cabals" in schools out to expel young men in droves, based on no evidence. Many who are accused are not found to have done anything wrong, and many found to have done wrong, even egregious wrong, are not expelled at all. They are turned over to the police, and required to write an essay to reflect on their wrongdoing.

Yes, there are a few high profile cases where outcomes were unjust, and no, the system is not perfect. But neither is the criminal justice system. 

And honestly, the problem of sexual assault has been rug-swept for so long, with people getting away with all sorts of atrocities so that a school can keep its reputation or its winning football team.

I think a lot of people seriously underestimate how life-ruining it is to attend a school where your rapist is given accolades and a free rein, even while he continues to harass you.


----------



## personofinterest

"And honestly, the problem of sexual assault has been rug-swept for so long, with people getting away with all sorts of atrocities so that a school can keep its reputation or its winning football team."

Slip this absolutely reeks of the following… since it was unfair to women for all these years you guys just need to take one for the team while we balance it out. I think not.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

personofinterest said:


> "And honestly, the problem of sexual assault has been rug-swept for so long, with people getting away with all sorts of atrocities so that a school can keep its reputation or its winning football team."
> 
> Slip this absolutely reeks of the following… since it was unfair to women for all these years you guys just need to take one for the team while we balance it out. I think not.


Yes. Reminds me of when Al Sharpton set up a white man for the rape of Tawana Brawley knowing full well that the accused didn't do it. But after all, white guys had gotten away with raping black girls so often that, in the big scheme of things this injustice was justified by some need to globally balance the scales.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> No, I am not underestimating the seriousness of expulsion, I'm trying to put it into perspective.
> 
> The reality is that most kids who are expelled move on to another school. Their lives are not ruined, even if they think so for a few minutes right after it happened.
> 
> The reality is that there are no "backroom cabals" in schools out to expel young men in droves, based on no evidence. Many who are accused are not found to have done anything wrong, and many found to have done wrong, even egregious wrong, are not expelled at all. They are turned over to the police, and required to write an essay to reflect on their wrongdoing.
> 
> Yes, there are a few high profile cases where outcomes were unjust, and no, the system is not perfect. But neither is the criminal justice system.
> 
> And honestly, the problem of sexual assault has been rug-swept for so long, with people getting away with all sorts of atrocities so that a school can keep its reputation or its winning football team.
> 
> I think a lot of people seriously underestimate how life-ruining it is to attend a school where your rapist is given accolades and a free rein, even while he continues to harass you.


When the threshold for "conviction" is so low, and the "jury" need not be qualified in any way, and may actually carry extreme bias, then yes, it is no more than a cabal. The link I posted earlier goes well beyond "a few high profile cases." 

And no, students don't usually just go to school somewhere else. Any time anybody makes application to a new school, part of the admissions process includes checking their record from any institutions previously attended. Having been expelled is a black mark most schools use as an automatic disqualifier.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Here is the path we go down when we lower a valid threshold:
> 
> https://www.chronicle.com/article/Protecting-Due-Process-in/241137


My browser will not load that link.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> My browser will not load that link.


The article basically sums up the increasing frequency of suits being brought against universities for dismissal of students without due process. It is costing universities a bundle. 

The reason I shared that article is it demonstrates what happens when legally unaccountable people make legally questionable decisions that have significant impact on others.


----------



## Randy Lafever

personofinterest said:


> "And honestly, the problem of sexual assault has been rug-swept for so long, with people getting away with all sorts of atrocities so that a school can keep its reputation or its winning football team."
> 
> Slip this absolutely reeks of the following… since it was unfair to women for all these years you guys just need to take one for the team while we balance it out. I think not.


When you say "I think not" you are implying that you have any input. You do not. You can either accept the new reality and hope that one day it will balance out, or you can continue to tilt at windmills.

Your call.


----------



## personofinterest

Randy Lafever said:


> When you say "I think not" you are implying that you have any input. You do not. You can either accept the new reality and hope that one day it will balance out, or you can continue to tilt at windmills.
> 
> Your call.


Well you're just a friendly ray of sunshine aren't ya!

Yes, I will continue to "tilt" at the windmill of not sacrificing innocent young men on the new wave feminist alter of "collateral damage" as long as new wave feminists continue to be....the way they are. lol


----------



## Randy Lafever

It's just an overcorrection. We are literally re-defining the relationship between the genders from what it has been for a hundred thousand years. That isn't going to be figured out by Labor Day.

In a few generations, it may well balance out and we'll all be better off.


----------



## personofinterest

Randy Lafever said:


> It's just an overcorrection. We are literally re-defining the relationship between the genders from what it has been for a hundred thousand years. That isn't going to be figured out by Labor Day.
> 
> In a few generations, it may well balance out and we'll all be better off.


Well, yippee! In the meantime, I don't want my son's life ruined by some women's studies major with an ax to grind.


----------



## Randy Lafever

personofinterest said:


> Well, yippee! In the meantime, I don't want my son's life ruined by some women's studies major with an ax to grind.


Short-sighted thinking. We have the chance to make man-woman interaction mutually respectful and satisfactory for 100% of the population, not just 50% as it currently is. Individual cases like the one you are fearful of do not matter, because the opportunity exists for a brighter future. Your selfish choices can not be allowed to derail that.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

personofinterest said:


> Well, yippee! In the meantime, I don't want my son's life ruined by some women's studies major with an ax to grind.


It'd be interesting to see if womens' perceptions here are at all influenced by the presence or absence of sons of or near college age.


----------



## personofinterest

Randy Lafever said:


> Short-sighted thinking. We have the chance to make man-woman interaction mutually respectful and satisfactory for 100% of the population, not just 50% as it currently is. Individual cases like the one you are fearful of do not matter, because the opportunity exists for a brighter future. Your selfish choices can not be allowed to derail that.


You have to know, if you possess any self-awareness at all - that your take on anything relational is probably not mainstream and probably not compatible with 99% of mainstream thinking, right?

Bottom line, you're just talking out of your disorder on this one. 50% of the population is NOT treated badly. Just like 50% of the population does NOT make 22 cents less than the other 50%.

And no, even one person's life ruined by false allegations is one too many, no matter what modern day Gloria Steinems think.

Look, as an assault survivor, I get angry when knuckle-draggers question the reality of rape and assault. That kind of man is digusting. But this knee-jerk in the other direction is JUST AS dangerous.


----------



## Randy Lafever

personofinterest said:


> Look, as an assault survivor, I get angry when knuckle-draggers question the reality of rape and assault. That kind of man is digusting. But this knee-jerk in the other direction is JUST AS dangerous.


No it isn't. The worst thing that can happen to these guys is they go to jail. Frequently they do not.

Rape? The worst case scenario happens every time. And it is much worse and impactful than just going to jail or having to transfer from U of Idaho to Idaho State.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Randy Lafever said:


> No it isn't. The worst thing that can happen to these guys is they go to jail. Frequently they do not.
> 
> Rape? The worst case scenario happens every time. And it is much worse and impactful than just going to jail or having to transfer from U of Idaho to Idaho State.


I'm not trying to out-victim anyone here, but the fact is the worst that can happen to the falsely accused is that they also go to jail. Even without that, the expulsion may be permanent as colleges aren't keen on admitting those who have been previously dismissed by other colleges, so the young man may have his entire life shattered. 

I, of course have zero experience with surviving assault, so I am not in any way qualified to speak to the trauma it causes and the difficulty in recovering. What I do know is a number of women who have indeed recovered. 

I believe it's wrong to make a blanket statement either way as to which is worse. Each case of either type of offense is unique and it's impossible to tell going in who will suffer the most, nor is it productive to argue about same.


----------



## personofinterest

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> It'd be interesting to see if womens' perceptions here are at all influenced by the presence or absence of sons of or near college age.


Sadly i don't think so. The women who consider false accusations to be acceptable risk likely raise their sons in a way that reflects their underlying attitudes about men. I predict the next generation of men will be even more emasculated


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> Sadly i don't think so. The women who consider false accusations to be acceptable risk likely raise their sons in a way that reflects their underlying attitudes about men. I predict the next generation of men will be even more emasculated


What "underlying attitudes about men"? Being a human being is emasculating?


----------



## Randy Lafever

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I'm not trying to out-victim anyone here, but the fact is the worst that can happen to the falsely accused is that they also go to jail. Even without that, the expulsion may be permanent as colleges aren't keen on admitting those who have been previously dismissed by other colleges, so the young man may have his entire life shattered.


Even in the highly unlikely case that no college will take you (I've never heard of a college rejecting a person who had cash and average grades), a life without a college degree is hardly "shattered". Only like one in twenty high school graduates go on to earn a four year degree from a college, and I hardly think the other 19 are sitting at home weeping over their ruined life.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> You have to know, if you possess any self-awareness at all - that your take on anything relational is probably not mainstream and probably not compatible with 99% of mainstream thinking, right?
> 
> Bottom line, you're just talking out of your disorder on this one. 50% of the population is NOT treated badly. Just like 50% of the population does NOT make 22 cents less than the other 50%.
> 
> And no, even one person's life ruined by false allegations is one too many, no matter what modern day Gloria Steinems think.
> 
> Look, as an assault survivor, I get angry when knuckle-draggers question the reality of rape and assault. That kind of man is digusting. But this knee-jerk in the other direction is JUST AS dangerous.



I don't see a lot of knee jerking. I see people wanting to have a dialog about what the threshold for process is. I think the idea of trying to weigh who is harmed more is useless. (Seriously, anyone who wants to equate being unjustly thrown out of college with the trauma of rape is an idiot.) I think the idea of comparing the process for removing someone from enrollment from a privilege shouldn't be commensurate with removal of a constitutional right. It is difficult to come to a conclusion about what one might support for remedy when the dialog is so doofy.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Randy Lafever said:


> Even in the highly unlikely case that no college will take you (I've never heard of a college rejecting a person who had cash and average grades), a life without a college degree is hardly "shattered". Only like one in twenty high school graduates go on to earn a four year degree from a college, and I hardly think the other 19 are sitting at home weeping over their ruined life.


I'm afraid you have zero credibility when your statistics are so wrong. As of 2017, 33.7% of adult males in America have bachelor degrees. That's 1 in 3, a far cry from 1 in 20. If you can't get basic facts right, there's no reason to trust your "analysis."


----------



## Cletus

wild jade said:


> The reality is that there are no "backroom cabals" in schools out to expel young men in droves, based on no evidence.


Of course there isn't, and I don't think any have suggested this. But there absolutely are well documented extra-judicial boards tasked with determining the outcome of assault cases which do not have to adhere to any criminal code or standard of evidence who will act in the school's best interests. Maybe those will align with the accused or the accuser, and maybe they will not.



> I think a lot of people seriously underestimate how life-ruining it is to attend a school where your rapist is given accolades and a free rein, even while he continues to harass you.


If it isn't life ruining to have to change schools because you were falsely accused of rape, it isn't so life ruining to have to change schools for this reason either. Either one sucks, but you cannot have it both ways.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I read it. It appears a tragedy for the young man. The young lady's own texts appear to most clearly exonerate him yet they were not allowed into evidence.


----------



## Randy Lafever

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I'm afraid you have zero credibility when your statistics are so wrong. As of 2017, 33.7% of adult males in America have bachelor degrees. That's 1 in 3, a far cry from 1 in 20. If you can't get basic facts right, there's no reason to trust your "analysis."


I don't see how that is possible. So you say when you walk down the street that one out of every three guys has a four year degree? How could that be? How many people do you know with a degree? Sometimes you read a statistic and you have to apply common sense with what you know about the world.

For example, of the Top Ten of my high school class, three of them have earned degrees after fifteen years. The Valedictorian never attended a day of college. Number three died of an overdose while living in her car with her three children.

Don't recall where I heard the "1 in 20" stat but it certainly fits better with real-world experience than yours.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> I don't see how that is possible. So you say when you walk down the street that one out of every three guys has a four year degree? How could that be? How many people do you know with a degree? Sometimes you read a statistic and you have to apply common sense with what you know about the world.
> 
> For example, of the Top Ten of my high school class, three of them have earned degrees after fifteen years. The Valedictorian never attended a day of college. Number three died of an overdose while living in her car with her three children.
> 
> Don't recall where I heard the "1 in 20" stat but it certainly fits better with real-world experience than yours.


Degree stats are actually a good place to look for real data because it is directly measurable. Our own little worlds vary greatly by geography etc.. In my little corner of the world, almost ALL of the people I know have college degrees. When I walk down the street, I would bet at least 30% of adults of appropriate age have degrees.


----------



## Randy Lafever

NobodySpecial said:


> Degree stats are actually a good place to look for real data because it is directly measurable. Our own little worlds vary greatly by geography etc.. In my little corner of the world, almost ALL of the people I know have college degrees. When I walk down the street, I would bet at least 30% of adults of appropriate age have degrees.


Do you purposefully exclude people who don't have degrees?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Randy Lafever said:


> I don't see how that is possible. So you say when you walk down the street that one out of every three guys has a four year degree? How could that be? How many people do you know with a degree? Sometimes you read a statistic and you have to apply common sense with what you know about the world.
> 
> For example, of the Top Ten of my high school class, three of them have earned degrees after fifteen years. The Valedictorian never attended a day of college. Number three died of an overdose while living in her car with her three children.
> 
> Don't recall where I heard the "1 in 20" stat but it certainly fits better with real-world experience than yours.


Be careful about extrapolating your anecdotal experience to the entire population. It'll often lead you astray as it has in this case. Only 22% of my high school class even went to college, let alone finished. But I'm not so arrogant as to think my experience is anyone else's.

Just look it up rather than blindly extrapolating your personal preconceptions. This is one source. There are many. Read and learn. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Be careful about extrapolating your anecdotal experience to the entire population. It'll often lead you astray as it has in this case. Only 22% of my high school class even went to college, let alone finished. But I'm not so arrogant as to think my experience is anyone else's.
> 
> Just look it up rather than blindly extrapolating your personal preconceptions. This is one source. There are many. Read and learn.
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/


Rocky, I saw a response in a debate on Reddit that really made me chuckle, "the plural of anecdote is not 'data' " I enjoyed that zinger whether it was true or not.


----------



## Randy Lafever

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Be careful about extrapolating your anecdotal experience to the entire population. It'll often lead you astray as it has in this case. Only 22% of my high school class even went to college, let alone finished. But I'm not so arrogant as to think my experience is anyone else's.
> 
> Just look it up rather than blindly extrapolating your personal preconceptions. This is one source. There are many. Read and learn.
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/


Where do you think all these people are hiding? If there are three hundred million people in the country, that means there must be about 100 million degrees out there. How are there that many degree-requisite jobs? There can't be that many doctors and lawyers and CEOs floating around.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> Do you purposefully exclude people who don't have degrees?


Exclude them from what? Statistics on college degrees?


----------



## Cletus

Randy Lafever said:


> I don't see how that is possible. So you say when you walk down the street that one out of every three guys has a four year degree? How could that be? How many people do you know with a degree? Sometimes you read a statistic and you have to apply common sense with what you know about the world.


Most of the people are know at at least that educated.

My wife. Son. His wife. Daughter. Her boyfriend. All of my co-workers. All of my personal friends. 

My next door neighbor and his wife do not - they are the exception. 



> For example, of the Top Ten of my high school class, three of them have earned degrees after fifteen years. The Valedictorian never attended a day of college. Number three died of an overdose while living in her car with her three children.
> 
> Don't recall where I heard the "1 in 20" stat but it certainly fits better with real-world experience than yours.


It would seem that the biggest victim of this line of thinking here is you.


----------



## Randy Lafever

NobodySpecial said:


> Exclude them from what? Statistics on college degrees?


From interacting with you. Since you said pretty much everyone you know has a degree.

I'm just trying to figure out how this can be true and where all the college boys are hiding, haha.


----------



## Cletus

Randy Lafever said:


> Where do you think all these people are hiding? If there are three hundred million people in the country, that means there must be about 100 million degrees out there. How are there that many degree-requisite jobs? There can't be that many doctors and lawyers and CEOs floating around.


They're not hiding. The doctors, lawyers, CEOs are doing their jobs.

So are the engineers, IT personnel, school faculty (including grade school), and a thousand other professions.

The ones with the English degrees are serving your coffee and pumping your gas. That should just about cover everyone.


----------



## Randy Lafever

Cletus said:


> My wife. Son. His wife. Daughter. Her boyfriend. All of my co-workers. All of my personal friends.


Was this on purpose? I find it hard to believe that random circumstance could place all of these college degrees in such proximity to each other.

If "all of [your] co-workers" have degrees, who cleans the toilet?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> Where do you think all these people are hiding? If there are three hundred million people in the country, that means there must be about 100 million degrees out there. How are there that many degree-requisite jobs? There can't be that many *doctors and lawyers and CEOs* floating around.


Is that all you think a degree is for? Bachelor's degrees are required for a great many positions. Off the top of my head in my workd

*Software*
Software QA (my position)
Software engineer
Technical writer
database administrator
systems engineer
release engineer
management
business analyst 
user interface designer
web designer

*Um medical*
Radiology technician
respiratory technician
nurse (forget the level)
physical therapist
mental health counselor
addiction counselor

Anyway that was with no thought... the list is very long.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

PigglyWiggly said:


> Rocky, I saw a response in a debate on Reddit that really made me chuckle, "the plural of anecdote is not 'data' " I enjoyed that zinger whether it was true or not.


That's freakin' hysterical!

I'm guessing @john117 might like that one as well.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> From interacting with you. Since you said pretty much everyone you know has a degree.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out how this can be true and where all the college boys are hiding, haha.


Um? About 40 or so are sitting around me in cubicle land on my floor.


----------



## Cletus

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf

"In 2015, almost 9 out of 10 adults (88 percent) had at least a high school diploma or GED, while nearly 1 in 3 adults (33 percent) held a bachelor’s or higher degree.

•The percentage of women who had a bachelor’s degree or higher (33 percent) was not statistically different than the percentage of men (32 percent) with this level of education.
• Educational attainment varied by race and Hispanic origin. More than half of Asians aged 25 and olderhad a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2015.

• Asians were more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have at least a bachelor’s degree.

• Asians and non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to hold a bachelor’s degree or higher compared with Blacks and Hispanics.

• Native adults were more likely to have a high school education or higher but were no more likely than foreign-born adults to hold an advanced degree.

• Adults without a disability were more likely to hold a bachelor’s degree or more than adults with a disability.


----------



## Randy Lafever

NobodySpecial said:


> Is that all you think a degree is for? Bachelor's degrees are required for a great many positions.


I don't know, I rarely interact with anyone who has a degree. I don't really know anything about the sorts of jobs that aren't manual labor or fast-food type service jobs. I know they exist, and I know some people have them, but I don't know what those jobs are, what the people actually do all day, how they get them, etc. 

Somebody mentioned teachers, that's one I forgot.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Randy Lafever said:


> Where do you think all these people are hiding? If there are three hundred million people in the country, that means there must be about 100 million degrees out there. How are there that many degree-requisite jobs? There can't be that many doctors and lawyers and CEOs floating around.


Uhhhh.....

Well, to start with, degrees aren't limited to Doctors/Lawyers/CEOs. 

Engineers of all types (civil, electrical, mechanical, computer, etc), social workers, teachers, administrators, bankers, consultants, managers at all levels, scientists of all types, production managers, accountants, nurses, etc, etc, etc,... the list is endless.

And many people get degrees but don't end up working in jobs that actually require them because even many jobs that don't technically require a degree will use it as a discriminator. Even if none is required, if two people apply for the same job and one has a degree and the other doesn't, guess who usually gets hired?

And yes, if you get friendly with google, you will find that over 100M Americans have bachelors or higher degrees.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> I don't know, I rarely interact with anyone who has a degree. I don't really know anything about the sorts of jobs that aren't manual labor or fast-food type service jobs. I know they exist, and I know some people have them, but I don't know what those jobs are, what the people actually do all day, how they get them, etc.
> 
> Somebody mentioned teachers, that's one I forgot.


That is why I thought that this is a good place to relay on the measurement since we each have our own demographic.


----------



## Cletus

Randy Lafever said:


> Was this on purpose? I find it hard to believe that random circumstance could place all of these college degrees in such proximity to each other.
> 
> If "all of [your] co-workers" have degrees, who cleans the toilet?


I know his face, not his name. Probably not degreed, but since we contract that task out, I don't consider him a co-worker. 

I work in hi-tech, dude. NO ONE gets hired here without at least a 4 year degree. Which is true of every single employer I have had over 30 years since I left the house painting business to pay for my education.


----------



## Randy Lafever

Cletus said:


> I work in hi-tech, dude. NO ONE gets hired here without at least a 4 year degree. Which is true of every single employer I have had over 30 years since I left the house painting business to pay for my education.


Implying that you, yourself, have a degree. Am I correct?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> Implying that you, yourself, have a degree. Am I correct?


What is the purpose of this interrogation as it relates to the rates of degrees?


----------



## Cletus

Randy Lafever said:


> Implying that you, yourself, have a degree. Am I correct?


Yes. 1989 B.S.E.E. (Electrical Engineering) from the local state college. Almost got a masters, but that's a long story. Never pursued the PhD since it was unnecessary for my career path.


----------



## Randy Lafever

NobodySpecial said:


> What is the purpose of this interrogation as it relates to the rates of degrees?


I was merely curious to know if some of the members here had a degree.



Cletus said:


> Yes. 1989 B.S.E.E. (Electrical Engineering) from the local state college. Almost got a masters, but that's a long story. Never pursued the PhD since it was unnecessary for my career path.


Were there no jobs you could pursue that didn't require a degree?


----------



## Cletus

Randy Lafever said:


> I was merely curious to know if some of the members here had a degree.
> Were there no jobs you could pursue that didn't require a degree?


I'm not saying this as a personal insult - you really DON'T have any experience with college educated folks, do you?

There were jobs I could pursue with no degree. Just none that I wanted to do. I picked my career in high school because it interested me. It required a degree. It was just sort of matter-of-fact. I didn't give it a second thought because it was the natural thing to do if one wanted to become an engineer. There was certainly no stigma associated with a college education, and no reason other than "how the hell do I pay for it" to even balk at the idea. 

I did it because I wanted to. It would have been far more strange to not get a degree.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Randy Lafever said:


> Was this on purpose? I find it hard to believe that random circumstance could place all of these college degrees in such proximity to each other.
> 
> If "all of [your] co-workers" have degrees, who cleans the toilet?


But its not random. Educated people tend to congregate with other educated people. Blue collar folks tend to congregate with other blue collar folks. People do cross educational boundaries, but the likelihood that they will be with others of similar background is much higher. So it makes perfect sense that the educated would be surrounded by other educated.


----------



## Randy Lafever

Cletus said:


> I'm not saying this as a personal insult - you really DON'T have any experience with college educated folks, do you?
> 
> There were jobs I could pursue with no degree. Just none that I wanted to do. I picked my career in high school because it interested me. It required a degree. It was just sort of matter-of-fact. I didn't give it a second thought because it was the natural thing to do if one wanted to become an engineer. There was certainly no stigma associated with a college education, and no reason other than "how the hell do I pay for it" to even balk at the idea.
> 
> I did it because I wanted to. It would have been far more strange to not get a degree.


What steps did you take to make yourself interested in that field? What aspects of it made you "want to do" it?


----------



## Cletus

Randy Lafever said:


> What steps did you take to make yourself interested in that field? What aspects of it made you "want to do" it?


An electronics class in high school, where I built a transistor radio from parts and made it work on the bench. The same place I got my first 10kV zap from an old Model T ignition coil. 

But that's just the specifics. If it hadn't been in that field, it might have been in one of the other hard sciences. That interest predates my memory of how it was acquired.

As for the other reasons one might do it - succeeding in this field for the last 30 years has completely insulated me from every up and down in the US economy since I started. I will retire will well over seven figures in my 401(k). My job pays a stupid salary. I have a Cadillac health plan for which I pay nothing every month. I get to choose where I work, when I move, and what (within reason) I am paid. My wife got to be a stay-at-home mom and we never lacked for anything truly needed.

So you bet I encouraged both of my children to attend. I would have been a poor parent to do otherwise.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> I was merely curious to know if some of the members here had a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> Were there no jobs you could pursue that didn't require a degree?


Your PoV is very different from mine. For me, the default was pursuing a degree after high school. NOT pursuing a degree would have been the odd behavior, as is the case with my now High School senior son.


----------



## Randy Lafever

Cletus said:


> An electronics class in high school, where I built a transistor radio from parts and made it work on the bench. The same place I got my first 10kV zap from an old Model T ignition coil.
> 
> But that's just the specifics. If it hadn't been in that field, it might have been in one of the other hard sciences. That interest predates my memory of how it was acquired.


And your parents/teachers/friends, did they try to encourage or discourage this interest?


----------



## Randy Lafever

NobodySpecial said:


> Your PoV is very different from mine. For me, the default was pursuing a degree after high school. NOT pursuing a degree would have been the odd behavior, as is the case with my now High School senior son.


Why? Logically speaking, that is the path of greater resistance. Certainly you and your son knew that you had other, less daunting options available.

The odds of failing at a task grow exponentially when it increases in complexity. Sure, being a mailman or working at Wendy's might not pay as good as whatever you do, but you have the benefit of it being simple and nearly idiot-proof.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## Cletus

Randy Lafever said:


> And your parents/teachers/friends, did they try to encourage or discourage this interest?


My parents were at best lukewarm. My father doesn't care for the "educated liberal elite" and watches Fox news like it's necessary for breathing. My mother - well, we'll just leave her out of this conversation. Schizophrenics should never be used as a barometer for what you should do. 

I graduated as a Valedictorian of a class of 400 back when there was only one, and the first in my family to get a degree (followed soon by my brother, who has a PhD). I had no fear of college. I wasn't going to fail. My greatest advocate was a school counselor who helped me get an internship at Intel as a high school senior. But the choice and the drive to do it was mine, completely independent of anything anyone in my family had to say.

As @FrenchFry has noticed, I'll shut up now.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> Why? Logically speaking, that is the path of greater resistance. Certainly you and your son knew that you had other, less daunting options available.


A number of reasons. First, no one in my family has ever valued a path of least resistance. It is well known that hard work yields positive outcomes. I did not see college as particularly daunting. In my case, less it was less daunting than most since I did not have to worry about how to pay for it. Also there was a high value of education for its own sake. Studying things like philosophy, history, the humanities and sciences that were not directly related to income make for a well rounded person with a well exercise and fit brain "muscle".



> The odds of failing at a task grow exponentially when it increases in complexity. Sure, being a mailman or working at Wendy's might not pay as good as whatever you do, but you have the benefit of it being simple and nearly idiot-proof.


That is a pretty fatalistic view! Not not strive is to not succeed. Being a mailman or working at Wendy's definitely does not pay as *well* (I don't normally correct grammar but there seems a point here). Not an order of magnitude as well. Like not even close. For me, both of those jobs would be unsustainably boring. I don't value simple or idiot proof.


----------



## Randy Lafever

NobodySpecial said:


> A number of reasons. First, no one in my family has ever valued a path of least resistance. It is well known that hard work yields positive outcomes.


I wasn't knocking "hard work", I work quite hard myself loading heavy sporting goods equipment into trucks. A ten to twelve hour day doing that can hardly be called easy.



> That is a pretty fatalistic view! Not not strive is to not succeed. Being a mailman or working at Wendy's definitely does not pay as *well* (I don't normally correct grammar but there seems a point here). Not an order of magnitude as well. Like not even close. For me, both of those jobs would be unsustainably boring. I don't value simple or idiot proof.


Maybe "less resistance" is not the best way to phrase it but I just don't see why anyone would stick their neck out any farther than they absolutely have to to secure the means to survive. It just seems so reckless to me to place yourself in that sort of lifestyle when you don't have to. How much pain and anxiety and uncertainty could you have avoided?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Randy Lafever said:


> Why? Logically speaking, that is the path of greater resistance. Certainly you and your son knew that you had other, less daunting options available.
> 
> The odds of failing at a task grow exponentially when it increases in complexity. Sure, being a mailman or working at Wendy's might not pay as good as whatever you do, but you have the benefit of it being simple and nearly idiot-proof.


Many people find the path of least resistance wholly unsatisfying. For many of us, it is our very nature to stretch ourselves, to take risks, to need to rise to daunting challenges. That the risk of failure is greater in doing so is part of the appeal. 

I perform poorly when expectations are low. I excel when challenged... and I'm much happier as well.

It's just part of human nature for many humans. Many humans are not at all motivated by challenge or risk minimization.


----------



## Randy Lafever

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Many people find the path of least resistance wholly unsatisfying. For many of us, it is our very nature to stretch ourselves, to take risks, to need to rise to daunting challenges. That the risk of failure is greater in doing so is part of the appeal.
> 
> I perform poorly when expectations are low. I excel when challenged... and I'm much happier as well.
> 
> It's just part of human nature for many humans. Many humans are not at all motivated by challenge or risk minimization.


Have you ever sought out professional help for this? I don't know that they have any medicine for it but I imagine some therapy might be effective in tamping down these sorts of thoughts/drives.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> I wasn't knocking "hard work", I work quite hard myself loading heavy sporting goods equipment into trucks. A ten to twelve hour day doing that can hardly be called easy.


No doubt.



> Maybe "less resistance" is not the best way to phrase it but I just don't see why anyone would stick their neck out any farther than they absolutely have to to secure the means to survive. It just seems so reckless to me to place yourself in that sort of lifestyle when you don't have to. How much pain and anxiety and uncertainty could you have avoided?


That post is just... odd. Stick my neck out? That is not very far to stick one's neck, attending college and studying. I certainly hope to secure more than a means of survival. And how RECKLESS? What is the worst that can happen?? I would have avoided exactly zero pain, anxiety or uncertainty because there wasn't any more than any other life path.


----------



## Randy Lafever

NobodySpecial said:


> That post is just... odd. Stick my neck out? That is not very far to stick one's neck, attending college and studying. I certainly hope to secure more than a means of survival. And how RECKLESS? *What is the worst that can happen??* I would have avoided exactly zero pain, anxiety or uncertainty because there wasn't any more than any other life path.


Just think about how many mistakes are possible with one path or the other.

You know your job, you know how many instances in a day it is possible for you to make a mistake. Multiply that by the number of days you have been working. Add all the tests and papers and whatnot you have to do in college. Did you make 100% on every single one?

In my job, the boxes just need to be in the right trailers. They come down a conveyor belt into the right trailers. I literally only have to stack them up. The boss prefers me to do so efficiently, and I do, but others don't care and they have experienced no ill effects.

Every second of our lives is a minefield of potential errors. Every single action we take, could result in a mistake. If you have a chance to decrease that potential for a major portion of your life (the time you spend at work) you do that!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Randy Lafever said:


> Have you ever sought out professional help for this? I don't know that they have any medicine for it but I imagine some therapy might be effective in tamping down these sorts of thoughts/drives.


Oh! You are joking. Fooled me!


----------



## personofinterest

AAAANNYWAY....

My campus-wide Title IX training is Thursday. I might share here if there's anything interesting.


----------



## Randy Lafever

NobodySpecial said:


> Oh! You are joking. Fooled me!


In what way?


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> AAAANNYWAY....
> 
> My campus-wide Title IX training is Thursday. I might share here if there's anything interesting.


Thanks


----------



## Buddy400

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> It'd be interesting to see if womens' perceptions here are at all influenced by the presence or absence of sons of or near college age.


There was a story in some mainstream media source about a mother who was a lawyer and considered herself a strong feminist; then she got a call from her son at college.....

One of the things missed in the Gender wars is that women have sons and fathers have daughters. So, the combatants are usually young and childless.

Those who assume that I don't care about sexual assault of women because I'm a man ignore the fact that I have a wife and and a daughter (just out of college).


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Buddy400 said:


> There was a story in some mainstream media source about a mother who was a lawyer and considered herself a strong feminist; then she got a call from her son at college.....
> 
> One of the things missed in the Gender wars is that women have sons and fathers have daughters. So, the combatants are usually young and childless.
> 
> Those who assume that I don't care about sexual assault of women because I'm a man ignore the fact that I have a wife and and a daughter (just out of college).


I have a daughter who was the victim of a home invasion while in college. As far as I know, the perv was never caught. (fortunately he was run off before being able to commit an actual assault, but it was still quite traumatic)

Wish I coulda' been there so I could thrash the guy myself. I cant express strongly enough how this POS needs to be brought to justice and have the law throw everything at him that the statute allows. No mercy. No mitigation. Just the Max. Period.

That said, that in no way makes me accept any goodness in accusing and convicting the wrong guy for the crime. What does that accomplish other than letting real criminals get away, and perpetuation (even strengthening) the divide between the sides? You want boys and girls to get even further from being able to relate to each other in an adult, mature, safe manner? Just keep pressing with lower thresholds for false accusations. Expect some serious backlash.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Seriously, anyone who wants to equate being unjustly thrown out of college with the trauma of rape is an idiot.


Agreed, the trauma of being raped must be much worse than being unjustly expelled from school (although anything blatantly unjust is pretty hard to live with).

One of my biggest problems is the interchangeable use of the terms "rape" and "sexual assault".

In the famous "1 in 5 college women are sexually assaulted" study, whether or not "sexual assault" happened was determined by the study's authors (not the respondents, many of whom didn't consider themselves victims).

And, of course, that didn't keep the USA Today from reporting that the study found "1 in 5 college women are raped". 

The trauma of a woman being expelled from school because she had a drunken hookup and the guy she hooked up with was so worried the next morning that he reported the incident first might be worse than the trauma of having a drunken hookup (and yes, that happened recently).


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Randy Lafever said:


> Why? Logically speaking, that is the path of greater resistance. Certainly you and your son knew that you had other, less daunting options available.
> 
> The odds of failing at a task grow exponentially when it increases in complexity. Sure, being a mailman or working at Wendy's might not pay as good as whatever you do, but you have the benefit of it being simple and nearly idiot-proof.


No offense, but that's almost silly. Many many roads normally lead to a degree and better opportunities of employment and life enrichment. 

To promote don't try because it's too hard is ridiculous. 

Almost like you're trolling this thread.


----------



## uhtred

Its amazing how much society has fractured. I don't think I know anyone without a degree. One of the guys in my workplace is considered exceptional because he *doesn't* have a PhD, he managed to get where he is without going that route. 

To be clear, I don't at all avoid people without degrees, they just aren't around. Most of my long term friendships were formed in college, or at work afterwards - I don't have that many other places where I meet people. 

The people I know are mostly scientists and engineers. 




Randy Lafever said:


> I don't know, I rarely interact with anyone who has a degree. I don't really know anything about the sorts of jobs that aren't manual labor or fast-food type service jobs. I know they exist, and I know some people have them, but I don't know what those jobs are, what the people actually do all day, how they get them, etc.
> 
> Somebody mentioned teachers, that's one I forgot.


----------



## uhtred

I'll answer for myself: When I was a small child, like many small children I didn't sleep well, so my mother decided to read to me from an old astronomy text book to put me to sleep. It did the opposite - I was fascinated. I could only understand a tiny bit, but I was learning what stars and galaxies were. I still remember learning how stars form, age and die - and that was back when I was so small that my mother was reading to me. 

I think some people have a natural curiosity about science and about how the world works. 





Randy Lafever said:


> What steps did you take to make yourself interested in that field? What aspects of it made you "want to do" it?


----------



## uhtred

It varies a lot. The great majority of the kids in my high school didn't go on to college. At my wife's high school almost all did. 





Randy Lafever said:


> I don't see how that is possible. So you say when you walk down the street that one out of every three guys has a four year degree? How could that be? How many people do you know with a degree? Sometimes you read a statistic and you have to apply common sense with what you know about the world.
> 
> For example, of the Top Ten of my high school class, three of them have earned degrees after fifteen years. The Valedictorian never attended a day of college. Number three died of an overdose while living in her car with her three children.
> 
> Don't recall where I heard the "1 in 20" stat but it certainly fits better with real-world experience than yours.


----------



## uhtred

Maybe a different way to ask the question:

What percentage of false accusations resulting in expulsion relative to number of un-punished rapes do you think is acceptable. My feeling is that the number should well be below 1%. I put it in the same category as better 100 guilty go free, than one innocent be punished. 

I understand that different people have different philosophies on this. What is yours.

The US criminal justice system is indeed unjust, and I believe it is deeply shameful to the country and needs repair. Look up the number of ethnic minorities currently in prison in the US who have *never had a trial*. Or look up the even larger percentage of prisoners who have never been in front of a jury. 

That is from a system where we have a wide range of checks and balances to try to protect the accused. In a university, none of those exist. 


Sexual assault *HAS* been rug-swept, and it is a huge problem. I just do not want to create another huge problem. 

If we really want draconian solutions to rape, we can go to universal surveillance. The technology is available - watch everyone all the time - it becomes almost impossible for anyone to get away with sexual assault, or any other crime for that matter. What is the downside - and how does that compare to the desire to reduce the rate of assaults? 



Needing to attend a school that still has your rapist is bad. Having your dreams ruined by a false accuser is bad. I have no scale on which to weigh these things, now way to say how to trade one against the other. 








wild jade said:


> No, I am not underestimating the seriousness of expulsion, I'm trying to put it into perspective.
> 
> The reality is that most kids who are expelled move on to another school. Their lives are not ruined, even if they think so for a few minutes right after it happened.
> 
> The reality is that there are no "backroom cabals" in schools out to expel young men in droves, based on no evidence. Many who are accused are not found to have done anything wrong, and many found to have done wrong, even egregious wrong, are not expelled at all. They are turned over to the police, and required to write an essay to reflect on their wrongdoing.
> 
> Yes, there are a few high profile cases where outcomes were unjust, and no, the system is not perfect. But neither is the criminal justice system.
> 
> And honestly, the problem of sexual assault has been rug-swept for so long, with people getting away with all sorts of atrocities so that a school can keep its reputation or its winning football team.
> 
> I think a lot of people seriously underestimate how life-ruining it is to attend a school where your rapist is given accolades and a free rein, even while he continues to harass you.


----------



## wild jade

Cletus said:


> Of course there isn't, and I don't think any have suggested this. But there absolutely are well documented extra-judicial boards tasked with determining the outcome of assault cases which do not have to adhere to any criminal code or standard of evidence who will act in the school's best interests. Maybe those will align with the accused or the accuser, and maybe they will not.


Actually, yes, someone upthread did actually call it a backroom cabal, or something similar. And the whole tone of this line of discussion is that crazed feminists who care nothing for railroading innocent men are throwing guys out of university willy nilly.

Sorry, but it doesn't happen that way. Are there cases of injustice? Certainly. Are these bad? Certainly. 

But my main point is that universities are NOT criminally prosecuting anyone. They turn criminal matters over to the police and then need to figure out what to do with respect to their own codes of conduct. 



Cletus said:


> If it isn't life ruining to have to change schools because you were falsely accused of rape, it isn't so life ruining to have to change schools for this reason either. Either one sucks, but you cannot have it both ways.


Are you then suggesting that raping someone is just as traumatic an experience as being raped? 

If it were so, I suspect the problem would have solved itself long ago.


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> Maybe a different way to ask the question:
> 
> What percentage of false accusations resulting in expulsion relative to number of un-punished rapes do you think is acceptable. My feeling is that the number should well be below 1%. I put it in the same category as better 100 guilty go free, than one innocent be punished.
> 
> I understand that different people have different philosophies on this. What is yours.


I don't have the stats on this, but some recent research has shown that roughly 20% of those who are accused AND found guilty are expelled. The only cases I'm aware of with false accusations were identified as such, and it was the accuser that was sanctioned.

If punishment is to write a reflective essay (which is one of the more common sanctions), I really don't think it's that much trauma for someone who is falsely accused. It might even provide them with another platform for which to explain their innocence.

We have this idea in our criminal justice system that it is much much better to have 100 criminals wandering free than to send a single innocent man to jail. And maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't. The reality is that we have both -- criminals who get off and people who are wrongly convicted. 

I agree with you that the wrongful convictions are much, much worse -- for the person who is on trial.

But universities aren't "convicting" people, they aren't sentencing them, sending them to jail, or marking their permanent public record. They are enforcing their own codes of conduct in a situation where you have all sorts of different people, many of them living on site. And they have an obligation to protect everyone, accused and accuser.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> Sorry, but it doesn't happen that way. Are there cases of injustice? Certainly. Are these bad? Certainly.
> 
> But my main point is that universities are NOT criminally prosecuting anyone. They turn criminal matters over to the police and then need to figure out what to do with respect to their own codes of conduct.
> .


Oh, but it does happen that way. When one of these boards refuses to admit relevant evidence that is the action of a cabal, not a legitimate body.

You keep admitting the injustices, and simultaneously arguing that they're not worth considering.

If the justice system does not convict, what makes the U think they can? That would make sense if we were talking about a "different code of conduct" here. We're not. We're talking about whether it happened or not. That the threshold for conduct worthy of expulsion may be lower than the threshold for incarceration in no way implies that the standard of proof of guilt should be any lower.


----------



## personofinterest

"Are you then suggesting that raping someone is just as traumatic an experience as being raped? 

If it were so, I suspect the problem would have solved itself long ago."
Come on, if you work at a University you are way too smart for this period you know perfectly well that is not what he was saying. There are a couple of people on this thread who have thrown out these ridiculous, so are you saying that…, suppositions that illustrate why we can't have a dialog about this. It's basically insulting to imply that's what anyone is sagging, and you know better than that period.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> There was a story in some mainstream media source about a mother who was a lawyer and considered herself a strong feminist; then she got a call from her son at college.....
> 
> One of the things missed in the Gender wars is that women have sons and fathers have daughters. So, the combatants are usually young and childless.
> 
> Those who assume that I don't care about sexual assault of women because I'm a man ignore the fact that I have a wife and and a daughter (just out of college).


The thing that is missing from the "gender war" is the desire to solve problems rather than engage as combatants in said supposed war.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Here is what I am not getting. NO ONE is saying that injustice is good. But injustice exists everywhere. It would be nice if that were not true. But that is a fantasy. I am in no way suggesting that unjustly being expelled is a good thing. But the small incidence of this rising the cry to derail any conversation about what SHOULD be done to address campus rape is baffling to me. By all means, let's solve both problems. HOW? If not affirmative consent, then HOW?


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> I don't have the stats on this, but some recent research has shown that roughly 20% of those who are accused AND found guilty are expelled. The only cases I'm aware of with false accusations were identified as such, and it was the accuser that was sanctioned.
> 
> If punishment is to write a reflective essay (which is one of the more common sanctions), I really don't think it's that much trauma for someone who is falsely accused. It might even provide them with another platform for which to explain their innocence.
> 
> We have this idea in our criminal justice system that it is much much better to have 100 criminals wandering free than to send a single innocent man to jail. And maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't. The reality is that we have both -- criminals who get off and people who are wrongly convicted.
> 
> I agree with you that the wrongful convictions are much, much worse -- for the person who is on trial.
> 
> But universities aren't "convicting" people, they aren't sentencing them, sending them to jail, or marking their permanent public record. They are enforcing their own codes of conduct in a situation where you have all sorts of different people, many of them living on site. And they have an obligation to protect everyone, accused and accuser.


According to the HuffPost (a clearly left leaning source)

30% of students found responsible for sexual assault were expelled and 47% were suspended.

And the tone of the article is that this is not nearly enough and there should be more expulsions.

So, the picture you're trying to paint of rapists being punished by writing essays is a little off the mark.

Then there's the usual obfuscating between sexual assault and rape:

"Yet the fact remains, university expulsion is rare for rape — and other crimes, too."

Which seems to imply that when one is talking about sexual assault, one is talking about rape.

Surely rape (or at least, what we normally consider to be rape) would be reported to the police? 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/campus-sexual-assault_n_5888742.html


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> "Are you then suggesting that raping someone is just as traumatic an experience as being raped?
> 
> If it were so, I suspect the problem would have solved itself long ago."
> Come on, if you work at a University you are way too smart for this period you know perfectly well that is not what he was saying. There are a couple of people on this thread who have thrown out these ridiculous, so are you saying that…, suppositions that illustrate why we can't have a dialog about this. It's basically insulting to imply that's what anyone is sagging, and you know better than that period.


 @wild jade does that sort of thing all the time.

She *must* know better, right?

It's why nothing she says has any weight with me.


----------



## uhtred

The problem is that its difficult to know how many false accusations are never discovered. There are lots of individual cases where someone recants their accusation many years later, but no way I can think of to know the percentages.

If the penalty is writing an essay, or a hundred hours of community service, then while a false accusation is bad, it is not horrifying. When the penalty is expulsion, that can destroy someones dreams, take away from them the life that they wanted. If you have not dedicated your life to academic studies, it may not be clear to you just how bad expulsion can be. There are cases of students committing suicide after being expelled - though again its very difficult to get statistics. 

It still gets to the question though, for various levels of crime and various levels of punishment, what is the ratio of punished innocent, vs un-punished guilty that you will accept. For me that must be much less than 1%. If you believe in a higher number, then we can vote for candidate and policies that support our beliefs. (and argue about it on social media). 

I would like to see criminal accusations handled by the justice system - bad as it is, it is the best we can do to provide equal treatment under the law. I've worked with universities enough to have very little faith in their ability to reject bias and influence - they do not have protections against that. I don't see anything to prevent the child of a wealth donor, or a top professor from being treated differently than a random student. 




wild jade said:


> I don't have the stats on this, but some recent research has shown that roughly 20% of those who are accused AND found guilty are expelled. The only cases I'm aware of with false accusations were identified as such, and it was the accuser that was sanctioned.
> 
> If punishment is to write a reflective essay (which is one of the more common sanctions), I really don't think it's that much trauma for someone who is falsely accused. It might even provide them with another platform for which to explain their innocence.
> 
> We have this idea in our criminal justice system that it is much much better to have 100 criminals wandering free than to send a single innocent man to jail. And maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't. The reality is that we have both -- criminals who get off and people who are wrongly convicted.
> 
> I agree with you that the wrongful convictions are much, much worse -- for the person who is on trial.
> 
> But universities aren't "convicting" people, they aren't sentencing them, sending them to jail, or marking their permanent public record. They are enforcing their own codes of conduct in a situation where you have all sorts of different people, many of them living on site. And they have an obligation to protect everyone, accused and accuser.


----------



## uhtred

OK, How:

Prohibit alcohol on campus and at college social events. Many rapes take place in situation where students are drinking. (i work in a dry workplace, we can live with it). Surely that is less of a problem than risking punishment of innocents. 

That will help a lot, but if it isn't enough, use technology: Put cameras *everywhere*, Encrypted recording cameras accessible with a court order. If there is an accusation of criminal action, a judge can order the videos unlocked, and then a jury can see what actually happened and decide accordingly. We have the technology to do this now, and at a not unreasonable price. It will stop almost all other crime as well. 






NobodySpecial said:


> Here is what I am not getting. NO ONE is saying that injustice is good. But injustice exists everywhere. It would be nice if that were not true. But that is a fantasy. I am in no way suggesting that unjustly being expelled is a good thing. But the small incidence of this rising the cry to derail any conversation about what SHOULD be done to address campus rape is baffling to me. By all means, let's solve both problems. HOW? If not affirmative consent, then HOW?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Here is what I am not getting. NO ONE is saying that injustice is good. But injustice exists everywhere. It would be nice if that were not true. But that is a fantasy. I am in no way suggesting that unjustly being expelled is a good thing. But the small incidence of this rising the cry to derail any conversation about what SHOULD be done to address campus rape is baffling to me. By all means, let's solve both problems. HOW? If not affirmative consent, then HOW?


It would help if those trying to solve the problem acknowledge valid points others are making instead of hand-waving them away. 

If the discussion started with "how do we reduce sexual assault while preserving everyone's due process?", then we'd be able to believe that you're taking our concerns seriously and we could move the conversation forward.

My problem with affirmative consent is that it will do nothing to stop men who purposely sexually assault women. It just adds an additional layer of complications to an already complicated situation.

It might reduce "accidental" sexual assault (done by men who have no idea that their advances are unwelcome). I would have thought that this would best be addressed by the woman saying "No, I don't want you to do that".

After all, of the two people involved, only one of them knows if the woman wants to engage in the activity or not. The clearest solution would seem to be that she should make her views known. If he ignores her and goes ahead, he's the kind of guy who wouldn't have asked for consent in the first place or who would lie and say she did. 

Apparently it's the case that some women find it difficult to say "No". It seems that assertiveness training is called for. Educate young women on how to imagine different scenarios they might find themselves in, prepare their default responses and practice saying "NO" loudly and get comfortable with it. Educate men and women that if they hear someone saying "No" or resisting to get involved or call for help. I think this would generate broad support and those of us opposing laws like affirmative consent will quickly change sides and support the initiative.

If the man doesn't stop immediately, it's sexual assault and he should be reported to the police. If people don't believe that the police are handling these cases properly; then go public, protest, vote, the usual. 

I'm more than open to further discussion on this.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> OK, How:
> 
> Prohibit alcohol on campus and at college social events. Many rapes take place in situation where students are drinking. (i work in a dry workplace, we can live with it). Surely that is less of a problem than risking punishment of innocents.


I endorse this for many reasons.



> That will help a lot, but if it isn't enough, use technology: Put cameras *everywhere*, Encrypted recording cameras accessible with a court order. If there is an accusation of criminal action, a judge can order the videos unlocked, and then a jury can see what actually happened and decide accordingly. We have the technology to do this now, and at a not unreasonable price. It will stop almost all other crime as well.


So pitch all privacy laws? How would one do that?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> So pitch all privacy laws? How would one do that?


I'm a fan of privacy laws.

But the case for recording all activities on college campuses can't be much different than recording employees at work.

Our plant has cameras all over the place, and no court orders are required to review them.


----------



## uhtred

NobodySpecial said:


> snip
> 
> So pitch all privacy laws? How would one do that?


We seem quite happy as a society to change rights for convenience. (see plea bargains, and the large number of prisoners who are being held pre-trial - doesn't really match what the constitution seems to say). 

People are already tracked to a surprising extent. Phones, cars, street cameras, etc. This isn't that big of a step, and I expect we are going there anyway. 

An alternative is that it could be at a person's choice - a wearable recorder (with upload so that it can't be taken). If anything bad happens to the person wearing it, it would be much easier to get a conviction. Hmm, maybe I need to create a startup. It would be socially awkward at first, but people would get over it .

All that said, I'm not actually in favor of universal surveillance - I think the downsides outweigh the advantages, but I think it would work, and since we are tending that direction anyway, I think its worth an open discussion.


----------



## personofinterest

I think at the core of some of this (and other discussion like gun control) is a terrible truth no one wants to admit.....

NOTHING we can do will prevent ALL assault or ALL false accusations. Just like ALL the gun laws in the world will not prevent ALL school shootings, ALL murder, ALL gun crime.

See, we intellectually know this, but emotionally we just can't face it. So we get more and more "Micro" in our attempted management and control over OTHER people's behavior. I put other in all caps because we usually do NOT want such micro-management of our own (a whole other discussion).

Now, obviously, the answer is NOT to just say, "Oh well, we give up." But I think people on both sides of the narrative are operating from the unconscious assumption that if we find the right procedure or words or contract or whatever, NO woman will be assaulted and/or NO man will be falsely accused. And when we start behaving and speaking as if the "other" side's hardship is justifiable collateral damage for MY side's safety....then there's an impasse.

Buddy does make a good point though. In college, I was probably as timid and passive as they come. BUT, like he said, only one of the two people involved REALLY knows if they are consenting or "want it." That would have been me. If I participate without saying no in sexual activity with a peer, I do not pull away or freeze up, etc.......I really CAN'T say later that he didn't get consent. In the kind of situations where false accusations are most likely to occur, the woman really could have said no. Yeah, she could have. Requiring a man to be a mind reader or ask for verbal permission before every tiny escalation are not viable solutions. NO...they aren't.

Part of the viable solution no one wants to acknowledge is that women need to use their voices. I'm sorry, but if someone put a dish I didn't ask for in front of me at a restaurant or someone tried to hard sell me something I didn't need, I would have no trouble saying no....and I'm told by real live people I am overly nice. If a door to door person tries to come in, I can sure say NO.

Surely we can drum up the fortitude to say a CLEAR no when it comes to our bodies.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> We seem quite happy as a society to change rights for convenience. (see plea bargains, and the large number of prisoners who are being held pre-trial - doesn't really match what the constitution seems to say).
> 
> People are already tracked to a surprising extent. Phones, cars, street cameras, etc. This isn't that big of a step, and I expect we are going there anyway.
> 
> An alternative is that it could be at a person's choice - a wearable recorder (with upload so that it can't be taken). If anything bad happens to the person wearing it, it would be much easier to get a conviction. Hmm, maybe I need to create a startup. It would be socially awkward at first, but people would get over it .
> 
> All that said, I'm not actually in favor of universal surveillance - I think the downsides outweigh the advantages, but I think it would work, and since we are tending that direction anyway, I think its worth an open discussion.


So you are suggesting a legislatively impossible way to proceed or throw up ones hands. Is this what I am reading?


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> I think at the core of some of this (and other discussion like gun control) is a terrible truth no one wants to admit.....
> 
> NOTHING we can do will prevent ALL assault or ALL false accusations. Just like ALL the gun laws in the world will not prevent ALL school shootings, ALL murder, ALL gun crime.
> 
> See, we intellectually know this, but emotionally we just can't face it. So we get more and more "Micro" in our attempted management and control over OTHER people's behavior. I put other in all caps because we usually do NOT want such micro-management of our own (a whole other discussion).
> 
> Now, obviously, the answer is NOT to just say, "Oh well, we give up." But *I think people on both sides of the narrative* are operating from the unconscious assumption that if we find the right procedure or words or contract or whatever, NO woman will be assaulted and/or NO man will be falsely accused. And when we start behaving and speaking as if the "other" side's hardship is justifiable collateral damage for MY side's safety....then there's an impasse.


I disagree. I think the narrative has been willing to brush the injustice of mostly women for such a very long time that some real progress is really actually desirable.


----------



## uhtred

No, I'm saying its *not* legislatively impossible, quite the opposite. 

First - banning alcohol doesn't require any laws at all, a college can do it. In fact simply enforcing the existing legal drinking age laws would help a lot. Nothing difficult there and I have no idea why it doesn't happen. Reduce the rate of rapes / assaults and likely reduce the rate of false accusations as well. 


The criminal justice system gets away with a wide range of processes that feel unconstitutional (like imprisoning without a trial). I don't think it would be difficult to legislate around the already weak privacy protections. Colleges can simply put in cameras - attendance at college is voluntary. An argument can be made that since the video is encrypted, there is no privacy violation without a court order. People can certainly carry their own recording cameras as long as they let others know. I don't see this as impossible at all. Why do you think it can't happen?


I think the combination of the above would dramatically reduce sexual assault and a variety of other crimes. It would also dramatically reduce false accusations. What is the downside? 






NobodySpecial said:


> So you are suggesting a legislatively impossible way to proceed or throw up ones hands. Is this what I am reading?


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> I disagree. I think the narrative* has been willing to brush the injustice of mostly women for such a very long tim*e that some real progress is really actually desirable.


I agree with the bolded. However, I get the message loud and clear from some that some feel the way to balance that is to now err on the side of endangering innocent men. There is not even a way for people to deny that insinuation with a straight face. In a less obvious way, it is like the people who killed police in TX who had done NOTHING wrong as some kind of statement against police in other places who might have done something wrong. There is a segment of the discussion who really does feel that if a guy happens to get caught in the crossfire, well, that's the price people with penises have to pay for the past.

No.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> I agree with the bolded. However, I get the message loud and clear from some that some feel the way to balance that is to now err on the side of endangering innocent men. There is not even a way for people to deny that insinuation with a straight face. In a less obvious way, it is like the people who killed police in TX who had done NOTHING wrong as some kind of statement against police in other places who might have done something wrong. There is a segment of the discussion who really does feel that if a guy happens to get caught in the crossfire, well, that's the price people with penises have to pay for the past.
> 
> No.


Sigh. It is challenging, though I attempt to do it, to address your histrionics rationally. It is further challenging to deny that flipping massive **** over false accusations, that is actually not even the point of affirmative consent, has nothing to do with just plain not caring about the problem of sexual assault and rape. Freak and deflect are tactics that work, after all. When your deflection gets reaction, accuse, as you are doing here. There really is no rationale for your you accusation from what is posted on this thread that I have seen.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> Sigh. It is challenging, though I attempt to do it, to address your histrionics rationally. It is further challenging to deny that flipping massive **** over false accusations, that is actually not even the point of affirmative consent, has nothing to do with just plain not caring about the problem of sexual assault and rape. Freak and deflect are tactics that work, after all. When your deflection gets reaction, accuse, as you are doing here. There really is no rationale for your you accusation from what is posted on this thread that I have seen.


If you read my post closely, I did not accuse YOU of being part of the group that feels young men are acceptable collateral damage in the debate. But the fact remains, there are women who feel that way. All one has to do is read various feminist sites to verify that fact.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> If you read my post closely, I did not accuse YOU of being part of the group that feels young men are acceptable collateral damage in the debate. But the fact remains, there are women who feel that way. All one has to do is read various feminist sites to verify that fact.


Oh for pete's sake. Ok. As I said, I am not seeing it here. Nor am I seeing anyone here who is so very concerned about false accusation addressing any meaningful solutions except possibly @uhtred.


----------



## uhtred

The discussion has diverged a bit. Affirmative consent and standards of guilt are not necessarily coupled together, even thought they are discussed together. Either could be changed independently. 

My feelings on the two are different:

I think affirmative consent is fine as long as "affirmative" is not taken to mean "verbal", but can include any action that clearly indicates consent. I think "verbal" consent is far enough outside of typical human behavior that the rules are constantly ignored - as indicated by at least one study of student behavior. 

I do not like weakening the standards of guilt. I only want to consider that when less draconian fixes like banning all alcohol on campus have been applied.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Interestingly there is a State that does ban Alcohol in all state buildings including university dorms. It might be very illuminating to look at the statistics of that state before we try yet another ineffective law. My memory says that it did squat 30 odd years ago.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> So you are suggesting a legislatively impossible way to proceed or throw up ones hands. Is this what I am reading?


No, he isn't. Now I think you're throwing up obstacles just to be difficult.

Colleges could no doubt put up cameras everywhere on campus with no need for legislative approval.

Also, we have to weigh the costs vs benefits. As an example we could save thousands of lives by reducing the speed limit to 10 mph. 

Is that a cost we're willing to bear for the benefit we expect to receive?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I disagree. I think the narrative has been willing to brush the injustice of mostly women for such a very long time that some real progress is really actually desirable.


Do you think any "real" progress has been made over the last 50, 20 or 10 years?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Sigh. It is challenging, though I attempt to do it, to address your histrionics rationally. It is further challenging to deny that flipping massive **** over false accusations, that is actually not even the point of affirmative consent, has nothing to do with just plain not caring about the problem of sexual assault and rape. Freak and deflect are tactics that work, after all. When your deflection gets reaction, accuse, as you are doing here. There really is no rationale for your you accusation from what is posted on this thread that I have seen.


I'm not getting your claim of histrionics.

To be clear, are you in favor of reducing sexual assault or just in favor of affirmative consent whether it is effective or not. You seem to use the two interchangeably as if they are the same thing.

And, do you really need quotes from people saying that innocent men are just collateral damage? That's not a mainstream opinion, but it has been said.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> The discussion has diverged a bit. Affirmative consent and standards of guilt are not necessarily coupled together, even thought they are discussed together. Either could be changed independently.
> 
> My feelings on the two are different:
> 
> I think affirmative consent is fine as long as "affirmative" is not taken to mean "verbal", but can include any action that clearly indicates consent. I think "verbal" consent is far enough outside of typical human behavior that the rules are constantly ignored - as indicated by at least one study of student behavior.
> 
> I do not like weakening the standards of guilt. I only want to consider that when less draconian fixes like banning all alcohol on campus have been applied.


But, if "consent" is determined by reading non-verbal cues, are you really willing to rely on socially awkward men (or, just men, for that matter) to read them correctly?

If consent is going to be a thing, then it has to be verbal to avoid misinterpretations.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> No, he isn't. Now I think you're throwing up obstacles just to be difficult.


Why do you think that? Do you feel that I am being insincere? 



> Colleges could no doubt put up cameras everywhere on campus with no need for legislative approval.


I am surprised by that. I would have thought that it would run afoul of several laws. It certainly would not earn the admitting departments and alumni support any favors.



> Also, we have to weigh the costs vs benefits. As an example we could save thousands of lives by reducing the speed limit to 10 mph.
> 
> Is that a cost we're willing to bear for the benefit we expect to receive?


Let me ask if we are even still talking about the same benefit?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> But, if "consent" is determined by reading non-verbal cues, are you really willing to rely on socially awkward men (or, just men, for that matter) to read them correctly?
> 
> If consent is going to be a thing, then it has to be verbal to avoid misinterpretations.


Ok. I am good with that. Sounds like a decent proposal.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I'm not getting your claim of histrionics.
> 
> To be clear, are you in favor of reducing sexual assault or just in favor of affirmative consent whether it is effective or not. You seem to use the two interchangeably as if they are the same thing.


I don't know what you have read to indicate that I favor affirmative consent if it is not effective. We don't know if would be effective. What would be the purpose of an ineffective solution.



> And, do you really need quotes from people saying that innocent men are just collateral damage? That's not a mainstream opinion, but it has been said.


Has it been said on this board? It seems to me that collateral damage is possible. I really hope not. But seems to be being used as a reason not to let colleges try to deal with rape and sexual assault.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know what you have read to indicate that I favor affirmative consent if it is not effective. We don't know if would be effective. What would be the purpose of an ineffective solution.


I didn't know if you favored affirmative consent whether it worked or not.

That's why I asked.

You seem to refer to affirmative consent as something known to prevent sexual assault and you seem talk about it more that what it's intended to solve.



NobodySpecial said:


> Has it been said on this board? It seems to me that collateral damage is possible. I really hope not. *But seems to be being used as a reason not to let colleges try to deal with rape and sexual assault*.


Is the possible collateral damage to civilians a reason to not let the military drop a bomb on a terrorist leader? 

Maybe.

I think affirmative consent is unworkable, will do nothing to reduce sexual assault and will actually be counterproductive.

I am in favor of women not being sexually assaulted and in favor of men who sexually assault women being punished (assuming that we have a clear, agreed upon definition of what sexual assault consists of).

If my favorite team's manager refuses to play my favorite player (who I think gives my team the best chance to win games),* it's not because the manager doesn't want to win games. It's because he has a different view of the player's usefulness than I do.
*
Just because I don't agree with you about the effectiveness of your prefered tactic in the war against sexual assault doesn't mean that I don't share your goal.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I didn't know if you favored affirmative consent whether it worked or not.
> 
> That's why I asked.
> 
> You seem to refer to affirmative consent as something known to prevent sexual assault and you seem talk about it more that what it's intended to solve.


I guess what I would wonder from you or anyone would be how will we know if it would work and whether or not there are any other thoughts out there that might.

I love Uhtred's idea of clamping down on the alcohol culture though not really specifically only for this reason. There is a lot there. That won't do much for the current cultural attitudes around sexuality in the US, but it will stop a lot of really stupid and dangerous behavior of idiot kids let off leash for the first time.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess what I would wonder from you or anyone would be how will we know if it would work and whether or not there are any other thoughts out there that might.


I believe that "No means No!" and assertiveness training for young women would be the most effective solution. 

Honestly.

I was actually a bit surprised when I first started hearing (probably here on TAM) that women often felt uncomfortable saying "No" to sex and sometimes found themselves having sex that they did not want.

There'd been so much talk (positive, in my opinion) with the onset of feminism about women owning their own bodies, not having sex unless they really want to; not "owing" anybody sex, that I assumed that, if this was a problem, it was a problem of the past.

But, increasingly, I hear how much of a problem it is for women (and I believe it).

In most of the borderline cases ** that I have read about, it seems that the common thread is that women had sex when they really didn't want to (or had their reservations but they didn't crystallize until later).

I can see that this is a problem.

So, we can work on getting guys to do a better job of reading women's non-verbal cues to determine if the woman wants to have sex with him. Or we can try to completely change how the mating dance has worked for men and women for generations, knowing that doing so will do nothing to deter a man determined to engage in sexual assault. 

Or, we can work on getting women to be more assertive about their desires (which will help everywhere else, including asking for that well deserved raise).

It's easy to implement. The rules are clear and unambiguous. We don't need to try to change centuries old patterns of human behavior.

It just seems like a no-brainer. 

** In situations where the woman HAS made it very clear (verbally or via physical resistance) that she didn't want sex and the man continued anyway, there seems to me to be general agreement that this is clearly wrong and I'm not sure what needs to be solved or discussed.


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy400 said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I would wonder from you or anyone would be how will we know if it would work and whether or not there are any other thoughts out there that might.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that "No means No!" and assertiveness training for young women would be the most effective solution.
> 
> Honestly.
> 
> I was actually a bit surprised when I first started hearing (probably here on TAM) that women often felt uncomfortable saying "No" to sex and sometimes found themselves having sex that they did not want.
> 
> There'd been so much talk (positive, in my opinion) with the onset of feminism about women owning their own bodies, not having sex unless they really want to; not "owing" anybody sex, that I assumed that, if this was a problem, it was a problem of the past.
> 
> But, increasingly, I hear how much of a problem it is for women (and I believe it).
> 
> In most of the borderline cases ** that I have read about, it seems that the common thread is that women had sex when they really didn't want to (or had their reservations but they didn't crystallize until later).
> 
> I can see that this is a problem.
> 
> So, we can work on getting guys to do a better job of reading women's non-verbal cues to determine if the woman wants to have sex with him. Or we can try to completely change how the mating dance has worked for men and women for generations, knowing that doing so will do nothing to deter a man determined to engage in sexual assault.
> 
> Or, we can work on getting women to be more assertive about their desires (which will help everywhere else, including asking for that well deserved raise).
> 
> It's easy to implement. The rules are clear and unambiguous. We don't need to try to change centuries old patterns of human behavior.
> 
> It just seems like a no-brainer.
> 
> ** In situations where the woman HAS made it very clear (verbally or via physical resistance) that she didn't want sex and the man continued anyway, there seems to me to be general agreement that this is clearly wrong and I'm not sure what needs to be solved or discussed.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> Interestingly there is a State that does ban Alcohol in all state buildings including university dorms. It might be very illuminating to look at the statistics of that state before we try yet another ineffective law. My memory says that it did squat 30 odd years ago.


What state? Do we know anything about enforcement? Just curious. A law written is not always a law enforced. I would love to read about this. (Speaking of this fun little non-sequitur fact. Apparently sodomy is still illegal on the books in some states.)


----------



## PigglyWiggly

How much of this could be solved if parents actually talked about sex with their kids? So many girls get taught abstinence only (abysmal failure) and to wait until marriage (kids aren't doing that) . If you do those things, parents don't really need to talk about consent but that isn't how the real world works. There is so much shame around sex for many that kids don't feel they can talk about sex with the people who should want them most to be informed properly, their parents. Many girls are terrified of the consequences and shame they will receive if their parents find out they had sex that the cry of "rape" or coercion becomes the easier choice. IMO


----------



## uhtred

Do you know if they enforce it? If so, then yet, it would be very interesting to see the numbers. 




Mr. Nail said:


> Interestingly there is a State that does ban Alcohol in all state buildings including university dorms. It might be very illuminating to look at the statistics of that state before we try yet another ineffective law. My memory says that it did squat 30 odd years ago.


----------



## uhtred

Many people with many different opinions, so people need to be careful not to convolve my opinions with other ones that might not be compatible. (end disclaimer). So my feeling on consent is:

I like a sort of "defense in depth". In other words when a couple is engaged in intimate activities, each should only continue if the other is by words or actions indicating an active desire to continue. In the case where the other parties actions are honestly misinterpreted as providing consent when they do not, then I believe the person who is not consenting should provide a clear verbal "stop". 

In order for the above to work, no one should without clear prior arrangement, have sex with someone who is unable to verbally ask you to stop due to intoxication, or other impediments, nor should anyone have sex with someone where there is some sort of implied thread or power imbalance unless this has been clearly discussed first. 

I think that human sexual interactions are too complex for there to be a set of rules that always apply, but I also think that the majority of people will agree on whether or not there was consent IF they agree on what actions actually happened. Most disagreements I've see are disagreeing over what happened, not over whether or not a particular set of actions constituted consent. (in real life situations, not hypothetical situations that people set up). 


Written consent doesn't work because there is no way to demonstrate if it has been withdrawn. 

Verbal consent is not as well defined as people think because reasonable people may disagree on which specific actions require verbal consent. Verbal non-consent, eg "stop" should always be clear in all situation. 









Buddy400 said:


> But, if "consent" is determined by reading non-verbal cues, are you really willing to rely on socially awkward men (or, just men, for that matter) to read them correctly?
> 
> If consent is going to be a thing, then it has to be verbal to avoid misinterpretations.


----------



## uhtred

I think that there is an important place for assertiveness training for women. In particular there seem to be a lot of cases where a woman felt she *had* to have sex, or *owed* sex because of a situation, even when there was not threat or implied threat. Its OK for someone to feel that they want to provide sex in return for a favor - but they should never feel compelled. 

Similarly I think men need to get out of the mindset that the function of dating is sex, and that if they take a woman on a nice date they are *owed* sex. Its OK to hope for sex, its also OK not to date a person again if they don't have sex with you, but unless you have made a financial transaction with a sex worker, sex isn't owed.


----------



## RandomDude

uhtred said:


> I think that there is an important place for assertiveness training for women. In particular there seem to be a lot of cases where a woman felt she *had* to have sex, or *owed* sex because of a situation, even when there was not threat or implied threat. Its OK for someone to feel that they want to provide sex in return for a favor - but they should never feel compelled.
> 
> Similarly I think men need to get out of the mindset that the function of dating is sex, and that if they take a woman on a nice date they are *owed* sex. Its OK to hope for sex, its also OK not to date a person again if they don't have sex with you, but unless you have made a financial transaction with a sex worker, sex isn't owed.


Agreed, both points.



PigglyWiggly said:


> How much of this could be solved if parents actually talked about sex with their kids? So many girls get taught abstinence only (abysmal failure) and to wait until marriage (kids aren't doing that) . If you do those things, parents don't really need to talk about consent but that isn't how the real world works. There is so much shame around sex for many that kids don't feel they can talk about sex with the people who should want them most to be informed properly, their parents. *Many girls are terrified of the consequences and shame they will receive if their parents find out they had sex that the cry of "rape" or coercion becomes the easier choice. IMO*


Pretty much.

So if parent's cant do it, the state needs to pick up the slack. Which are they doing?

And if they are, are they doing a good job?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> I believe that "No means No!" and assertiveness training for young women would be the most effective solution.
> 
> In some areas this would be very helpful. But it is only a part. It does not address the cases like the Turner case. She had said no earlier in the evening to his advances. This is a kid who was raised by a dude who made a comment about a punishment for his son's 20 minutes of fun. Well it wasn't even intercourse... Not only did he say this out loud, he had vocal support for it. Oh poor kid! The lose of his education! His swimming career! Oh sure. Why didn't she just not drink so much. (Why did she wear what she wore? Hell, go to a party at all?...) Why didn't he just NOT RAPE HER??
> 
> Then there is the recent case of a doc who raped someone under conscious sedation. What IS a skinny dork to do when presented with a lovely Latina with big fake boobs? How about NOT RAPE HER?
> 
> We really have not gotten very far past the boys will be boys conversation. I chuckle to myself that in another thread that a poster is talking about how great it is when women act as sexual gatekeepers to raise and civilize them from their neanderthal selves. No really, men can't help it. That is bull ****.


Honestly.

I was actually a bit surprised when I first started hearing (probably here on TAM) that women often felt uncomfortable saying "No" to sex and sometimes found themselves having sex that they did not want.
[/quote]
Right? It is just as simple as that. As always, girls be wiser, smarter, more in tune than your hairy, stupid male counterparts. Why don't you just understand issues of people in authority over your? Hell be born knowing how to navigate the weird sea of social acceptance.



> There'd been so much talk (positive, in my opinion) with the onset of feminism about women owning their own bodies,  not having sex unless they really want to; not "owing" anybody sex, that I assumed that, if this was a problem, it was a problem of the past.
> 
> But, increasingly, I hear how much of a problem it is for women (and I believe it).


Some stuff is working then! That is the desired first step! Don't know what. A close friend of mine works at a rape crisis center. Their motto is that when someone comes to them BELIEVE THEM. This still does not remain a very popular position.



> In most of the borderline cases ** that I have read about, it seems that the common thread is that women had sex when they really didn't want to (or had their reservations but they didn't crystallize until later).
> 
> I can see that this is a problem.
> 
> So, we can work on getting guys to do a better job of reading women's non-verbal cues to determine if the woman wants to have sex with him. Or we can try to completely change how the mating dance has worked for men and women for generations, knowing that doing so will do nothing to deter a man determined to engage in sexual assault.


Here are the lines that many men don't see. There is not that huge gap between a man who will (huge horrible monster who will pin you down whatever your desire) and the men who continue to see women as objects. It does not seem that impossible to me to raise men with enough self respect to be disinterested in anything but a genuine enthusiastic yes. Maybe my hope in mankind is misplaced. But I don't think so.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I think that there is an important place for assertiveness training for women. In particular there seem to be a lot of cases where a woman felt she *had* to have sex, or *owed* sex because of a situation, even when there was not threat or implied threat. Its OK for someone to feel that they want to provide sex in return for a favor - but they should never feel compelled.
> 
> Similarly I think men need to get out of the mindset that the function of dating is sex, and that if they take a woman on a nice date they are *owed* sex. Its OK to hope for sex, its also OK not to date a person again if they don't have sex with you, but unless you have made a financial transaction with a sex worker, sex isn't owed.


Hearts Uhtred. That would be a damned good start.


----------



## wild jade

NobodySpecial said:


> Here is what I am not getting. NO ONE is saying that injustice is good. But injustice exists everywhere. It would be nice if that were not true. But that is a fantasy. I am in no way suggesting that unjustly being expelled is a good thing. But the small incidence of this rising the cry to derail any conversation about what SHOULD be done to address campus rape is baffling to me. By all means, let's solve both problems. HOW? If not affirmative consent, then HOW?


Yes, exactly! And thank you for saying it much better than I can.


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> I would like to see criminal accusations handled by the justice system - bad as it is, it is the best we can do to provide equal treatment under the law. I've worked with universities enough to have very little faith in their ability to reject bias and influence - they do not have protections against that. I don't see anything to prevent the child of a wealth donor, or a top professor from being treated differently than a random student.


No one is saying otherwise. Yes, criminal justice matters should be handled by the criminal justice system. No question. But meanwhile, the university has codes of conduct that they must address.

So, for example, assuming the person is charged with rape. Should they be allowed to go to class? Finish their exams? If the accuser happens to be in the same class or involved in the same lab or project group, should they be forced to continue working with the accused? What happens when the accused goes to jail? Do they get to finish the term from there? Suspended for the length of the sentence?

These are not matters that can be handled by the police.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> uhtred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that there is an important place for assertiveness training for women. In particular there seem to be a lot of cases where a woman felt she *had* to have sex, or *owed* sex because of a situation, even when there was not threat or implied threat. Its OK for someone to feel that they want to provide sex in return for a favor - but they should never feel compelled.
> 
> Similarly I think men need to get out of the mindset that the function of dating is sex, and that if they take a woman on a nice date they are *owed* sex. Its OK to hope for sex, its also OK not to date a person again if they don't have sex with you, but unless you have made a financial transaction with a sex worker, sex isn't owed.
> 
> 
> 
> Hearts Uhtred. That would be a damned good start.
Click to expand...

 U, I want to admire you for the apparently very rare capacity to have a balanced view of this period it really is possible to acknowledge one gender without dismissing the other. I didn't read a single but in there that invalidated everything you said before it. This is how people have a dialogue.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Or, we can work on getting women to be more assertive about their desires (which will help everywhere else, including asking for that well deserved raise).
> 
> It's easy to implement. The rules are clear and unambiguous. We don't need to try to change centuries old patterns of human behavior.
> 
> It just seems like a no-brainer.
> 
> ** In situations where the woman HAS made it very clear (verbally or via physical resistance) that she didn't want sex and the man continued anyway, there seems to me to be general agreement that this is clearly wrong and I'm not sure what needs to be solved or discussed.


So let's go back to talking about consent and responsibility. 

Yes, women should be assertive about their desires, and if a guy presses beyond them she should fight him off. Agree that this is a no-brainer.

But can we talk about the guy for a moment? At what point is he responsible? 

@RandomDude told us a story about how his gf was assaulted, but she fought the guy off. Now it sounds to me like she won't press charges, just chalk it up to experience and move on with life. But could she? Should she? She did say no, after all, and then had to resort to some sort of physical skirmish to get him off her. Is he guilty of something? Should he be held responsible? Or if she were to accuse would it be false? 

What about the rape rooms on campus? True, the girls shouldn't have come to the party, they certainly shouldn't have gotten that drunk, and when they were that drunk, should have gone home instead of passing out on site. They most definitely bear responsibility for that. But are the guys who took advantage of that situation guilty of anything? Would your answer differ if they had taken extra action to ensure that the girls would get that wasted (eg adding overproof alcohol or drugs into the mix)? Would those women be justified in making charges? 

And what should the universities do about that? Just keep educating the women, hoping they can shoulder all of the responsibility?


----------



## personofinterest

I'll come back when I find any post on this thread where someone said a man does not bear responsibility. That is a straw man, pun intended period of course a man who has sex with a woman without consent is responsible for it. Here's the deal with consent… if you are giving it, the man need to know you are. If you are not giving it, the man need to know you are not. If you keep kissing and keep going and keep getting unclothed and keep participating… how in holy hill is the man supposed to know that you are not consenting??? I actually think some women expect a man to be a mind reader. He is not. So if I kiss a man and let him take my clothes off and moan and have sex with him… I'm sorry, if I wake up and decide I wasn't in the mood after all it's too late. To badd. Men need to be good at hearing women, but men are not psychic.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> So let's go back to talking about consent and responsibility.
> 
> Yes, women should be assertive about their desires, and if a guy presses beyond them she should fight him off. Agree that this is a no-brainer.
> 
> But can we talk about the guy for a moment? At what point is he responsible?
> 
> @RandomDude told us a story about how his gf was assaulted, but she fought the guy off. Now it sounds to me like she won't press charges, just chalk it up to experience and move on with life. But could she? Should she? She did say no, after all, and then had to resort to some sort of physical skirmish to get him off her. Is he guilty of something? Should he be held responsible? Or if she were to accuse would it be false?
> 
> What about the rape rooms on campus? True, the girls shouldn't have come to the party, they certainly shouldn't have gotten that drunk, and when they were that drunk, should have gone home instead of passing out on site. They most definitely bear responsibility for that. But are the guys who took advantage of that situation guilty of anything? Would your answer differ if they had taken extra action to ensure that the girls would get that wasted (eg adding overproof alcohol or drugs into the mix)? Would those women be justified in making charges?
> 
> And what should the universities do about that? Just keep educating the women, hoping they can shoulder all of the responsibility?


Wow. Has _anybody _here suggested that the boys are not responsible in a rape room case? Ditto a case in which the woman has to physically beat off her attacker?


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> OK, How:
> 
> Prohibit alcohol on campus and at college social events. Many rapes take place in situation where students are drinking. (i work in a dry workplace, we can live with it). Surely that is less of a problem than risking punishment of innocents.
> 
> That will help a lot, but if it isn't enough, use technology: Put cameras *everywhere*, Encrypted recording cameras accessible with a court order. If there is an accusation of criminal action, a judge can order the videos unlocked, and then a jury can see what actually happened and decide accordingly. We have the technology to do this now, and at a not unreasonable price. It will stop almost all other crime as well.


Clamping down on the alcohol culture is a good idea. Unfortunately, something being illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. Remember that a lot of these kids are actually under the legal drinking age already.

Also, imagine the outcry if kids hopes, dreams and lives were ruined just because they were expelled for having a couple of drinks.

As for cameras, the UK shows us that even with crazy amounts of coverage, there are still black spots. And we can't be putting cameras into people's bedrooms (which is essentially what a residence or frat house is).


----------



## Mr. Nail

HOW? If not affirmative consent, then HOW? This question is much more interesting than the question I was asked (x2). Of course the answer is right here on TAM. I saw it just yesterday.

"don't do it at all" sex that is.


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Wow. Has _anybody _here suggested that the boys are not responsible in a rape room case? Ditto a case in which the woman has to physically beat off her attacker?


I'm trying to point out that there is actually a *lot* to discuss beyond "tell women to say no louder and more forcefully".

No one, for example, jumped forward and suggested that @RandomDude advise his gf to press charges against that guy. 

But can I assume, then, that we all agree here that this guy is in fact guilty of assault, even though no charges were ever laid??

(Personally, I see this as classic grey zone case, but am definitely open to being persuaded that it is clear cut assault)


----------



## wild jade

personofinterest said:


> "Are you then suggesting that raping someone is just as traumatic an experience as being raped?
> 
> If it were so, I suspect the problem would have solved itself long ago."
> Come on, if you work at a University you are way too smart for this period you know perfectly well that is not what he was saying. There are a couple of people on this thread who have thrown out these ridiculous, so are you saying that…, suppositions that illustrate why we can't have a dialog about this. It's basically insulting to imply that's what anyone is sagging, and you know better than that period.


I was only trying to point out that being raped and then treated unjustly is double the trauma of just being treated unjustly. 

Although, in retrospect my choice of wording was abysmal, so you're right to call me out.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> U, I want to admire you for the apparently very rare capacity to have a balanced view of this period it really is possible to acknowledge one gender without dismissing the other. I didn't read a single but in there that invalidated everything you said before it. This is how people have a dialogue.


Ayuh to this is how to have a dialog. To add onto that thought thread, there was a convo somewhere, I don't remember if it was this thread or not, about what does kissing mean. I said kissing doesn't *mean *anything other than we are kissing right now. *I* had said this as a DUH like this is obvious. A poster responded with yah I had never really thought of that. Kudos to the open mind! BUT in the topic of responsibility, I would think that females should not have to have the responsibility to unpack ever dude's assumptions about hidden meanings. That is why I reject the notions on threads of things like how many dates until sex and measuring a person's worth through their gate keeping qualities... Or what is the proper progression in dating from this milestone to the next milestone. The dialog of dating, sexuality and romance should be around hey who are you and how are you feeling? We are two people looking for stuff, are we looking for the same things? Incidentally, that is why I hate the notion of rejection. Too many people attribute a worth or value to being accepted into a relationship as some kind of personal measurement. Not healthy. And yes, part of this social discussion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

wild jade said:


> Clamping down on the alcohol culture is a good idea. Unfortunately, something being illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. Remember that a lot of these kids are actually under the legal drinking age already.


Enforcement is a joke.


----------



## NobodySpecial

wild jade said:


> So let's go back to talking about consent and responsibility.
> 
> Yes, women should be assertive about their desires, and if a guy presses beyond them she should fight him off. Agree that this is a no-brainer.
> 
> But can we talk about the guy for a moment? At what point is he responsible?
> 
> @RandomDude told us a story about how his gf was assaulted, but she fought the guy off. Now it sounds to me like she won't press charges, just chalk it up to experience and move on with life. But could she? Should she? She did say no, after all, and then had to resort to some sort of physical skirmish to get him off her. Is he guilty of something? Should he be held responsible? Or if she were to accuse would it be false?
> 
> What about the rape rooms on campus?


No one, let me repeat NO ONE, is asserting that the sick a$$ dudes are not responsible for this. I did not even know this was a thing. I just googled campus rape room and came up with nothing.



> True, the girls shouldn't have come to the party, they certainly shouldn't have gotten that drunk, and when they were that drunk, should have gone home instead of passing out on site.


Why? Why should a female not go to a party? Why should a female accept responsibility for someone else' behavior when they get drunk? I am by no means suggesting that getting drunk is a good social plan. But it is a regular learning experience for boys. Why does our dialog include holding her responsible for what would otherwise be a normal young adult social mistake for a boy?



> They most definitely bear responsibility for that.


Yeah. They bear responsibility for puking on themselves and the five alarm hangover. Period.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> I'll come back when I find any post on this thread where someone said a man does not bear responsibility. That is a straw man, pun intended period of course a man who has sex with a woman without consent is responsible for it. Here's the deal with consent… if you are giving it, the man need to know you are. If you are not giving it, the man need to know you are not. If you keep kissing and keep going and keep getting unclothed and keep participating… how in holy hill is the man supposed to know that you are not consenting??? I actually think some women expect a man to be a mind reader. He is not. So if I kiss a man and let him take my clothes off and moan and have sex with him… I'm sorry, if I wake up and decide I wasn't in the mood after all it's too late. To badd. Men need to be good at hearing women, but men are not psychic.


I don't know how prevalent this situation is. But I can think of another. You're making out. Guy starts feeling inside and attempting to remove clothes. Woa woa woa slow down. So you push hands away. Your mind is saying, did I lead him on? DO I owe him? Then when you say no wait. There is the hopeful reaction. Oh hey, whatcha thinking? How are you feeling? That is not even the most common reaction. Reactions can be But if you loved me... You b!tch you lead me on! ... This is not some weird fantasy that I am living in or projecting from my past. This has already happened to my 14 year old daughter. Being quite open minded and confident, she had no trouble saying yah f you and the horse you rode in on. But many girls this age and older would not have had the poise that she did. Would want the status of the "boyfriend"... But girls are not supposed to be young and learning, right? They are supposed to already know all **** and be responsible for young men too.

So what then is then is the education for our young people (and our older people who never "got it")? For our girls, be happy and confident ON YOUR OWN. You are not measured by your acquisition of a male. Lonely? Get a dog. (Trust me, they are WAY easier than most men.) Want to get laid? Get laid. 

For our boys? Girls are not responsible for controlling your urges. YOU ARE. You are responsible for your attention in math class, and their attire distracting you is not a decent excuse. You are freakin awesome. Your worth is not based on what girl you get with and how hot she is. (My daughter, rightly I think, has determined that that is what has been forefront on the minds of these boys, not their powerful hormones.) If you need release, there are many ways to achieve that. NO YOU WON'T GO blind, go to hell, loose your hand... Have the self respect to know and care when someone wants YOU enthusiastically, genuinely and hotly.


----------



## uhtred

Yes - because the key word is *charged*, not convicted. It is up to the courts to decide if someone represents a risk to society. 

I don't see what else to do. False accusations are quite rare, but they do happen. I don't want to do irreversible harm to someone without due process - and kicking someone out of school does irreversible harm. When I was a student I was very poor, and surviving on grants, loans and scholarships. Those would have disappeared if I had been kicked out of school for what is often *years* between a charge, and a trial for a felony. How could I have been given that part of my life back if it turned out that the accusation was false? Restarting school after a gap of years is very difficult - financial issues, getting back into the mode of continuous study etc. Schools have limited slots for students, they can't just keep one open for when a student finishes their trial and is ready to come back to school. 

If the accused is put in jail before trial, then the courts have determined that they are a threat. (though I think the long delays in US trials are unacceptable). 

If the accused is *convicted*, then they go to prison, and I really don't care much what happens to their lives. 

False accusations of all types are quite rare - but not zero. Various sources suggests false accusation rates in the 2% to 7% range, but are of course highly unreliable. Those are small numbers, but not small enough to meet my <1% criteria for punishing the innocent vs non-punishing the guilty.

At the same time I really do recognize the problem of someone needing to attend class with someone who raped them. I just don't know how to avoid doing something horrible in either direction. So that is why I push for alcohol limits, increase surveillance, etc, I want to change the game, rather than push up and back on the victim / accused's rights .


I think part of the disagreement comes from my lack of faith in universities - and that comes from personal experience. There is a huge amount of bias and influence in university systems - and nothing to protect against that. From the outside there may be an image of honest academics pursuing knowledge, but in reality universities are deeply political and complex social networks. There is nothing that prevents bias based on wealthy donor parents, or important professors. If cases were judged by a completely independent board with no ties to the university, I might be convinced it is OK. Better though would be to fix our criminal justice system so that trial happened in weeks, not years. 





wild jade said:


> No one is saying otherwise. Yes, criminal justice matters should be handled by the criminal justice system. No question. But meanwhile, the university has codes of conduct that they must address.
> 
> So, for example, assuming the person is charged with rape. Should they be allowed to go to class? Finish their exams? If the accuser happens to be in the same class or involved in the same lab or project group, should they be forced to continue working with the accused? What happens when the accused goes to jail? Do they get to finish the term from there? Suspended for the length of the sentence?
> 
> These are not matters that can be handled by the police.


----------



## uhtred

I think someone is responsible for sexual assault at the point where they continue after the other person tells them to stop, or if the other person is unable (eg due to intoxication) to give consent, or if the situation involves a power imbalance that might make the other person unwilling to say stop. (with the usual caveats about prior agreements etc).

I think people *should* not continue sexual activity if they don't have clear signs of active consent from their partners. 





wild jade said:


> So let's go back to talking about consent and responsibility.
> 
> Yes, women should be assertive about their desires, and if a guy presses beyond them she should fight him off. Agree that this is a no-brainer.
> 
> But can we talk about the guy for a moment? At what point is he responsible?
> snip
> [


----------



## uhtred

I think universities could do a lot more to stop alcohol use if they wanted to - most places the rules are really not taken seriously. There are penalties other than expulsion that could be used for drinking. Frat houses can be broken up and students moved to dorms. Students can be required to do university community service etc. Right now though, its just not taken seriously unless something terrible happens.


Why can't we put (encrypted) cameras in people's bedrooms? We are discussing a problem that has persisted for ages, its time to think outside of the box for solutions. If the cameras are encrypted, keys only available with a court order, what is the issue? (I find the idea disturbing, but on thinking about it, what is the actual problem?)







wild jade said:


> Clamping down on the alcohol culture is a good idea. Unfortunately, something being illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. Remember that a lot of these kids are actually under the legal drinking age already.
> 
> Also, imagine the outcry if kids hopes, dreams and lives were ruined just because they were expelled for having a couple of drinks.
> 
> As for cameras, the UK shows us that even with crazy amounts of coverage, there are still black spots. And we can't be putting cameras into people's bedrooms (which is essentially what a residence or frat house is).


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I think universities could do a lot more to stop alcohol use if they wanted to - most places the rules are really not taken seriously. There are penalties other than expulsion that could be used for drinking. Frat houses can be broken up and students moved to dorms. Students can be required to do university community service etc. Right now though, its just not taken seriously unless something terrible happens.


Worse than not taken seriously, issues are swept under the rug. It is a direct risk to alumni donation. Many alumna recall their party days fondly. A case at my Alma mater of an under aged drinker dying from alcohol poisoning had a BIG rug sweep attempt until they were uncovered and prosecuted.


----------



## uhtred

Yes, and it brings up an additional issue: some of the problems at universities have to do with the attitudes of *previous* generations. Some of the decades old frat culture is a bad influence on the present day. I expect that in addition to alcohol issues, it may impact views on sexual assault, which is taken much more seriously now than it was 20 years ago. 




NobodySpecial said:


> Worse than not taken seriously, issues are swept under the rug. It is a direct risk to alumni donation. Many alumna recall their party days fondly. A case at my Alma mater of an under aged drinker dying from alcohol poisoning had a BIG rug sweep attempt until they were uncovered and prosecuted.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know how prevalent this situation is. But I can think of another. You're making out. Guy starts feeling inside and attempting to remove clothes. Woa woa woa slow down. So you push hands away. Your mind is saying, did I lead him on? DO I owe him? Then when you say no wait. There is the hopeful reaction. Oh hey, whatcha thinking? How are you feeling? That is not even the most common reaction. Reactions can be But if you loved me... You b!tch you lead me on! ... This is not some weird fantasy that I am living in or projecting from my past. This has already happened to my 14 year old daughter. Being quite open minded and confident, she had no trouble saying yah f you and the horse you rode in on. But many girls this age and older would not have had the poise that she did. Would want the status of the "boyfriend"... But girls are not supposed to be young and learning, right? They are supposed to already know all **** and be responsible for young men too.
> 
> So what then is then is the education for our young people (and our older people who never "got it")? For our girls, be happy and confident ON YOUR OWN. You are not measured by your acquisition of a male. Lonely? Get a dog. (Trust me, they are WAY easier than most men.) Want to get laid? Get laid.
> 
> For our boys? Girls are not responsible for controlling your urges. YOU ARE. You are responsible for your attention in math class, and their attire distracting you is not a decent excuse. You are freakin awesome. Your worth is not based on what girl you get with and how hot she is. (My daughter, rightly I think, has determined that that is what has been forefront on the minds of these boys, not their powerful hormones.) If you need release, there are many ways to achieve that. NO YOU WON'T GO blind, go to hell, loose your hand... Have the self respect to know and care when someone wants YOU enthusiastically, genuinely and hotly.


First, I am sorry that happened to your daughter. What a jackass turd boy!

But as for the scenario in abstract, that situation is clear. She said no. Once a man hears a no, he keeps going at his own peril. If I was on a "tribunal" and the guy said, "well, she eventually let me," and the girl said, "I told him no twice, but then when he tried feeling me up again I gave up," that situation is clear. She said no. He kept going. He's guilty.

But if she said, "I felt kinda weird, but ya know, I didn't wanna disappoint him, so I didn't really say anything and I went ahead and let him," then sorry....he's not guilty of anything except not being in Dionne Warwick's psychic network.

If someone doesn't agree that the second one is NOT assault.....then we've got issues that I don't think CAN be solved without a shifted paradigm. And, of course, if someone disagrees that the first scenario is clear....I hope to God you never come near my daughter. Stick to used cars


----------



## personofinterest

> Why? Why should a female not go to a party? Why should a female accept responsibility for someone else' behavior when they get drunk? I am by no means suggesting that getting drunk is a good social plan. But it is a regular learning experience for boys. Why does our dialog include holding her responsible for what would otherwise be a normal young adult social mistake for a boy?


I just now read this. YEP. There is nothing about intoxication that reads "consent." Nothing. If you know a girl is drunk and you mess with her anyway....you pretty much deserve what you get. It's 2018 and I assume you have internet and watch the news. Don't do it. Guys who do this get zero sympathy. And yes, I know girls can do it too. But those stories haven't been all over the news.


----------



## Buddy400

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Wow. Has _anybody _here suggested that the boys are not responsible in a rape room case? Ditto a case in which the woman has to physically beat off her attacker?


No.

I would have been outraged if I'd seen anyone suggest they weren't.

That's what's so weird to me. I can't imagine anyone thinking that any man on this site (with more than a single post) would NOT hold them responsible.

And yet.....


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> First, I am sorry that happened to your daughter. What a jackass turd boy!
> 
> But as for the scenario in abstract, that situation is clear. She said no. Once a man hears a no, he keeps going at his own peril.


Sure. But (haaaa you knew that was coming). One you are the girl. You aren't armed to respond to those reactions. Two if a girl says no in the woods with no one to hear, did it really happen? Survey says NO.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> Sure. But (haaaa you knew that was coming). One you are the girl. You aren't armed to respond to those reactions. Two if a girl says no in the woods with no one to hear, did it really happen? Survey says NO.


Sadly, this is a situation a lot like "what if I accidentally date a psycho and she makes something up????"

I don't think there is a policy we can implement that will prevent a jackass from saying that a woman didn't say no. I honestly do not think we can prevent anyone from ever having their no denied in court or in a campus panel meeting. Just like women lie due to morning after regret at times, there are guys who heard the no and will deny it was said. These people are like the criminal who illegally obtains a gun in a back alley when he is forbidden by law from purchasing one. How do you prevent that?

If part of the problem is that girls are not armed to make those responses....then let's arm them! Let's start teaching them young that their no matters, that sex is never "owed," that a man who pushes after they say stop is not a good man. But I think we also need to help them frame their thinking on sex in general in a clear way as well. Is sex special? Is sex something you do with everybody? Do you want to meet a guy and be in bed an hour later? Do you need some time and feelings? This of course will differ some individually. But my kids and I talked through all of those things. Because the way we "treat" sex will affect how clear we are or how well we understand others.

And this applies to men AND women.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> No one is saying otherwise. Yes, criminal justice matters should be handled by the criminal justice system. No question. But meanwhile, the university has codes of conduct that they must address.
> 
> So, for example, assuming the person is charged with rape. Should they be allowed to go to class? Finish their exams? If the accuser happens to be in the same class or involved in the same lab or project group, should they be forced to continue working with the accused? What happens when the accused goes to jail? Do they get to finish the term from there? Suspended for the length of the sentence?
> 
> These are not matters that can be handled by the police.


This can be tricky. In other situations where someone is accused of a crime, what happens?

If they're charged with a crime but out on bail, can they be fired from their job?

Many poor people are charged with crimes (often rather minor) and, because they can't afford bail, they sit in jail. So, they can't work; therefore they can't pay their rent; their SO leaves them, on and on. What if they're not guilty? Almost doesn't matter at that point.

I would think that, as a general rule, if someone is charged with a crime, the school would be within it's rights to suspend the person or, at a minimum, keep them out of contact with the alleged victim.

Found guilty? Expel them.

But, what about when they've been accused but not charged? What if someone accused you of something you didn't do and, until the investigation was complete, you couldn't work; couldn't get paid? So, I'd think suspension should only be allowed in the case of a clear and present danger.

If, as is often the case in college sexual assault cases, the accusation is made long after the alleged incident took place, then I can't see why it would be urgent to now suspend the alleged offender prior them being charged with a crime. Of course, the investigation should be initiated and completed as quickly as possible.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> Sadly, this is a situation a lot like "what if I accidentally date a psycho and she makes something up????"
> 
> I don't think there is a policy we can implement that will prevent a jackass from saying that a woman didn't say no.


colleges are trying. But without the zero risk of false accusation to the poor dudes, much of popular opinion won't have it.



> I honestly do not think we can prevent anyone from ever having their no denied in court or in a campus panel meeting. Just like women lie due to morning after regret at times, there are guys who heard the no and will deny it was said. These people are like the criminal who illegally obtains a gun in a back alley when he is forbidden by law from purchasing one. How do you prevent that?
> 
> If part of the problem is that girls are not armed to make those responses....then let's arm them! Let's start teaching them young that their no matters, that sex is never "owed," that a man who pushes after they say stop is not a good man. But I think we also need to help them frame their thinking on sex in general in a clear way as well. Is sex special? Is sex something you do with everybody? Do you want to meet a guy and be in bed an hour later? Do you need some time and feelings? This of course will differ some individually. But my kids and I talked through all of those things. Because the way we "treat" sex will affect how clear we are or how well we understand others.
> 
> And this applies to men AND women.


There will still be members of the population are all well and good with no not meaning no unless they are gonna suffer a consequence. So long as the she says he says continues to always result in a walk, what would change?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> In some areas this would be very helpful. But it is only a part. It does not address the cases like the Turner case. She had said no earlier in the evening to his advances. This is a kid who was raised by a dude who made a comment about a punishment for his son's 20 minutes of fun. Well it wasn't even intercourse... Not only did he say this out loud, he had vocal support for it. Oh poor kid! The lose of his education! His swimming career! Oh sure. Why didn't she just not drink so much. (Why did she wear what she wore? Hell, go to a party at all?...) Why didn't he just NOT RAPE HER??
> 
> Then there is the recent case of a doc who raped someone under conscious sedation. What IS a skinny dork to do when presented with a lovely Latina with big fake boobs? How about NOT RAPE HER?
> 
> We really have not gotten very far past the boys will be boys conversation. I chuckle to myself that in another thread that a poster is talking about how great it is when women act as sexual gatekeepers to raise and civilize them from their neanderthal selves. No really, men can't help it. That is bull ****


Again with this. NO MAN HERE, and no man that I know IRL, (and no man anywhere outside of a very few on Red Pill sites) thinks that Turner wasn't guilty of rape or that a doctor having sex with a woman under conscious sedation is not guilty of rape.

I really have no idea where this comes from.

I know you can't really be arguing that men here are saying this. 



NobodySpecial said:


> Here are the lines that many men don't see. There is not that huge gap between a man who will (huge horrible monster who will pin you down whatever your desire) and the men who continue to see women as objects. It does not seem that impossible to me to raise men with enough self respect to be disinterested in anything but a genuine enthusiastic yes. Maybe my hope in mankind is misplaced. But I don't think so.


Sure hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

I could leave my house unlocked and think that the solution for not getting robbed is to teach people not to rob homes.

Or, I could install a security system.

It seems best to try to teach people not to rob homes while also installing a security system just in case the lesson doesn't take with some people.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> colleges are trying. But without the zero risk of false accusation to the poor dudes, much of popular opinion won't have it.
> 
> 
> 
> There will still be members of the population are all well and good with no not meaning no unless they are gonna suffer a consequence. So long as the she says he says continues to always result in a walk, what would change?


And again, just like with gun control, we are trying to manage things that we just flat cannot manage. You cannot manage other people's attitudes. You cannot manage thoughts and hearts and minds. There seems to be an idea that if we come up with the "right" solution, no one will commit assault, and, if someone does, they absolutely WILL pay the price. You can't do that. Just like all the laws in the world will never guarantee that no one will ever walk into one of my kids classes and start shooting.

My issue is, we think it is okay if a solution involves more risk to one group or the other. I don't think so. I'm not willing to sacrifice women so that men can wiggle between the cracks. BUT I am also not okay with sacrificing innocent men so more women get believed.

There isn't going to be a magic pill that both pleases everyone and fixes every conceivable possibility of abuse.

When I was a kid, I had this obsessive prayer problem. I was kind of a scared kid, so I would spend untold time every night praying that God would keep every bad thing I could conceive of from happening. Please no fire, please no robber, please no bad guy who wants to hurt us, please no spiders, please no earthquake or bad storm.....I somehow thought if I could pray away every possible bad scenario then none of them would happen. Conversely, I worried that if I forgot a disaster, THAT would be the disaster to befall me. Hey, I'm not saying it was normal. I was like 8 and 9 years old.

Just like that was not possible, it really is not possible to create something that will assure nothing bad ever happens. That is why I think policies AND education need to go hand in hand. We have kind of thrown some education to the wayside because we have mislabeled it as "victim-blaming."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Again with this. NO MAN HERE, and no man that I know IRL, (and no man anywhere outside of a very few on Red Pill sites) thinks that Turner wasn't guilty of rape or that a doctor having sex with a woman under conscious sedation is not guilty of rape.
> 
> I really have no idea where this comes from.
> 
> I know you can't really be arguing that men here are saying this.


No. The conversation includes societal views of *responsibility* and how we attempt to form them. I am talking about what some of them are today.



> Sure hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
> 
> I could leave my house unlocked and think that the solution for not getting robbed is to teach people not to rob homes.
> 
> Or, I could install a security system.
> 
> It seems best to try to teach people not to rob homes while also installing a security system just in case the lesson doesn't take with some people.


Of course. But as it stands for legislative and policy decisions where they can be made, that does not advance much more than a do nothing and think it sucks approach.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> @RandomDude told us a story about how his gf was assaulted, but she fought the guy off. Now it sounds to me like she won't press charges, just chalk it up to experience and move on with life. But could she? Should she? She did say no, after all, and then had to resort to some sort of physical skirmish to get him off her. Is he guilty of something? Should he be held responsible? Or if she were to accuse would it be false?


Should she press charges? That's up to her.

Could she press charges? Yes.

Is he guilty of something? Yes, He sexually assaulted her. Whether or not it can be proved that he's guilty depends on whether there were witnesses, a prior history, etc. 

Should be held responsible? Yes

Would it be a false accusation? No


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Also, imagine the outcry if kids hopes, dreams and lives were ruined just because they were expelled for having a couple of drinks.


The outcry isn't about being expelled from school.

It's about the possibility of being expelled from school for something you didn't do.

Mostly, it's about not minimizing just how serious a consequence being expelled from school would be.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> And again, just like with gun control, we are trying to manage things that we just flat cannot manage. You cannot manage other people's attitudes.


You can't manage them. But you can influence change over time. I am pretty sure most people's attitudes about race have changed since the 1960s. The best that could have been hoped for then is that most people would not vote for a black president because he would be seen as un-electable.

But you are right, for now we have to prevent. 



> You cannot manage thoughts and hearts and minds. * There seems to be an idea that if we come up with the "right" solution, no one will commit assault, and, if someone does, they absolutely WILL pay the price.* You can't do that.


I don't know where you see this idea. But perfection does not have to be the enemy of progress. The well we can't stop all (insert crime/issue/whatever...) is a poor excuse for not trying to make progress.



> Just like all the laws in the world will never guarantee that no one will ever walk into one of my kids classes and start shooting.


Yah the application of this logical fallacy to gun control is an apt metaphor. We can't stop all gun violence and all crime that might ever be committed with a gun, so let's do nothing! That's brainless hog wallop.




> My issue is, we think it is okay if a solution involves more risk to one group or the other. I don't think so. I'm not willing to sacrifice women so that men can wiggle between the cracks. BUT I am also not okay with sacrificing innocent men so more women get believed.


I think the risk to innocent men is manageable by said innocent men but the will to concede that is just too vanishingly small. The idea of causing THEM to plan, think ahead so that women don't get ... wait for it... RAPED, is just too much.



> There isn't going to be a magic pill that both pleases everyone and fixes *every conceivable possibility of abuse.*


There goes that stupid fallacy. No one thinks there is. That remains among the more heartless reasons to maintain the status quo.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know how prevalent this situation is. But I can think of another. You're making out. Guy starts feeling inside and attempting to remove clothes. Woa woa woa slow down. So you push hands away. Your mind is saying, did I lead him on? DO I owe him? Then when you say no wait. There is the hopeful reaction. Oh hey, whatcha thinking? How are you feeling? That is not even the most common reaction. Reactions can be But if you loved me... You b!tch you lead me on! ... This is not some weird fantasy that I am living in or projecting from my past. This has already happened to my 14 year old daughter. Being quite open minded and confident, she had no trouble saying yah f you and the horse you rode in on. But many girls this age and older would not have had the poise that she did. Would want the status of the "boyfriend"...
> But many girls this age and older would not have had the poise that she did. Would want the status of the "boyfriend"...


We need to try to give all young women what your daughter has.



NobodySpecial said:


> They are supposed to already know all **** and be responsible for young men too.


How is saying "No" taking responsibility for the young men? Ignore the young men.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> One you are the girl. You aren't armed to respond to those reactions.


Arm them!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> We need to try to give all young women what your daughter has.


Ha! There is not enough of me to go around. ;(



> How is saying "No" taking responsibility for the young men? Ignore the young men.


Explain how a young women ignore young men? The go to school together. They work together. Hell they sometimes even want to date some of them. Saying no is not taking responsibility for them, requiring women to navigate all the permutations such that they have to figure out how to be crystal clear in any and all possible situations causes a failure of young men to develop a sense of responsibility themselves.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Arm them!


By all means. Is that all? Is that the whole thing?


----------



## personofinterest

Show me where I said not to try, and I will apologize. And If you know I didn't say that and didn't mean that ( and you know both of these things), than why did you put that out threre?


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> But without the zero risk of false accusation to the poor dudes, much of popular opinion won't have it.


Again with the minimizing of "poor dudes".

How to you feel about the Innocence Project?

Just a bunch of whining by "poor innocent people"?



NobodySpecial said:


> There will still be members of the population are all well and good with no not meaning no unless they are gonna suffer a consequence. So long as the she says he says continues to always result in a walk, what would change?


That's what's so difficult about rape and sexual assault, many it is just "he said she said".

I can't imagine how anyone could be found guilty in a "he said she said" situation with no witnesses, no physical evidence or no circumstantial evidence.

Are you proposing that we just believe the accuser in all cases and punish the alleged offender?


----------



## personofinterest

> That's what's so difficult about rape and sexual assault, many it is just "he said she said".
> 
> I can't imagine how anyone could be found guilty in a "he said she said" situation with no witnesses, no physical evidence or no circumstantial evidence.
> 
> Are you proposing that we just believe the accuser in all cases and punish the alleged offender?


Honestly, that IS what some women's groups ARE proposing.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> But as it stands for legislative and policy decisions where they can be made, that does not advance much more than a do nothing and think it sucks approach.


That's assuming that the legislative and policy decisions will have the results that were intended.

Legislative and policy decisions usually don't and the unintended consequences often are worse than not having them at all.

I think legislating Affirmative Consent (as an example) would give women a false sense of security, result in more innocent men being punished and do nothing to reduce sexual assault or rape (it would probably increase as women with a false sense of security put themselves in positions that they otherwise might not).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> Again with the minimizing of "poor dudes".
> 
> How to you feel about the Innocence Project?
> 
> Just a bunch of whining by "poor innocent people"?


Have to google it. LOVE! Gonna do a little research before I donate.




> That's what's so difficult about rape and sexual assault, many it is just "he said she said".
> 
> I can't imagine how anyone could be found guilty in a "he said she said" situation with no witnesses, no physical evidence or no circumstantial evidence.
> 
> Are you proposing that we just believe the accuser in all cases and punish the alleged offender?


No. What I am pretty sure I support is the idea that a college has the right to hold a lower standard than prosecutorial for conviction as a constitutional right is not being infringed and admittance is at the determination of the college. I am definitely in favor of more education for boys and young men to actively protect themselves from risk of false accusation as I do with my son. Beyond that, I don't know what other proposals are good.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> By all means. Is that all? Is that the whole thing?


It's the most important, the easiest to implement and with the least chance of having unintended consequences.

So, let's try that first and adjust from there.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> Many people with many different opinions, so people need to be careful not to convolve my opinions with other ones that might not be compatible. (end disclaimer). So my feeling on consent is:
> 
> I like a sort of "defense in depth". In other words when a couple is engaged in intimate activities, each should only continue if the other is by words or actions indicating an active desire to continue. In the case where the other parties actions are honestly misinterpreted as providing consent when they do not, then I believe the person who is not consenting should provide a clear verbal "stop".
> 
> In order for the above to work, no one should without clear prior arrangement, have sex with someone who is unable to verbally ask you to stop due to intoxication, or other impediments, nor should anyone have sex with someone where there is some sort of implied thread or power imbalance unless this has been clearly discussed first.
> 
> I think that human sexual interactions are too complex for there to be a set of rules that always apply, but I also think that the majority of people will agree on whether or not there was consent IF they agree on what actions actually happened. Most disagreements I've see are disagreeing over what happened, not over whether or not a particular set of actions constituted consent. (in real life situations, not hypothetical situations that people set up).
> 
> 
> Written consent doesn't work because there is no way to demonstrate if it has been withdrawn.
> 
> Verbal consent is not as well defined as people think because reasonable people may disagree on which specific actions require verbal consent. Verbal non-consent, eg "stop" should always be clear in all situation.


The singularity is here.
@wild jade and I liked the same post.

Surely this is an indicator that if we all just assumed the best intentions of the other side and tried to put the best spin on what they post, that we may be capable of actually making progress.

What are we missing?

It seems like on piece of miscommunication is that one side thinks that the discussion about Affirmative Consent is whether it is good or bad while the other side thinks they're talking about whether it should be the basis of a law (or, equivalently, used for determining innocence or guilt in college sexual assault tribunals).


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> It's the most important,


Why is it the most important? You cannot arm women to handle all situations. And part of the conversation is that damn it, they shouldn't have to. Take a very similar situation when I was a youngster. I got the you led me on angry response. It escalate to violence. Ok, NOW we say the dude was wrong. What freaking good did that do me? I was successful at beating him off. How was that good for me? THAT is the attitude we want to continue to be prevalent in this society.

Let me walk you through this from another point of view. We continue to play this gender game. Women who want the white picket fence and family (or think they do) and want the partner play the game by keeping the gate. The guy continues to think that sex is a thing to get, so he plays the game, makes an income and shows up in the monkey suit on a hot day in July to the raised glasses of all his friends and family. Do those two people SEE each other? Will be be here on SIM in the not too distant future? If you think those topics are not related, you are mistaken.



> the easiest to implement and with the least chance of having unintended consequences.


Easiest to implement how? Wait another generation and a half? Leaving behind many excellent young men and women TODAY?




> So, let's try that first and adjust from there.


Sorry, intellectually and practically lazy approach IMO.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> No. The conversation includes societal views of *responsibility* and how we attempt to form them. I am talking about what some of them are today.


I cannot think of any other situation today where the societal view of the most appropriate training isn't primarily "it's ok to say no". Drug use. Gang violence. Peer pressure of any kind. 

You MUST be able to advocate for yourself in all situations. You must be able to say no to those things which you wish to avoid. And you must take responsibility for what happens to you when you fail to assert that responsibility. It is your life. Your body. Your soul to safeguard. No on else's. 

That includes sex. The usual caveats apply to rape. Not trying to blame the victim here. Blame shifting on to another party for unwillingness to assert your responsibility is distasteful in the extreme to me. 


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> I cannot think of any other situation today where the societal view of the most appropriate training isn't primarily "it's ok to say no". Drug use. Gang violence. Peer pressure of any kind.
> 
> You MUST be able to advocate for yourself in all situations. You must be able to say no to those things which you wish to avoid. And you must take responsibility for what happens to you when you fail to assert that responsibility. It is your life. Your body. Your soul to safeguard. No on else's.
> 
> That includes sex. The usual caveats apply to rape. Not trying to blame the victim here. Blame shifting on to another party for unwillingness to assert your responsibility is distasteful in the extreme to me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


All of this can be true, IS true and in no way removes a strong and appropriate desire to continue the dialog and forward social progress toward recognizing that women want to be free to live in the world without these constant risks. That women want (and men who are smart and healthy want) a social construct that is more emotionally positive for sexual and romantic relationships.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

NobodySpecial said:


> All of this can be true, IS true and in no way removes a strong and appropriate desire to continue the dialog and forward social progress toward recognizing that women want to be free to live in the world without these constant risks. That women want (and men who are smart and healthy want) a social construct that is more emotionally positive for sexual and romantic relationships.


We'd all like a world free of crime, but it isn't gonna happen. Never has and never will. There is no possible situation where it would be a good idea for a woman not to understand the risks she in undertaking just be doing simple tasks such as walking down a neighborhood alone at night. As for education, I don't know what more you can do. I was always taught that "No" means no which is crystal clear (unless its your wife then it could mean anything).


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> All of this can be true, IS true and in no way removes a strong and appropriate desire to continue the dialog and forward social progress toward recognizing that women want to be free to live in the world without these constant risks. That women want (and men who are smart and healthy want) a social construct that is more emotionally positive for sexual and romantic relationships.


What risks?

Other than from a rapist, a woman who is free and empowered to say no will never have sex to which she does not consent.

Problem solved. What really is the downside? 

Ok, so we additionally teach boys to hear that "no" and respect it. That's good. But we do NOT shift the burden of determining when that no is implicit. There is no ambiguity in the word "no".

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> What risks?
> 
> Other than from a rapist, a woman who is free and empowered to say no will never have sex to which she does not consent.


Are you in the same world I am? Hell, the same thread? 

Problem solved. What really is the downside? 



> Ok, so we additionally teach boys to hear that "no" and respect it. That's good. But we do NOT shift the burden of determining when that no is implicit. There is no ambiguity in the word "no".


You are at vert least not on the same TAM. There is, indeed, ambiguity to the word no out of the mouths of some men on here. 

But that is neither here no there. There is no point to rehashing several tens of pages of thread.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> Are you in the same world I am? Hell, the same thread?


Did I miss some man advocating "No means yes, yes means anal?"

"No means no, and failure to heed a no immediately is a crime".

If a man feels that you led him on them backed out, he's going to be mad at you regardless. That's never going to change. But if he ultimately agrees to you no, and does not actually assault you (at which time he becomes a rapist), what is the risk beyond an uncomfortable conversation?


----------



## personofinterest

Code:







Cletus said:


> Did I miss some man advocating "No means yes, yes means anal?"
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


She is referring to the discussion earlier in the thread where a couple of men pointed out that sometimes women say no when they mean yes and that you can keep pushing to close the sale and how they might have missed out on some good booty if they had stopped after the first no back in 1989.

I am being facetious, but it did kind of have that flavor. I am a huger advocate for NOT falsely accusing men, and even I couldn't stomach the "close the sale' and "little women don't really know what they want" vibe of the whole thing.


----------



## Cletus

personofinterest said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is referring to the discussion earlier in the thread where a couple of men pointed out that sometimes women say no when they mean yes and that you can keep pushing to close the sale and how they might have missed out on some good booty if they had stopped after the first no back in 1989.
> 
> I am being facetious, but it did kind of have that flavor. I am a huger advocate for NOT falsely accusing men, and even I couldn't stomach the "close the sale' and "little women don't really know what they want" vibe of the whole thing.


As long as there are women who actually feel and behave this way, there will be men who think every woman is one of them. He may even be inspired by a conquest of one of your sisters who didn't have the necessary wherewithal to tell him to piss off.

So say no. More than once if necessary. It's not different than "are we there yet" from the back seat, and every bit as mature.

It sounds like a man you should quickly excise from your life. Every time such a man succeeds, the problem perpetuates.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

NobodySpecial said:


> Are you in the same world I am? Hell, the same thread?
> 
> Problem solved. What really is the downside?
> 
> 
> 
> You are at vert least not on the same TAM. There is, indeed, ambiguity to the word no out of the mouths of some men on here.
> 
> But that is neither here no there. There is no point to rehashing several tens of pages of thread.


I think this is misunderstood. Most likely situation. Suppose a man is on a date (or at a party) and there is obvious attraction towards one another. When a man hears 'no', if he has any integrity he stops trying to get sex at that point in time. He de-escalates and slows down. It doesn't mean he stops trying to get sex all together, because well people have sex. So he might try to escalate later and if he hears no again, then he de-escalates. The 'no' was never ambiguous and it was never ignored. 

I can't think of another situation brought up here about no being ambiguous, if it was I imagine it would be very rapey.


----------



## Cletus

I'm operating on the premise that the good guys already get it, and want mostly to do the right thing, or at least not do the wrong thing. And that unambiguous communication of where the line exists is the best way to continue to communicate what would constitute the wrong thing.

The rapists don't care and are irrelevant to the discussion

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> I'm operating on the premise that the good guys already get it, and want mostly to do the right thing, or at least not do the wrong thing. And that unambiguous communication of where the line exists is the best way to continue to communicate what would constitute the wrong thing.
> 
> The rapists don't care and are irrelevant to the discussion
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


We may agree that the good guys get it. The "bad guys" don't. They think they get it.


----------



## Cletus

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I can't think of another situation brought up here about no being ambiguous, if it was I imagine it would be very rapey.


No doesn't mean I can never ask again, and asking again isn't assault not a crime. It might be pestering, but it will never amount to assault or an unwanted sexual encounter.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> We may agree that the good guys get it. The "bad guys" don't. They think they get it.


I include in the good guys those who are sexually inexperienced or socially awkward who couldn't read distress on a girl's face with a user manual - but who would never knowingly rape or assault.

It takes no skill to understand the first word most of us learn. The trend towards active consent is a considerable step up in relationship complexity. Teenage boys? This is like asking them to do calculus when they can barely manage algebra.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Cletus said:


> I include in the good guys those who are sexually inexperienced or socially awkward who couldn't read distress on a girl's face with a user manual - but who would never knowingly rape or assault.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


I think that encapsulates just about every teenage boy. I bet they understand the word "no" though.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> I include in the good guys those who are sexually inexperienced or socially awkward who couldn't read distress on a girl's face with a user manual - but who would never knowingly rape or assault.


Right. Why is there room for THEIR learning as young, inexperienced people but not the same grace afforded the young and inexperienced girls who are trying to negotiate the same game. They are expected to not only SAY A LOUD NO but understand all the ramifications of the possible consequences, social, practical and emotional.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> Right. Why is there room for THEIR learning as young, inexperienced people but not the same grace afforded the young and inexperienced girls who are trying to negotiate the same game. They are expected to not only SAY A LOUD NO but understand all the ramifications of the possible consequences, social, practical and emotional.


There is ample room for training for both genders. No question. I guess I'm much more interested in the nitty gritty nuts and bolts of two adolescents squirming around on momma's couch in the basement. This is a purely pragmatic, what-gets-us-the-most-bang-for-the-buck, engineering optimization solution. 

Every car, no matter how lowly the price or the model, has a set of brakes. Some have air bags. Some have better, anti-lock brakes. Some have lane and collision detection. These are the "advanced training" analogies. But they all have a brake pedal. With little risk of offending anyone's sensibilities, we're talking mostly about men desiring more sex than the women they are pursuing. That guy has his foot on the gas pedal. His heart rate is 150 bpm and he's probably sporting a pretty sizable erection. A couple of million years of evolution have him primed to hear a big fat "yes". No doubt for many, anything short of a real "no" will qualify.

So who should to push the brake pedal? The person who wants to stop the car. If nobody wants to stop, nobody pushes the pedal. 

From a purely pragmatic view, which is easier to do? To stop doing something that you really, really want to do, or to state out loud what you already (don't) want? Now both of these kids will gain training and experience that will serve them well in being both more respectful and assertive, and I do not begrudge anyone the desire to try to improve the status quo. It could use some improvement. 

But I always want that car to have a working brake pedal that can be mashed to the floor in an emergency.


----------



## Cletus

Just for balance, if we trained all men to say "No, I won't do the dishes", we'd cut the traffic down in the sex in marriage forum by a third.

(I say, I say ... it's a joke, son.)


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> I'm trying to point out that there is actually a *lot* to discuss beyond "tell women to say no louder and more forcefully".
> 
> No one, for example, jumped forward and suggested that @RandomDude advise his gf to press charges against that guy.
> 
> But can I assume, then, that we all agree here that this guy is in fact guilty of assault, even though no charges were ever laid??
> 
> (Personally, I see this as classic grey zone case, but am definitely open to being persuaded that it is clear cut assault)



If it was assault, then of course he could /should be charged. But we don’t know what exactly happened there (were there details?). If he was flirting excessively or leaned over to kiss (against her expectations) and was generally being a pain in the ass then it depends. If you physically can’t get away (and you tried), then it’s a clear cut assault, and rape (if there’s continued sexual activity). Otherwise it really depends what happened.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> For our boys? Girls are not responsible for controlling your urges. YOU ARE.



Nobody thinks that girls are responsible for the guys’ sexual urges. Did somebody say this? However they are responsible for determining whether they want something to happen to them or not.
One thing is being against sexual assault and a whole other thing is being against men’s nature of flirting & coming onto women in schools & universities (which in majority of cases is normal behaviour. What are we discussing here: criminal cases or flirting? 
I would have thought most girls learn early on how to ‘deal’ with attention from guys? I hope so anyway, for the sake of my daughter.

And btw if we lived in a world where men never came onto women, sometimes persistently so, humans would cease to exist (probably). I know I would be alone if I didn’t pursue my wife.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> But as for the scenario in abstract, that situation is clear. She said no. Once a man hears a no, he keeps going at his own peril. If I was on a "tribunal" and the guy said, "well, she eventually let me," and the girl said, "I told him no twice, but then when he tried feeling me up again I gave up," that situation is clear.)



What? Nobody in their right mind just ‘gives up’ and lets the guy get on with it! That’s crazy. How about getting up and leaving the room? If he physically stops you THEN it is clearly assault. Why would anyone just give up? Does this actually ever happen like this? That’s crazy and scary.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> What? Nobody in their right mind just ‘gives up’ and lets the guy get on with it! That’s crazy. How about getting up and leaving the room? If he physically stops you THEN it is clearly assault. Why would anyone just give up? Does this actually ever happen like this? That’s crazy and scary.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Did you read my whole post. It doesn't make sense that this upsets you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> But I always want that car to have a working brake pedal that can be mashed to the floor in an emergency.


In the analogy you presented, it "sounds like" you are saying that the brake has more responsibility than the gas pedal, and that the brake should understand the gas pedal has millions of years of biological urges behind it, yet the gas does not hold the responsibility of knowing that the brake may be faulty or even that the brake has feelings that should be considered. The gas in your analogy seems to be freed from the need to be educated against just stomping on the pedal, because "evolution has made it impossible for him to do that" (by using quotes here, I am not quoting you, I'm paraphrasing).

That's how it sounds. I know that's not what you mean but....can you expand using the same analogy and address what I just wrote?

The reason this is important is because the responsibility actually lies with both the gas and the brake together in unison. The gas is not an "irresistible force" and shouldn't be treated as such. The force behind your bodily urges is irrelevant to responsibility for them.

ETA: This part is a quote - "...which is easier to do? To stop doing something that you really, really want to do, or to state out loud what you already (don't) want?"

Seems again to be implying that because it would be oh so hard to stop yourself from something you really, really want to do, that you should be freed from the consequences of actually doing that thing you really, really want to do.

I'm pointing out these things for clarification from you - - not because I think you mean them the way it sounds. But maybe hopefully you can pick up on how and why is sounds that way?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> In the analogy you presented, it "sounds like" you are saying that the brake has more responsibility than the gas pedal, and that the brake should understand the gas pedal has millions of years of biological urges behind it, yet the gas does not hold the responsibility of knowing that the brake may be [/quate]
> Not to mention that the break can't change what the gas is gonna do.
> 
> So.. yah. What she said.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> Why? Why should a female not go to a party? Why should a female accept responsibility for someone else' behavior when they get drunk? I am by no means suggesting that getting drunk is a good social plan. But it is a regular learning experience for boys. Why does our dialog include holding her responsible for what would otherwise be a normal young adult social mistake for a boy?



Why do you think anyone holds a girl responsible if she makes a mistake, while under influence of alcohol? What do you mean precisely by ‘holding her responsible’?

The question should IMO be posed precisely the other way around: why should A GUY be held responsible if a girl gets piss drunk and does stupid crazy things or allows those things to happen to her? And guys DO get held responsible because all the girl needs to do the next day is regret it and report the incident to the authorities and the guy is pretty much toast (in today’s environment).

I do believe that if a woman decides to get so drunk that her judgement gets so impaired to the point that she is not able to judge who and what she is sleeping with then it is HER responsibility and HER mistake for allowing herself to get that drunk!

It’s the same logic that all the cars should be driving really carefully, in case anyone on the road had a bit too much to drink: no, you drink, you drive at your own risk. Cars will be cars and boys will be boys (which doesn’t mean cars should be speeding or boys should be assaulting anyone, just to be clear).

If you don’t want to end up in a situation where you are at risk of being taken advantage of, then don’t get that drunk!! It is that simple. Everyone knows that the drunken college parties are a high risk place for girls. Both genders know this and both genders exploit it (girls gone wild anyone?). Some get taken advantage of, some know exactly what they are getting themselves into. And you have to be REALLY drunk not to be able to know what the hell is going on.

Yes, as an adult male, I would never touch a girl/woman under influence of alcohol but I would not have known this as a student, nor would should it be my responsibility to count exactly how many drinks a girl had. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

I don't think they need to understand all the ramifications. A clear "no", changes what could be a muddy situation into one that is crystal clear: If the other person continues, it is sexual assault / rape. No grey area, no room for misunderstanding. 

Given the stakes, the social / practical / emotional consequences of rejecting someone's sexual advances should pale in comparison to being sexually assaulted.

Saying "no" doesn't of course mean that the other person will listen, but it does mean that if they continue they are a rapist. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. 

This should be a very rare occurrence because no one should continue with sexual activity unless their partner is actively consenting. The key here is "should" because sometimes people misinterpret the other person's reactions. That is why "no", provides complete clarity when there was misunderstanding.


In the cases where someone is unwilling to say no due to social consequences, or ending of a relationship, I no longer think it constitutes sexual assault. Threatening to break up with someone if they don't have sex may often be a scummy thing to do, but its not assault




NobodySpecial said:


> Right. Why is there room for THEIR learning as young, inexperienced people but not the same grace afforded the young and inexperienced girls who are trying to negotiate the same game. They are expected to not only SAY A LOUD NO but understand all the ramifications of the possible consequences, social, practical and emotional.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Did you read my whole post. It doesn't make sense that this upsets you.




Haha, I think I did! I read it several times and both scenarios you presented sound unacceptable to me:

"I told him no twice, but then when he tried feeling me up again I gave up," that situation is clear. She said no. He kept going. He's guilty.

The “gave up” part sounds completely ridiculous to me: you don’t just give up and let the guy assault you just to get him out of your way? That’s crazy! Who does this?
Why can’t she get up and leave? 
“Fine, I will give you a blowjob but you leave me alone after this, ok?” Would be an extension of it. I shudder to think about it!

The fact that she is able to leave but doesn’t, doesn’t really make her case very strong in my opinion!

I was in Morocco few months ago: and Marrakesh is notorious for annoying sales people (I know you love sales analogies ) and saying ‘no’ does absolutely nothing but you can just leave! In fact, it’s the most effective way to get rid of the people trying to sell you stuff on the streets.


----------



## personofinterest

Wow, I hope you're never on a rape jury.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> In the analogy you presented, it "sounds like" you are saying that the brake has more responsibility than the gas pedal, and that the brake should understand the gas pedal has millions of years of biological urges behind it, yet the gas does not hold the responsibility of knowing that the brake may be [/quate]
> 
> Not to mention that the break can't change what the gas is gonna do.
> 
> 
> 
> So.. yah. What she said.



Yeah....that analogy went a bit over the head.

The analogy is not comparing the break pedal to the woman and the gas pedal to the man (and while we are at it, why not invite our friend clutch for a tasty theeesome?).

The analogy is saying that it’s much easier to stop something you don’t want, than to stop something you REALLY want. Which has nothing to do with the break pedal being a woman.

Granted, it is not a good analogy.

A better ‘analogy’: don’t get piss drunk so you loose the ability to use the freaking break pedal and drive your car into a lamp post or cause a pile up for everyone. If a woman doesn’t want sex, she should say and act accordingly and the guy should respect her wishes. There are nobody’s feelings to consider because nobody cares: the guy wants to ****; the woman either lets him or she doesn’t.

If she’s letting him continue* because she finds making it clear to him that she doesn’t want it too much of a bother, then it’s on her!

*under normal circumstances; not where she feels a physical threat 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> That's how it sounds. I know that's not what you mean but....can you expand using the same analogy and address what I just wrote?


I will make it as simple as possible, directly and without the analogy. This is a pragmatic argument, not a moral argument. None of this applies to a clearly coercive situation like a rape or a quid-pro-quo arrangement with a power imbalance. 

Two people are in a room, of their own volition. One wants sex* and the other does not but is fine with a little foreplay*. Gender doesn't matter. Either person could be of any sexual orientation and presentation. Don't care. Which one should assume the primary responsibility of ensuring that no boundary is crossed - the one who has the boundary or the one who does not? 

That's it. That's the argument in a nut shell. Shifting the responsibility for ensuring that the boundary isn't crossed to the person who does not hold it, _particularly_ when the boundary is not expressly stated, is to put it in the wrong hands.

* Whatever those two terms mean for the group in question.

======

Option 1. best possible outcome - everyone has an adult conversation while the clothes are still on and the wine cork is still in place. Everyone enthusiastically agrees to all activity (presumably a check list is produced that covers a wide range of possible options) up to but not crossing said boundary - let's get a little hot and bothered, but no sex. Part of that mutual agreement will be those things for which the party of the second part answers "no". Even after agreement, both parties are engaged in an endless back-and-forth to ensure that no one has changed hir mind - consent can always be removed. Notice that even in this situation, it is IMPERATIVE that if either party becomes uncomfortable, they say "no" or its equivalent as things progress. "I changed my mind and no longer want to do that" is just long-hand for "no".

Option 2. There is no such pre-activity agreement in place and we're playing see-how-it-goes, but still with enthusiastic consent. Party of the first part continuously asks for permission to continue. "Can I kiss you here?" "How about here?" "Can I touch you here?" "Would you like me to remove that sweater?" "Are you still comfortable?" "I'm going to take off my shirt now - are you OK with that?" "Are you having fun?" "Do you like this?" In good faith, party of the first part assumes that party of the second part will say "no" when that is the answer party of the second part wishes to convey. Notice that even in this situation, it is IMPERATIVE that if either party becomes uncomfortable, they say "no" or its equivalent - which could be silence given we're expecting affirmative consent, but in the context of a question asked requiring a positive response silence is still a "no". 

Option 3. Real life, as in how people, particularly those with little experience, actually have sexual encounters. Everyone fumbles around a bit. Things are touched. Clothes are tugged at. Hands explore over the top of and under the small garments. Things escalate to the point one party is uncomfortable. Party of the first part, having either received no ambiguous feedback or failed to understand the body language provided, continues, again assuming that party of the second part will say "no" if something escalates. In this situation, it is the most imperative that "no" be stated when discomfort arises.

In every case, it can only be the person with the boundary who must declare it. Either in the pre-negotiation, when the "checklist" is filled out, a "no" must be placed in column B for certain acts. Or in the back-and-forth where consent is fluid, "no" is still the best of two possible choices. And in the third, it's absolutely essential. 

Option 4: Party of the first part exits the room before the lights are even dimmed because in a world where party of the second part is not reasonably expected to say "no", nothing is safe. Que the porn hub at home rather than risk a charge of rape. 

Only when everyone agrees to both verbally give and verbally remove consent can anyone proceed confidently. Removing consent - before or during, but NEVER after, is to say "no".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> I will make it as simple as possible, directly and without the analogy. This is a pragmatic argument, not a moral argument. None of this applies to a clearly coercive situation like a rape or a quid-pro-quo arrangement with a power imbalance.
> 
> Two people are in a room, of their own volition. One wants sex* and *the other does not* but is fine with a little foreplay*. Gender doesn't matter. Either person could be of any sexual orientation and presentation. Don't care. Which one should assume the primary responsibility of *ensuring that no boundary is crossed* - the one who has the boundary or the one who does not?


I'm sorry but I just don't see it this way. The way you have worded it, it sounds like the one who wants sex knows the other does not want their boundaries crossed and yet is going to disregard it.

So - if they know it is a boundary, then trying to cross it without consent is clearly on them.

Or if we want to word it differently, and let's say that neither one knows for sure the _boundaries_ of the other, but both DO know that one wants sex and that the other is only fine with foreplay. In that case, I am sorry, but I still place the burden on the one who wants it.

Having been the one who wanted it myself in exactly such situations, it considered it on MY plate to find out whether this was going to be a yes or a no. I did not consider it on their plate to "put the brakes" on me.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I regret rejoining the thread....it is just the same stuff over and over.

Carry on.


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> Saying "no" doesn't of course mean that the other person will listen, but it does mean that if they continue they are a rapist. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.



I do actually; not with the meaning but the form: It is a MUCH clearer signal if you just get up and leave and make it PHYSICALLY known that you don’t want something rather than verbally.
That’s not to say ‘no’ should be ignored. Under your definition, I would guess that 99% of men have been rapists at one point or another.

Women have been pursued for centuries by men. That’s not going to change overnight. More importantly, women WANT to be pursued by men and I disagree that communicating verbally, when in the heat of the moment, is the most effective way to make it crystal clear what it is you want or don’t want. 
Leaving the situation is (again, under the same caveat that you are not under any physical threat. And it doesn’t include the threat of not being a popular girl unless you blow the captain of the football team). 

And I’m sorry to say, but women who don’t feel they are being pursued or wanted that hard, very often don’t really want to **** those men. 

Now watch me being eaten alive for my masterful mansplanation...*♀

But I don’t care; I don’t have to go to drunken parties (never really been to those and never got drunk in my life). I will try to teach my daughter so that she is aware the risk she exposes herself to when she does decide to go to such parties and get drunk. And also that the most effective way to get rid of those slime bag, is by leaving, showing them the middle finger and if necessary, a kick in the balls. 

Obviously very different standards might apply if they are extremely attractive and popular slime bags...🤨 but I hope not!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Having been the one who wanted it myself in exactly such situations, it considered it on MY plate to find out whether this was going to be a yes or a no. I did not consider it on their plate to "put the brakes" on me.


And how, may I ask, did you determine if it was a "no" unless the other party was willing to tell you, either before the act or in the moment? Before the act is what you get with a particularly good partner. During is what you get with the rest. All you've done is change the point in time when the "no" is uttered.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Wow, I hope you're never on a rape jury.



I hope so too - I don’t consider a jury that can rape a big progress for our society!

But seriously: can you please explain why the woman in your hypothetical scenario could not get up and leave the slime bag to jerk off by himself instead?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Here we disagree.

I think not accepting it could be perceived as a threat, which might cause some people to be afraid to take the step of leaving. Someone who won't stop at a clear demand seems like someone who might not respect physical actions either. 

The other part is that why would I want sex with a woman who didn't enthusiastically want sex with me? I have way too much pride to accept anything other than enthusiasm. If someone is playing some "hard to get" game, and ends up not having sex, its their loss. Maybe they will make their intentions clearer next time.

I don't know why some men seem willing to degrade themselves to the point where they feel that they have to pressure women for sex - it seems the complete opposite of the hypothetical "alpha" that many here seem to like. Someone who really is attractive to women doesn't need to pressure them, they will happily come to him.


If a guy doesn't accept an "no", then I do agree that the woman should try to get away if she thinks she can do so safely, but he has already crossed the line into assault. 


For clarity: I'm talking about a clear "no", not a giggling "oh stop it" or something that by body language and tone doesn't actually mean stop. 







inmyprime said:


> I do actually; not with the meaning but the form: It is a MUCH clearer signal if you just get up and leave and make it PHYSICALLY known that you don’t want something rather than verbally.
> That’s not to say ‘no’ should be ignored. Under your definition, I would guess that 99% of men have been rapists at one point or another.
> 
> Women have been pursued for centuries by men. That’s not going to change overnight. More importantly, women WANT to be pursued by men and I disagree that communicating verbally, when in the heat of the moment, is the most effective way to make it crystal clear what it is you want or don’t want.
> Leaving the situation is (again, under the same caveat that you are not under any physical threat. And it doesn’t include the threat of not being a popular girl unless you blow the captain of the football team).
> 
> And I’m sorry to say, but women who don’t feel they are being pursued or wanted that hard, very often don’t really want to **** those men.
> 
> Now watch me being eaten alive for my masterful mansplanation...*♀
> 
> But I don’t care; I don’t have to go to drunken parties (never really been to those and never got drunk in my life). I will try to teach my daughter so that she is aware the risk she exposes herself to when she does decide to go to such parties and get drunk. And also that the most effective way to get rid of those slime bag, is by leaving, showing them the middle finger and if necessary, a kick in the balls.
> 
> Obviously very different standards might apply if they are extremely attractive and popular slime bags...🤨 it I hope not!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> And how, may I ask, did you determine if it was a "no" unless the other party was willing to tell you, either before the act or in the moment? Before the act is what you get with a particularly good partner. During is what you get with the rest. All you've done is change the point in time when the "no" is uttered.


I *ASKED* for his affirmative consent. I did not wait for a "no", I asked as things were getting hazy. And get this - - in some cases, I did not get a direct no, I got a sort of unenthusiastic grunt or similar, and in those cases, instead of wondering what that meant, with the lack of a "yes", I stopped. And then shortly it became obvious that he was relieved.

For people who have not actually had any experiences with affirmative consent and how it works, I can see why this all seems new and untested. But it has been being used and tested by some of us for decades. And those of us who actually put our partner's well being above our bodily urges are more than happy to secure a "yes" and we understand why sometimes the other party means no but is unable, unwilling, unaware, or not educated enough in AC to say "no" outloud. So in order to protect ourselves, we don't move forward without a "yes". Yes means yes was created because no means no got too murky in cases where people are intoxicated, afraid, or ignorant. 

I think some of those who have no experience with actually using AC are just dead set in their heads that it "can't work" with no real reason for thinking that.

AC does not mean that he or she should not say no, in fact good AC practices help teach everyone where their own boundaries are so that there are not uncertain yes's or quiet easily misunderstood no's. It also explains that sex you consented to but later regret is not "rape" or "assault". All of that is part of AC. But just because you may learn that people should say clear yes's and clear no's, you also learn that they may not. You learn that it is up to YOU to protect yourself and your partner by securing affirmative consent. You learn that ambiguous signals don't mean "yes" and that only yes means yes.

But again...if you've never experienced it but you have experienced the old way and found success there, I can see why you (any you) would not see the advantage of the newer AC model.

What I don't understand is why anyone would argue and debate with people who HAVE used AC successfully for a long time (not just myself, there are plenty of others) and try to tell us it doesn't work and tell us that it will just cause more problems and that no one will get laid if left up to AC? Confusing.


----------



## 269370

Cletus said:


> And how, may I ask, did you determine if it was a "no" unless the other party was willing to tell you, either before the act or in the moment? Before the act is what you get with a particularly good partner. During is what you get with the rest. All you've done is change the point in time when the "no" is uttered.




It’s very simple, you get one of these. Until then, you are guilty as ****.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> Here we disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> I think not accepting it could be perceived as a threat, which might cause some people to be afraid to take the step of leaving. Someone who won't stop at a clear demand seems like someone who might not respect physical actions either.



Why? People talk all kinds of crap when they get silly with each other. Am I the only one who feels that IRL (and especially at parties), young people don’t tend to speak like Vulcans’ lawyers with each other?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> I don't know why some men seem willing to degrade themselves to the point where they feel that they have to pressure women for sex - it seems the complete opposite of the hypothetical "alpha" that many here seem to like. Someone who really is attractive to women doesn't need to pressure them, they will happily come to him.



I think you just described an asexual man, not an alpha. Any woman will agree that an ideal alpha man will TAKE what he wants and how he wants it (though I think that concept is way too risky for beginners / first dates so don’t try that at home...).



uhtred said:


> If a guy doesn't accept an "no", then I do agree that the woman should try to get away if she thinks she can do so safely, but he has already crossed the line into assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity: I'm talking about a clear "no", not a giggling "oh stop it" or something that by body language and tone doesn't actually mean stop.



Aha - now we are getting somewhere. And how do you determine if it was a playful no or a real no? The only way you know for sure is if she leaves. What happened with ‘actions speak louder than words’?? Have you watched American Pie movies? All the scenes are basically endorsing sexual assault / rape I guess?

Because you see the problem with @personofinterest’s scenario is that it could be ambiguous: she said ‘no’ yet stayed for him too continue. She said the words. He thought it was playful. If there was a clear physical threat (and unless it was some kind of kidnapping in a van, why would there be a threat, in a public place like a party, cinema, Wendy’s or parent’s house (where else do kids date these days?), then obviously the whole situation changes.

We are still talking about teens and twenty-something’s in colleges here, not grownups, correct? 

It would seem more straightforward with adult women in terms of saying and meaning ‘no’. Though you still get an occasional slime bag in a night club or a bar who can be hard of hearing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomDude

wild jade said:


> I'm trying to point out that there is actually a *lot* to discuss beyond "tell women to say no louder and more forcefully".
> No one, for example, jumped forward and suggested that @RandomDude advise his gf to press charges against that guy.
> But can I assume, then, that we all agree here that this guy is in fact guilty of assault, even though no charges were ever laid??
> (Personally, I see this as classic grey zone case, but am definitely open to being persuaded that it is clear cut assault)





> @RandomDude told us a story about how his gf was assaulted, but she fought the guy off. Now it sounds to me like she won't press charges, just chalk it up to experience and move on with life. But could she? Should she? She did say no, after all, and then had to resort to some sort of physical skirmish to get him off her. Is he guilty of something? Should he be held responsible? Or if she were to accuse would it be false?


When she first told me about it, I only asked for details about the guy, as in, where I could find him. I was quite angry at that point and was already considering violence. Someone did something to someone I love after all and got away with it. The whole situation is quite messed up, but not just for her, but especially the girl after her who didn't say no or fight him off and went along. But then she told me the story in detail...

She isn't traumatised over it, and elaborated on every detail of the event and how she reckons he's an a-hole but wouldn't go as far as call the guy a rapist. She was young and inexperienced at that time, so were the guys. When she realised what the situation was leading into she was stern and fought him off, making it very clear, the guy did not push further and she left. I also relented from pushing her further for his details as it's her decision to leave it as it is. The environment they were in was full of sex, drugs, and alcohol. Hooking up at such parties is the norm. She was there to look after her friend and was her first time dealing with such a situation. 

Also the girl he had sex with after, who regreted it, is she or he responsible for it? I say *both*, and taking responsibility for something does not invalidate the responsibility of the other. My girlfriend's case isn't that grey - if I was there the boy would be pissing and sh-tting his pants and in tears crying to make me stop the pain.

More grey is what happened to the girl after her - who didn't even say no, let alone fight him off. IF you can isolate the two scenarios, which actually happened in the same night.



wild jade said:


> What about the rape rooms on campus? True, the girls shouldn't have come to the party, they certainly shouldn't have gotten that drunk, and when they were that drunk, should have gone home instead of passing out on site. They most definitely bear responsibility for that. But are the guys who took advantage of that situation guilty of anything? Would your answer differ if they had taken extra action to ensure that the girls would get that wasted (eg adding overproof alcohol or drugs into the mix)? Would those women be justified in making charges?
> And what should the universities do about that? Just keep educating the women, hoping they can shoulder all of the responsibility?


Women are also very capable of taking advantage of drunk men, and yes it happens. Peer pressure when succumbed to I also believe that's the responsibility of the one who succumbed to it and made the decision. Drink-spiking however, the one responsible should no longer be considered human and the man or woman would be fully justified in seeking justice from whatever means, legally most preferable. 

When it comes to universities I believe what Rocky Mountain Yeti has been saying; leave it to the legal system. There's no due process with the case studies presented so far; it's all guilty and even when proven innocent still guilty as long as accused. That's a problem.


----------



## 269370

RandomDude said:


> Also the girl he had sex with after, who regreted it, is she or he responsible for it?



She is. 

Because of this:

“The environment they were in was full of sex, drugs, and alcohol. Hooking up at such parties is the norm”

And this:

“who didn't even say no, let alone fight him off.”

Next....








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

"I do actually; not with the meaning but the form: It is a MUCH clearer signal if you just get up and leave and make it PHYSICALLY known that you don’t want something rather than verbally."

So now it's not enough for women to say no, we have to actually leave or it's our fault if we get assaulted anyway.

Do you REALLY not understand the problem??????


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> RandomDude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the girl he had sex with after, who regreted it, is she or he responsible for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is.
> 
> Because of this:
> 
> “The environment they were in was full of sex, drugs, and alcohol. Hooking up at such parties is the norm”
> 
> And this:
> 
> “who didn't even say no, let alone fight him off.”
> 
> Next....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Any respect i had for you just tanked.


----------



## 269370

Somehow this movie is way funnier in German:

https://youtu.be/LfqDZ5ugf2E


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Any respect i had for you just tanked.




I will try to win it back, I promise 

Now it’s my turn to ask: did you read my post?

It’s black on white: she did not say ‘no’ and she did not fight him off. You would still convict him as a rapist? This is precisely the kind of mentality that’s discussed here: ‘Lets burn them all at the stake because deep down, they are all rapists!’

We would have a great time ‘raping’ the jury and defendant together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> "I do actually; not with the meaning but the form: It is a MUCH clearer signal if you just get up and leave and make it PHYSICALLY known that you don’t want something rather than verbally."
> 
> So now it's not enough for women to say no, we have to actually leave or it's our fault if we get assaulted anyway.
> 
> Do you REALLY not understand the problem??????




Not what I wrote. And you know it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Wow, women getting consent from men (and getting an ‘affirmative ‘no’‘ )...I think that deserves a thread of its own.

———-

The thread is too unspecific: I thought most of the discussion for the last 2 million pages focused on college kids / parties / inexperienced people etc.

Adult women will have MUCH more experience how to deal with those situations (and in particular, how not to get themselves into situations that might be difficult to get out of in the first place). 
How many times have I heard a woman saying (to me) “please don’t leave me alone with this guy” when I had to leave a dinner party or event etc. They know exactly what could happen and where it could lead to, if left alone with a creep. 

Adults are much better at articulating and making it clear what they want and most importantly: KNOWING what they DON’T want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Sure people say all sorts of things when they are playing - but a clear "no" is clear. If in doubt stop. Anyone who says "no, stop" during sex when they don't mean it, deserves to go home without having sex that day. Next time they will either learn to say what they mean, or arrange a safeword. No reasonable person should take the chance that someone saying "no" doesn't mean it. 








inmyprime said:


> Why? People talk all kinds of crap when they get silly with each other. Am I the only one who feels that IRL (and especially at parties), young people don’t tend to speak like Vulcans’ lawyers with each other?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Nah, I'm very familiar with asexuals, I'm married to one. At least in my limited experience beforehand, when a woman is attracted to someone and is enjoying activities leading to sex, there is no confusion about consent. 

Attractive, "alpha" men are sought out by women, they don't need to try to "convince" women to have sex. 







inmyprime said:


> I think you just described an asexual man, not an alpha. Any woman will agree that an ideal alpha man will TAKE what he wants and how he wants it (though I think that concept is way too risky for beginners / first dates so don’t try that at home...).
> 
> snip


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> Sure people say all sorts of things when they are playing - but a clear "no" is clear.



Yes sure. IF it’s clear, IF the party means it, IF the other party doesn’t misconstrue it for a ‘playful no’ (if it’s not followed by the corresponding action of leaving after saying it), IF IF IF. 

How much doubt would getting up and leaving leave by comparison? Nobody denies that understanding about consent is important; I’m mainly discussing the form it should take (and signing a form is probably the single worst idea I have read on this thread).

Has anyone on this thread ever actually tried to get up and leave, but was forcefully held back and sexually assaulted? Because THAT is most definitely rape, without any shadow of doubt. There would be absolutely no discussions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> Nah, I'm very familiar with asexuals, I'm married to one. At least in my limited experience beforehand, when a woman is attracted to someone and is enjoying activities leading to sex, there is no confusion about consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Attractive, "alpha" men are sought out by women, they don't need to try to "convince" women to have sex.



But you are not married to an asexual MAN, correct? 

Whatever an alpha may be (I can’t stand that term), in my limited experience, all the women that ‘hunted’ me, ended up positively in The Crazy category. Being an ‘alpha’ can bring its own problems 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> What? Nobody in their right mind just ‘gives up’ and lets the guy get on with it! That’s crazy.


Apparently, they do.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> The way you have worded it, it sounds like the one who wants sex knows the other does not want their boundaries crossed and yet is going to disregard it.
> 
> So - if they know it is a boundary, then trying to cross it without consent is clearly on them.


This is just mind-bending. 

He said no such thing.

The whole point of Cletus's post was that the party that wanted sex did not know that there was a boundary or, if they did, were not aware of the boundary's exact location.

How is this not clear???

I (and I'm sure Cletus would as well) agree that, if the party wanting sex knows that this is beyond the boundary of the other person, they should stop. If not, they are guilty of sexual assault.

How can it be possible for anyone to be aware of another's boundaries when they aren't stated?

The best way to ensure that boundaries are not crossed is for the person who's boundary is in danger of being crossed to point it out as unambiguously as possible.

Sure, parties that want sex should take great care to try and avoid crossing boundaries. *I am not saying that they shouldn't bother.* But, I'm most interested in boundaries not getting crossed and, therefore, it's essential that they be established unambiguously by the person with the best knowledge of what those boundaries are.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

"Are you sure you want to have sex?" /end thread


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Apparently, they do.




And who is then the guilty one in those circumstances where the woman lets the guy have sex with her or gives him a ‘farewell’ BJ because she wants to get it over with on a date? 
(Because if I’m getting dragged down, I’m taking you with me )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> Here we disagree.
> 
> I think not accepting it could be perceived as a threat, which might cause some people to be afraid to take the step of leaving. Someone who won't stop at a clear demand seems like someone who might not respect physical actions either.


I'm assuming that @inmyprime (since he has seemed to be decent and moral person elsewhere on TAM for some time) has understood stopping at "No" as meaning that, if a you ask a woman out and she says no, you can still ask her out next week. If that's the case, I agree. But that's something completely different than what we've been talking about here. 

If he is saying that if he fondles a woman's breast, she says "no" and he feels free to ignore it and have another try; then yes he'd be guilty of sexual assault.


----------



## 269370

PigglyWiggly said:


> "Are you sure you want to have sex?" /end thread




“Why are you asking me this, is it because you don’t want to?”
The infamous turnaround.

To be fair, making jokes about consent when things are starting to get underway would probably be a great ice breaker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any respect i had for you just tanked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try to win it back, I promise
> 
> Now it’s my turn to ask: did you read my post?
> 
> It’s black on white: she did not say ‘no’ and she did not fight him off. You would still convict him as a rapist? This is precisely the kind of mentality that’s discussed here: ‘Lets burn them all at the stake because deep down, they are all rapists!’
> 
> We would have a great time ‘raping’ the jury and defendant together.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I read the post wrong.

I read she said no and not "she didnt say no." So I thought you were saying that no was not sufficient. My bad. My eyes are fatigued and even the bifocals create blur.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

inmyprime said:


> “Why are you asking me this, is it because you don’t want to?”
> The infamous turnaround.
> 
> "Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"
> 
> Player One has entered the game


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> What I don't understand is why anyone would argue and debate with people who HAVE used AC successfully for a long time (not just myself, there are plenty of others) and try to tell us it doesn't work and tell us that it will just cause more problems and that no one will get laid if left up to AC? Confusing.


That's just it. We're not telling you that it didn't work for* you*. That would be absurd, since you're the only person here who knows what worked for you.

I'm NOT telling people that they shouldn't try it.

I AM worried that, if it is perceived as the new "standard", it would probably be counter productive and probably result in more sexual assault.

Imagine a young woman going into a situation assuming that everyone will be practicing AC and therefore relying on that to keep her out of situations she doesn't want to be in.

I AM VERY worried about it being the basis for determining sexual assault on campus.

I AM EVEN MORE worried about AC becoming actual law. This is not far fetched, if Governor Jerry Brown hadn't come to his senses and vetoed it in California, it would be. I thought it was about to pass in New York as well. For reasons I can't begin to understand, I believe it would only have applied to college campuses (I guess young women who don't go to college don't require the same protection). 

Laws that require one to properly read subtle non-verbal cues to avoid committing a crime are a very bad idea,

But, AC works great for you? You think AC is a great idea? You want to encourage it's use?

I've got no problem with that.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I'm assuming that @inmyprime (since he has seemed to be decent and moral person elsewhere on TAM for some time) has understood stopping at "No" as meaning that, if a you ask a woman out and she says no, you can still ask her out next week. If that's the case, I agree. But that's something completely different than what we've been talking about here.
> 
> 
> 
> If he is saying that if he fondles a woman's breast, she says "no" and he feels free to ignore it and have another try; then yes he'd be guilty of sexual assault.




I wasn’t talking about myself but about college kids’ behaviour and how it is more complicated with inexperienced young people to determine what exactly is going on in all the grey areas (drunken parties), where it is not always clear that one was physically overpowered and raped.

Plus I described further upthread I think that I tried moving my hand towards her 2nd base (crotch: I forgot which base is which) a few times in a row (when we were 16), while my now wife put it back onto her breast I think. I tried it 3 times in total and then gave up and admitted ‘defeat’ and just kept fondling her freshly grown breast area, turning all the knobs in all directions, as if I discovered extraterrestrial life, like in the movie Contact, with feminist Jodie Foster.

And at no point was there ANY talking whatsoever. That would have been so weird...

I presume I’m technically guilty of sexual assault the two other times after the first rejection. She could still file a charge against the assault 20 years later presumably, technically. I better be nice to her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Why? People talk all kinds of crap when they get silly with each other. Am I the only one who feels that IRL (and especially at parties), young people don’t tend to speak like Vulcans’ lawyers with each other?


So, your daughter is at a party.

Some guy twice her weight and six inches taller goes to kiss her.

She says "No, don't do that"

He does it anyway.

She has no reason to feel threatened?!


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I read the post wrong.
> 
> I read she said no and not "she didnt say no." So I thought you were saying that no was not sufficient. My bad. My eyes are fatigued and even the bifocals create blur.



Does it mean you still respect me a teeny weeny bit? You don’t have to answer: just blink twice 🤫🤫


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> I will try to win it back, I promise
> 
> Now it’s my turn to ask: did you read my post?
> 
> It’s black on white: she did not say ‘no’ and she did not fight him off. You would still convict him as a rapist? This is precisely the kind of mentality that’s discussed here: ‘Lets burn them all at the stake because deep down, they are all rapists!’
> 
> We would have a great time ‘raping’ the jury and defendant together.


You've lost mine as well.

I like jokes as much as the next person but you obviously have no idea as too when they are appropriate.

Nothing get's 'em laughing in the middle of a discussion about sexual assault like a good rape joke.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> So, your daughter is at a party.
> 
> 
> 
> Some guy twice her weight and six inches taller goes to kiss her.
> 
> 
> 
> She says "No, don't do that"
> 
> 
> 
> He does it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> She has no reason to feel threatened?!



Does she say this before or after the kiss?

Either way, no words need to be spoken: the knife goes straight inside the knee cap, followed by a 180 degree turn. We practiced it at home. On a sex robot. (ok this is getting a bit too dark now...).

I think the normal human reaction would be to immediately turn the face away before lips meet. Again: nobody talks in those situations!!!

It actually happened to my wife: the guy who literally ****ed everything in school tried it with her; she moved her face out of the way before he managed to stick his filthy tongue out and say the word ‘lollipop’. Did he assault her? Duck knows. But if after that, he tried it again, perhaps more forcefully, then definitely yes, it would be assault.

Actions is everything. And try and not get yourself in risky situations in the first place (also understand what those risky situations are). I know it’s difficult for girls. Guys run around with acne and their stick ****s and it’s just not pleasant for anyone to be honest...

I’m not actually really arguing that one should ignore ‘no’. I’m saying that nobody in school / college age actually uses it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> I read the post wrong.
> 
> I read she said no and not "she didnt say no." So I thought you were saying that no was not sufficient. My bad. My eyes are fatigued and even the bifocals create blur.


I read it right.

True he said she didn't say "no".

But, he said that she didn't fight back (as if that should be a requirement) and he implied that by merely being at a party of that sort, she was "asking for it".


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> You've lost mine as well.



Anyone else? I’m going to try and win it back in bulk this time. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Does she say this before or after the kiss?


Before.

That was clear from the context.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> I’m not actually really arguing that one should ignore ‘no’.


That's what I assumed at the beginning, but then you started doubling down and I had my doubts



inmyprime said:


> I’m saying that nobody in school / college age actually uses it.


It's always a pretty good idea to actually say what you mean. 

Men have a hard enough time getting women to understand us as it is.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I read it right.
> 
> 
> 
> True he said she didn't say "no".
> 
> 
> 
> But, he said that she didn't fight back (as if that should be a requirement) and he implied that by merely being at a party of that sort, she was "asking for it".



That’s, like, your manterpretation of it. How about just reading the words and the meaning and not guess what’s implied instead?
She didn’t say ‘no’, why would she need to fight?

You guys are being played into a corner and can’t seem to see the wood for the trees. 

By all means, stick with your consent forms.

I need to get some shut eye now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Before.
> 
> 
> 
> That was clear from the context.



No it’s not clear: how the duck would she know if he’s trying to kiss her BEFOREHAND? 
She either stops him in the process by turning away, or she will be trying to say ‘no’ which is difficult if his tongue is down her throat.

You need to think more practically. Outside the box etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is why anyone would argue and debate with people who HAVE used AC successfully for a long time (not just myself, there are plenty of others) and try to tell us it doesn't work and tell us that it will just cause more problems and that no one will get laid if left up to AC? Confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a young woman going into a situation assuming that everyone will be practicing AC and therefore relying on that to keep her out of situations she doesn't want to be in.
Click to expand...

Except that if she actually is educated in AC and understands it, her first assumption will be that others may NOT be educated in AC. See, that’s part of understanding it. You learn that others may not understand it, to make no assumptions about what they understand and to ask for clarification until you know for sure what they understand, what their intentions are and what their boundaries are. She would also be very self aware and clear in her own boundaries.


----------



## RandomDude

Buddy400 said:


> I read it right.
> 
> True he said she didn't say "no".
> 
> But, he said that she didn't fight back (as if that should be a requirement) and he implied that by merely being at a party of that sort, she was "asking for it".


When I mentioned that I believe both should be responsible for their actions I mentioned very clearly that the girl taking responsibility for her actions *does not in any way invalidate the actions of that guy.*

When my girlfriend took responsibility for putting herself in the situation she did not go "I was asking for it" nor does she reckon her friend was.


----------



## 269370

Ok let’s talk about codifying affirmative (verbal) consent into law (accent on ‘affirmative’ and ‘verbal’ because only actual sexual predators will have sex with someone KNOWINGLY, without their consent):

Such a law will make 99.9999% of past sexual encounters illegal and most of the guys into felons. Plus there is nothing stopping the sexual predator from lying and making up a story that explicit consent was given. Nor is there anything stopping the woman making up a story that she didn’t give consent.
The burden of proof is going to be on the accuser (obviously) so: how is she going to prove it? And how is this different to proving any other encounter where there is a difference in accounts of the same encounter?

At which ‘junctures’, is it appropriate to ask for verbal consent since sexual activity is fluid/evolving and a woman may want a finger up her ass but it might so happen that having her breasts fondled without the question might be a felony. Who decides which areas or activity need the extra question?
Who deals with the problem that ‘can I kiss you?, Yes, you may’ - does not mean anal.

If a woman is apparently unable to get up and leave in a situation that she is uncomfortable with, what makes anyone think the same woman will be able to articulate verbally what it is they want done to them? How is it going to stop her from feeling she may have been ‘coerced’ into saying ‘yes’?

What have we fixed?

You can’t use and trust a system and assume it won’t be abused; that’s not how the rule of law works.

Have actual women themselves (not just feminists) been asked for ‘affirmative consent’ if they even want any of this? 

It is really not a problem at all for a regular guy (who is not a professional rapist) to ask for affirmative verbal consent, if they know that’s what the law is and that’s what they have to do to get laid. Lets be clear about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

RandomDude said:


> When I mentioned that I believe both should be responsible for their actions I mentioned very clearly that the girl taking responsibility for her actions *does not in any way invalidate the actions of that guy.*



No it doesn’t. But in your girlfriend’s specific case, if she didn’t find him gross and if she reciprocated (or didn’t resist), the actions of the guy would have been exactly the same. The only thing that would be different would have been her feelings about it.

If she pressed charges, the court would ask questions to establish he is guilty on the basis of WHAT HE DID, not how she felt about it afterwards, such as: how did she end up alone with the guy, knowing what he was like. Was she unable to leave/how did he force her to stay exactly and was there anyone else to verify her account. Or should the court put him in prison, on the basis that he has sex with lots of girls?
I don’t really mind either way btw.

Maybe we should ask men who actually have had sex with lots of different women, how they did it and what they looked out for, for consent, not the ‘sexless marriage guys’ or married virgins (no offence). @ConanHub @oldshirt @BluesPower etc. They don’t seem to post a lot on this thread.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

And btw what I would focus the funds on instead of some retarded law that nobody knows how to apply or use properly, would be on compulsory courses for adolescents to learn about the risks and dangers and various situations they may unknowingly put themselves in. Part of it should be parents’ responsibility.

Those are behavioural issues. An argument could be made that educating kids about drink driving, using cell phones in cars and smoking may actually be a more urgent matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

NobodySpecial said:


> No one, let me repeat NO ONE, is asserting that the sick a$$ dudes are not responsible for this. I did not even know this was a thing. I just googled campus rape room and came up with nothing.


This is one high profile example: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/article151054487.html

There are less egregious examples, many of which end up as classic "grey zone" stories.

Because, of course, it isn't as overt, and so a typical "he said, she said" scenario.


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> I think someone is responsible for sexual assault at the point where they continue after the other person tells them to stop, or if the other person is unable (eg due to intoxication) to give consent, or if the situation involves a power imbalance that might make the other person unwilling to say stop. (with the usual caveats about prior agreements etc).
> 
> I think people *should* not continue sexual activity if they don't have clear signs of active consent from their partners.


Okay. We agree on this. Now the harder question. Should the person who was assaulted press charges? In every case? Should they just chalk it up to experience and stay away from that person/those people?


----------



## personofinterest

wild jade said:


> uhtred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think someone is responsible for sexual assault at the point where they continue after the other person tells them to stop, or if the other person is unable (eg due to intoxication) to give consent, or if the situation involves a power imbalance that might make the other person unwilling to say stop. (with the usual caveats about prior agreements etc).
> 
> I think people *should* not continue sexual activity if they don't have clear signs of active consent from their partners.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. We agree on this. Now the harder question. Should the person who was assaulted press charges? In every case? Should they just chalk it up to experience and stay away from that person/those people?
Click to expand...

 You know what? In this kind of question, my should is not your should and our should might not be someone else's should. Should someone pressed charges is not even a valid question. No matter how traumatized I am or how clear cut the case, the decision to press charges and go through the judicial process is mine and mine alone. The last thing a right victim needs is to feel like a failure because she didn't press charges. Or to feel like a Hussey because she did press charges. The rape victim gets to make that decision,.. And while we're at it, the idea that posters must be OK with rape because we didn't all clamor to tell some hypothetical girlfriend we don't even know to press charges is ridiculous. It wasn't my job to tell a stranger that his girlfriend should press charges. I don't know what was up with that period


----------



## oldshirt

inmyprime said:


> Maybe we should ask men who actually have had sex with lots of different women, how they did it and what they looked out for, for consent, not the ‘sexless marriage guys’ or married virgins (no offence). @ConanHub @oldshirt @BluesPower etc. They don’t seem to post a lot on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


When you have a discussion with a sane, sober, adult woman about all the sexual things you want to do with each other and then you start touching, kissing, making out, taking one piece of clothing off at a time and engaging in foreplay and oral sex and then her saying, "I want you inside me," and then spreads her legs and takes hold of my penis and guides it into her vagina - I take that as consent.


----------



## wild jade

personofinterest said:


> You know what? In this kind of question, my should is not your should and our should might not be someone else's should. Should someone pressed charges is not even a valid question. No matter how traumatized I am or how clear cut the case, the decision to press charges and go through the judicial process is mine and mine alone. The last thing a right victim needs is to feel like a failure because she didn't press charges. Or to feel like a Hussey because she did press charges. The rape victim gets to make that decision,.. And while we're at it, the idea that posters must be OK with rape because we didn't all clamor to tell some hypothetical girlfriend we don't even know to press charges is ridiculous. It wasn't my job to tell a stranger that his girlfriend should press charges. I don't know what was up with that period


My point was simple: it's the grey zones where all the discussions are. We have on one side of the grey zone that if we go down the road of calling this assault, then most of previous sexual behavior is actually assault and how terrible that would be. We have on the other side of the grey zone encouragement to view these incidents as assault and to press charges.

Those are the extremes. The reality is always somewhere in the blurry middle.


----------



## personofinterest

Well the previous behavior thing is just stupid. When we know better we do better. The 19 eighties and 19 nineties are over, and nobody is going to go after the 50 year old man who might have groped too much back in college. So using that as some sort of defense is ridiculous. If you happened to go too far with your high school girlfriend back in 1984, it doesn't matter. You're safe. You don't get to use that is some kind of sad reason not to addressed the issues in 2018. I don't understand why that is even a discussion. Although I think maybe it's because none of the men on here who seem to be resisted to the idea of consent want to it mitt that maybe 25 years ago they pushed to the on velo. 25 years ago we probably all did things that weren't such a good idea. Let it go comet drop the ego, and live in 2018 peering it your pride is not as important as women's safety.


----------



## personofinterest

There was so much badd talk to text in that post I don't even know where to begin editing it so good luck interpret in it lol


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> That's what's so difficult about rape and sexual assault, many it is just "he said she said".
> 
> I can't imagine how anyone could be found guilty in a "he said she said" situation with no witnesses, no physical evidence or no circumstantial evidence.


Yes! That is exactly the problem. Most cases are "he said, she said" and there is rarely any ability to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

So mostly, women either don't bother pressing charges at all, to save the hassle and humiliation, or the guilty walk.

In the case of universities, the situation was worse because they had a vested interest in rug-sweeping any and every complaint in order to protect their reputation.

Affirmative consent is an attempt to have something done about this problem, so that it might be at least possible for the "she said" side of the coin to be believed. 

It only applies to schools because it is part of the education act -- targeted specifically at this particular problem (university rug-sweeping of an ongoing issue).

And these are NOT criminal convictions. They are attempts to restore safety on campuses.


----------



## NobodySpecial

wild jade said:


> This is one high profile example: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/article151054487.html
> 
> There are less egregious examples, many of which end up as classic "grey zone" stories.
> 
> Because, of course, it isn't as overt, and so a typical "he said, she said" scenario.


Oops...
Unfortunately, we are unable to locate the page you requested. Please check the web address you entered and try again.


----------



## ConanHub

RandomDude said:


> When I mentioned that I believe both should be responsible for their actions I mentioned very clearly that the girl taking responsibility for her actions *does not in any way invalidate the actions of that guy.*
> 
> When my girlfriend took responsibility for putting herself in the situation she did not go "I was asking for it" nor does she reckon her friend was.


What happened with your gf? Sorry to ask for a repeat but late joining this thread. I participated in a fairly thorough one a while back by Anon Pink I believe so wasn't joining in here.


----------



## 269370

oldshirt said:


> "I want you inside me,"



That’s not asking for affirmative consent, according to the new laws that are coming into place in some states/countries. If she wanted, she could press charges for sexual assault.

Plus it would be disrespectful to women if you just presumed and stated your want, instead of asking her and getting and affirmative answer.

How would your session go if instead you asked her if you could do X, Y and Z every step of the way? Because that’s what we are moving towards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> Okay. We agree on this. Now the harder question. Should the person who was assaulted press charges? In every case? Should they just chalk it up to experience and stay away from that person/those people?



It’s entirely up to the victim if they want to press charges or not. There is no ‘should’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

I'm still trying to figure out why all of us should have known to encourage someone we've never met who we only heard about in a vague story to press charges, and how the fact that no one was clamoring for her to press charges somehow means we aren't really against assault.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Although I think maybe it's because none of the men on here who seem to be resisted to the idea of consent want to it mitt that maybe 25 years ago they pushed to the on velo. 25 years ago we probably all did things that weren't such a good idea. Let it go comet drop the ego, and live in 2018 peering it your pride is not as important as women's safety.




I really don’t think this is it (sorry). It’s a nice theory. I’m sure it is the case for some men though. But I was just illustrating the ridiculousness and flaws of the new law. I do not believe for a second that I ever went over the line, in my own estimation, using my own moral compass. More importantly, my wife does not believe this either. Overall, we both moved actually pretty slowly (she thinks maybe too slowly, overall). Being both virgins, we slept perhaps 8 months after our first kiss. The law however does not care about my estimation nor moral compass. It can put me in prison if I don’t get an affirmative, verbal ‘yes’, every time and at every stage of the way. And I don’t want to hear that’s because I do not know how to use it. If people have the possibility to ‘use’ a law in so many different ways, I would look at the law itself to see what is wrong with it.

I do have a counter theory though: there are a sizeable number of women who do not want or cannot bear to take responsibility for mistakes in their past and join #metoo regardless. I get it’s tough and I feel very bad those women were pushed into situation they ended up feeling uncomfortable about but this is detracting from the actual problems that need sorting out (which is education and understanding of risk as well as how to act/react in certain situations going forward for the younger generation).



personofinterest;19662867Although I think maybe it's because none of the men on here who seem to be resisted to the idea of consent want to it mitt that maybe 25 years ago they pushed to the on velo. 25 years ago we probably all did things that weren't such a good idea. Let it go comet drop the ego said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

It seems that at campus tribunals, the accused is actually guilty until he can prove that he obtained consent. This seems utterly insane:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....g-due-process-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/

“These states’ laws now have enormous inconsistencies between their definitions of sexual assault for campus tribunals and for criminal courts,” Johnson and Taylor wrote. “In the former, an accused student must prove that he obtained ‘affirmative consent’ throughout every sexual encounter, even with a longtime partner. This standard ‘is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused,’ a Tennessee state judge has ruled.”


According to this article, 1 in 3 innocent students are found guilty. Furthermore, this system may be imported into the criminal justice system.

This does not seem right. At all. The burden of proof should always lie with the accuser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

> she said ‘no’ yet stayed for him too continue.


No. Two NO's is enough. In fact, the FIRST move he made after her no was out of bounds.

I'm sorry. In a court of law, if she can prove she said no then the fact that she didn't leave the room is irrelevant.


----------



## NobodySpecial

It still sounds a whole lot like more Why doesn't she just... to me.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> No. Two NO's is enough. In fact, the FIRST move he made after her no was out of bounds.
> 
> I'm sorry. In a court of law, if she can prove she said no then the fact that she didn't leave the room is irrelevant.


If you don't quote the whole paragraph, it is misleading: the conversation was about a playful no versus an *actual* no where even @uhtred acknowledges the difference.

Are you saying there is no difference? Or there shouldn't be a difference? It's not clear. 

My question, that still hasn't been answered: why is it unreasonable to follow up the verbal no with he corresponding action of leaving?


----------



## personofinterest

Okay, I'll clarify. In my scenario it was NOT a playful no.

Geeeees.....

I'm starting to see why some women are getting frustrated.

So are you saying that a woman is required to leave or it's her fault?


----------



## personofinterest

I'm imagining courtrooms now....

"I told him no over and over."

"Was it a playful no?" (which has replaced the former "did you try to fight him off or scream?")

Followed by:

"How many sexual partners have you had and what were you wearing?"


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Okay, I'll clarify. In my scenario it was NOT a playful no.
> 
> Geeeees.....
> 
> I'm starting to see why some women are getting frustrated.
> 
> So are you saying that a woman is required to leave or it's her fault?


Sorry, you are bedazzling me with your charms :circle:

When did *my* scenario (the scenario you quoted and went off on, on your own) become *your* scenario? 

*I would never say that an actual no should ever be ignored.* Like I said, the post you quoted and strawmanned, involved the acknowledgement on the difference between a playful no and a real no.

I am just asking what is the problem with following up a no with leaving, so that no doubt is left over the verbal no. I am NOT saying that a verbal no is not enough. You and others are deflecting a simple question and throwing the 'what was she wearing' stuff to stir the pot, which has nothing to do with the question or topic at hand. This is not how adults should be communicating on a forum nor does it actually help anyone understand the problem better.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> Okay, I'll clarify. In my scenario it was NOT a playful no.
> 
> Geeeees.....
> 
> I'm starting to see why some women are getting frustrated.
> 
> So are you saying that a woman is required to leave or it's her fault?


Why didn't you just...?


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> Sorry, you are bedazzling me with your charms :circle:
> 
> When did *my* scenario (the scenario you quoted and went off on, on your own) become *your* scenario?
> 
> *I would never say that an actual no should ever be ignored.* Like I said, the post you quoted and strawmanned, involved the acknowledgement on the difference between a playful no and a real no.
> 
> I am just asking what is the problem with following up a no with leaving, so that no doubt is left over the verbal no. I am NOT saying that a verbal no is not enough. You and others are deflecting a simple question and throwing the 'what was she wearing' stuff to stir the pot, which has nothing to do with the question or topic at hand. This is not how adults should be communicating on a forum nor does it actually help anyone understand the problem better.


I was referring to YOUR response to the scenario I presented:



> Join Date: Dec 2016
> Location: London
> Posts: 4,308
> Re: Consent and responsibility
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by personofinterest View Post
> 
> 
> 
> But as for the scenario in abstract, that situation is clear. She said no. Once a man hears a no, he keeps going at his own peril. If I was on a "tribunal" and the guy said, "well, she eventually let me," and the girl said, "I told him no twice, but then when he tried feeling me up again I gave up," that situation is clear.)
> 
> What? Nobody in their right mind just ‘gives up’ and lets the guy get on with it! That’s crazy. *How about getting up and leaving the room? If he physically stops you THEN it is clearly assault. *Why would anyone just give up? Does this actually ever happen like this? That’s crazy and scary.


----------



## uhtred

In general yes, because punishing the assailant is good for society and helps protect others. In specific cases I understand that it can be difficult and I think the victim gets to decide. 

Sexual assault trials can be very traumatic and its very difficult to figure out how to both protect the defendant's rights and avoid harming the victim. There are also many cases where sexual assault occurred, but there is insufficient evidence to prove it in court. In those cases there may be no point in pressing charges. 

If someone is "assaulted", which to means that the other person did not stop when clearly told to, then I never see it as the fault of the victim. 




wild jade said:


> Okay. We agree on this. Now the harder question. Should the person who was assaulted press charges? In every case? Should they just chalk it up to experience and stay away from that person/those people?


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Okay, I'll clarify. In my scenario it was NOT a playful no.
> 
> Geeeees.....
> 
> I'm starting to see why some women are getting frustrated.
> 
> So are you saying that a woman is required to leave or it's her fault?



Ok, lets see if anyone has a capability to think in anything else BUT black & white.

You go to a shop to buy curtains (yes, I know....here we go again...it's the end of summer sales after all...:crazy The salesman there is quite pushy and wants you to buy more than you need. You say 'no, thank you' but go ahead and buy all those curtains anyway. You regret buying so much afterwards and spend the rest of your life complaining how many curtains that slime bag of a salesman made you buy.

Is it unreasonable to ask the question *why* you felt you had to buy more than you need, instead of NOT buying them? Will you now classify this occurrance as theft, legally? Does it make the salesman a criminal? 
Why should sexual encounters be held to a different standard than any other encounters you encounter in every day life? (And I am NOT answering those questions but am leaving it to others to answer).


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I was referring to YOUR response to the scenario I presented:


And where do I say exactly that it's ok for him to ignore the 'no'?

Still no answer to the question of what's wrong with leaving.


----------



## uhtred

I think that there are two different types of grey zones that should be confused. 

One is that sometimes even with full knowledge of what happened, guilt is unclear. This can be the case where both parties are intoxicated, and at the borderline of being able to give consent. It can also be a case where a woman "felt" threatened by a situation and went along with sex, but there was no explicit threat. 

Then there are grey zones where based on the actions assault clearly did or did not occur, but there is not sufficient evidence. In particular where the parties involved claim different things happened, and there were not witnesses. Sometimes there is just not enough evidence to convict even though a rape absolutely occurred. 







wild jade said:


> My point was simple: it's the grey zones where all the discussions are. We have on one side of the grey zone that if we go down the road of calling this assault, then most of previous sexual behavior is actually assault and how terrible that would be. We have on the other side of the grey zone encouragement to view these incidents as assault and to press charges.
> 
> Those are the extremes. The reality is always somewhere in the blurry middle.


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> And where do I say exactly that it's ok for him to ignore the 'no'?
> 
> Still no answer to the question of what's wrong with leaving.


You may not realize it (though I cannot imagine how), but implying that "nobody does that" and asking "what is wrong with leaving?" minimizes what happened to this person. It also implies that A) she is an idiot, therefore her claim is invalid B) She is lying because "nobody does that" C) She could have left the room if she really meant it

The issue is not "what else cold a woman have done."

When I posited that originally, I stated that in the above case the man was clearly guilty. YOU disagreed he was guilty BY STATING that nobody does that and she could have left.

I don't know how much more clearly to connect these rather obvious dots for you.

P.S. There is nothing "wrong" with leaving. But she SHOULD NOT HAVE TO in order to be believed.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> No it’s not clear: how the duck would she know if he’s trying to kiss her BEFOREHAND?
> She either stops him in the process by turning away, or she will be trying to say ‘no’ which is difficult if his tongue is down her throat.
> 
> You need to think more practically. Outside the box etc.


I said.....

"Some guy twice her weight and six inches taller *goes to kiss her*.

She says "No, don't do that"

*He does it anyway.*"

So, she sees that he's going in for a kiss... seeing that, she says "no, don't do that"...... he then ignores what she clearly said and kisses her anyway.

Now, if he goes to kiss her, she says nothing and doesn't clearly move away, then she says "don't do that again" and he respects her wishes, then, at most, he's guilty of a social faux pas.


----------



## Buddy400

RandomDude said:


> When I mentioned that I believe both should be responsible for their actions I mentioned very clearly that the girl taking responsibility for her actions *does not in any way invalidate the actions of that guy.*
> 
> When my girlfriend took responsibility for putting herself in the situation she did not go "I was asking for it" nor does she reckon her friend was.


True. And I agree that both were responsible for their actions.

My comment was not directed at you. The person I responded to only said that she was responsible and one of the reasons stated was her presence at a party of that nature.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> You may not realize it (though I cannot imagine how), but implying that "nobody does that" and asking "what is wrong with leaving?" minimizes what happened to this person. It also implies that A) she is an idiot, therefore her claim is invalid B) She is lying because "nobody does that" C) She could have left the room if she really meant it
> 
> The issue is not "what else cold a woman have done."
> 
> When I posited that originally, I stated that in the above case the man was clearly guilty. YOU disagreed he was guilty BY STATING that nobody does that and she could have left.
> 
> I don't know how much more clearly to connect these rather obvious dots for you.


Asking the question why a woman is unable to leave the situation she is uncomfortable in may be an uncomfortable question to ask but it is an entirely legitimate question.

For example if your answer is that because he tied her to the bed post or overpowered her physically, before he had sex with her against her clearly expressed will, then the conversation is over. It does NOT imply any of your As and Bs and Cs. There are absolutely no extrapolations necessary to answer a very simple question.

If you are in a court of law, these questions (and many more) WILL be asked. Does it mean the person asking these questions condones rape or blames the victim or sides with the perpetrator? This is PC gone mad.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I said.....
> 
> "Some guy twice her weight and six inches taller *goes to kiss her*.
> 
> She says "No, don't do that"
> 
> *He does it anyway.*"
> 
> So, she sees that he's going in for a kiss... seeing that, she says "no, don't do that"...... he then ignores what she clearly said and kisses her anyway.
> 
> Now, if he goes to kiss her, she says nothing and doesn't clearly move away, then she says "don't do that again" and he respects her wishes, then, at most, he's guilty of a social faux pas.


I understand. I was saying that turning your face away is a much more natural reaction and is much more effective than saying anything at all.

How about this:

He goes in for a kiss, she says 'don't do that' but then SHE kisses him? Should he kiss her back or stop her?


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Ok let’s talk about codifying affirmative (verbal) consent into law (accent on ‘affirmative’ and ‘verbal’ because only actual sexual predators will have sex with someone KNOWINGLY, without their consent):
> 
> Such a law will make 99.9999% of past sexual encounters illegal and most of the guys into felons. Plus there is nothing stopping the sexual predator from lying and making up a story that explicit consent was given. Nor is there anything stopping the woman making up a story that she didn’t give consent.
> The burden of proof is going to be on the accuser (obviously) so: how is she going to prove it? And how is this different to proving any other encounter where there is a difference in accounts of the same encounter?
> 
> At which ‘junctures’, is it appropriate to ask for verbal consent since sexual activity is fluid/evolving and a woman may want a finger up her ass but it might so happen that having her breasts fondled without the question might be a felony. Who decides which areas or activity need the extra question?
> Who deals with the problem that ‘can I kiss you?, Yes, you may’ - does not mean anal.
> 
> If a woman is apparently unable to get up and leave in a situation that she is uncomfortable with, what makes anyone think the same woman will be able to articulate verbally what it is they want done to them? How is it going to stop her from feeling she may have been ‘coerced’ into saying ‘yes’?
> 
> What have we fixed?
> 
> You can’t use and trust a system and assume it won’t be abused; that’s not how the rule of law works.
> 
> Have actual women themselves (not just feminists) been asked for ‘affirmative consent’ if they even want any of this?
> 
> It is really not a problem at all for a regular guy (who is not a professional rapist) to ask for affirmative verbal consent, if they know that’s what the law is and that’s what they have to do to get laid. Lets be clear about that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree that AC as a formal policy or law will not do anything to prevent sexual assault, will sow confusion everywhere, result in people with only good intentions being punished and probably result in more cases of sexual assault.

It's also a very good point that we aren't even really sure if this is something most women actually support.

I'm trying to point out that "NO means NO" and assertiveness training for young women (and training for young men to respect it) are better solutions.

But it sure doesn't help when men start posting that "No" may not really mean "No" (or saying things in such a way that that is a reasonable interpretation). 

I mean, if there are guys who aren't going to pay attention to women saying "No", what chance is there that they'll practice Affirmative Consent?


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> True. And I agree that both were responsible for their actions.
> 
> My comment was not directed at you. The person I responded to only said that she was responsible and one of the reasons stated was her presence at a party of that nature.


Nope: BOTH reasons: the fact that (the other girl) didn't actually say 'no', being the main reason. Being at the party simply heightens the risk of something like this occurring in the first place. (It's RandomDude who mentioned that drugs, hook ups, sex and alcohol were standard at such parties and everyone was aware of it - I made no such judgement!).


----------



## NobodySpecial

I am sad and disheartened to think that accepting innocents as collateral damage is a position I need to seriously rethink. Probably not what some on this thread hoped to get through. But it is the message I am getting.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I agree that AC as a formal policy or law will not do anything to prevent sexual assault, will sow confusion everywhere, result in people with only good intentions being punished and probably result in more cases of sexual assault.
> 
> It's also a very good point that we aren't even really sure if this is something most women actually support.
> 
> I'm trying to point out that "NO means NO" and assertiveness training for young women (and training for young men to respect it) are better solutions.
> 
> But it sure doesn't help when men start posting that "No" may not really mean "No" (or saying things in such a way that that is a reasonable interpretation).
> 
> I mean, if there are guys who aren't going to pay attention to women saying "No", what chance is there that they'll practice Affirmative Consent?


Yes, I would completely go along with this. However - and I am not sure whether you noticed this ('let me connect the dots for you', a la Personofineterst style :wink2 - but by you putting forward the idea that women need to take a course in assertiveness training, you are in fact implying that women lack autonomy and are unable to assert themselves clearly.

Given how this conversation is going, I don't think any woman here would be willing to admit that there is, or ever was, *anything* wrong with their ability to express assertiveness (one of which would be to *remove* yourself physically from a situation you don't want to be in). To imply otherwise is akin to saying 'how short was her skirt'. Do you not see this as part of the problem?

I don't think any normal guy will have an issue asking for verbal consent. The question is, do women *want* to be asked this question? (then you get into the "when" and "how often" do you ask it) and will they be able to give an answer that truly reflects their wishes at every stage? (and remember, we are talking about experimenting teenagers where 90% of these problems discussed here occur, not fully formed adults).

Why not make it even easier? Why not make it mandatory to make any sexual advances to be initiated only by women? The problem will go away completely.

The way it is now (reading about campus rules / their due process): the guys will be doing all the work to approach girls and the girls will have the ability to decide whether it was something they wanted (or if it was assault) *after* the fact. That is not an acceptable system.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> In the case of universities, the situation *was* worse because they had a vested interest in rug-sweeping any and every complaint in order to protect their reputation.


The key word is was. Other than perhaps a few cases involving high profile sports (and I'm pretty sure that's changing now as well). The best interests of universities is now best protected by erring on the side of finding all complaints as valid and penalizing the the alleged perpetrator.



wild jade said:


> Affirmative consent is an attempt to have something done about this problem, so that it might be at least possible for the "she said" side of the coin to be believed.


I can't imagine how AC helps in "he said she said" cases. Now, instead of arguing about whether it was consensual or not, we'll just be arguing about whether she consented (verbally, non-verbally, whatever) or not. There will be no more proof either way (unless, of course, the consent was documented or recorded).


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> P.S. There is nothing "wrong" with leaving. But she SHOULD NOT HAVE TO in order to be believed.


No, of course you are right that she shouldn't have to. But if she has a choice between leaving and giving the guy a BJ to leave her alone, why would she choose the latter? I cannot be the only guy who is completely baffled with this choice? The reason I ask is not to blame anyone, but if I understand the mechanism or process of thinking that would compel one to choose the BJ (doesn;t have to be a BJ, just insert any action to please the guy in any way whatsoever), it might be easier for men to understand what is ACTUALLY going on (and I may be able to explain it to my children better).

I personally would be traumatised if I later found out that that's what had occurred.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> Oops...
> Unfortunately, we are unable to locate the page you requested. Please check the web address you entered and try again.


Well, it involved football players hazing freshmen players by having them bring in young women so that the rest of the team could "run a train on them" and video tape it.

I'm assuming it was not consensual on the women's part.

I can't imagine anyone who doesn't think this is horrific and criminal. I'm assuming that the women didn't do this voluntarily (which I can't imagine they did).

I'm glad they were stupid enough to videotape it.


----------



## Buddy400

You say.....



inmyprime said:


> *I would never say that an actual no should ever be ignored.*


which is good.

Then you continue with stuff like this ....



inmyprime said:


> Ok, lets see if anyone has a capability to think in anything else BUT black & white.
> 
> You go to a shop to buy curtains (yes, I know....here we go again...it's the end of summer sales after all...:crazy The salesman there is quite pushy and wants you to buy more than you need. You say 'no, thank you' but go ahead and buy all those curtains anyway. You regret buying so much afterwards and spend the rest of your life complaining how many curtains that slime bag of a salesman made you buy.
> 
> Is it unreasonable to ask the question *why* you felt you had to buy more than you need, instead of NOT buying them? Will you now classify this occurrance as theft, legally? Does it make the salesman a criminal?
> Why should sexual encounters be held to a different standard than any other encounters you encounter in every day life? (And I am NOT answering those questions but am leaving it to others to answer).


and you wonder why people don't seem to understand what you're saying


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> Well, it involved football players hazing freshmen players by having them bring in young women so that the rest of the team could "run a train on them" and video tape it.
> 
> I'm assuming it was not consensual on the women's part.
> 
> I can't imagine anyone who doesn't think this is horrific and criminal. I'm assuming that the women didn't do this voluntarily (which I can't imagine they did).
> 
> I'm glad they were stupid enough to videotape it.


This case is fairly straightforward. The article says that the victim claimed her and others were drugged. It's a criminal offence to have sex with someone who is incapacitated. 

This is the resolution: Baylor University settles Title IX lawsuit in which gang rape by up to 8 football players was alleged

I have to say I am really disgusted by this (just reading it). Part of the education, should possibly involve post care and proper procedure; how to gather evidence and maximise the chances that the scumbags are brought to justice (not because she did anything wrong but to get maximum sentence for the perpetrators). Including those who engaged in cover ups. 
Disgusting.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> You say.....
> 
> 
> 
> which is good.
> 
> Then you continue with stuff like this ....
> 
> 
> 
> and you wonder why people don't seem to understand what you're saying


People are extrapolating and putting words in my mouth. You can on the one hand believe that ignoring a real 'no' is wrong while on the other hand ask the question what prevented the victim from leaving the situation she was uncomfortable with (if she was physically able to do it). There is no dissonance between the two. At least I don't see where. The question does not imply that he had the right to continue or that it was in any way her fault.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I am sad and disheartened to think that accepting innocents as collateral damage is a position I need to seriously rethink. Probably not what some on this thread hoped to get through. But it is the message I am getting.


It's good that you're considering this.

I'll play with fire and use another analogy.

*Assuming terrorist leaders present a clear and present danger to American civilians*. Even if you don't believe this, pretend for the moment that you do (or I'm going to have to re-type all this getting rid of the analogy, and I'd rather not have to do that).

Your goal is to kill terrorist leaders. However, you don't want to kill innocent civilians in the process.

One could decide:

1) Killing terrorist leaders is so important that the collateral damage to innocent people is a cost worth paying.

2) Killing innocent civilians is so bad that you should just live with leaving the terrorist leaders alive and accept that some Americans will die as a result.

3) Of course, another choice is realize that some collateral damage is inevitable, carefully weighing the choices and doing the best one can to try to remove only the most dangerous leaders while doing everything in one's power to minimize civilian casualties. 

All of these options are intellectually honest (though, of course the decision made will vary by person).

What is *not intellectually honest *is believing that the terrorist leaders can be killed without killing any innocent civilians.

So, how much sexual abuse of women can be prevented at what cost to innocent men?

That's a question very worthy of spending time to think over.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> People are extrapolating and putting words in my mouth. You can on the one hand believe that ignoring a real 'no' is wrong while on the other hand ask the question what prevented the victim from leaving the situation she was uncomfortable with (if she was physically able to do it). There is no dissonance between the two. At least I don't see where. The question does not imply that he had the right to continue or that it was in any way her fault.


I believe that you mean what you say you mean.

I'm just pointing out one reason some here might be confused.


----------



## FrenchFry

. they get those.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> I believe that you mean what you say you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just pointing out one reason some here might be confused.



Thanks. I know; I find myself incredibly annoying. And I’m not even in disagreement with myself! I don’t think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

there are some grey areas, but to me once someone has said "no", there is no grey anymore. I don't see the problem with that. 

If someone is stupid enough to say "no" when they don't mean it, then they get what they deserve - which is to not have sex that time. Maybe to be dumped. 

There are lots of subtleties in non-verbal communication, etc etc but language fixes that and while I think that there are non-verbal ways to give consent, but I can't think of any situation in which a verbal "no" should be ignored. Does anyone really want to have sex with someone who plays the sort of game where they intentionally muddy consent? 

Once you no longer stop at a "no", where do you stop? Did she not push hands away hard enough. Not struggle hard enough to get away when she tried to get up and you didn't let her? Not hit hard enough, or scream loud enough? Why go that way at all? 

As far as why a woman might not get up: I could easily see ignoring a clear "no" as changing the situation from consensual sex to rape. Now she is in a room with a rapist and there is no telling what violence a rapist might do. In some cases going along may be safer than resisting.


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> No, of course you are right that she shouldn't have to. But if she has a choice between leaving and giving the guy a BJ to leave her alone, why would she choose the latter? I cannot be the only guy who is completely baffled with this choice? The reason I ask is not to blame anyone, but if I understand the mechanism or process of thinking that would compel one to choose the BJ (doesn;t have to be a BJ, just insert any action to please the guy in any way whatsoever), it might be easier for men to understand what is ACTUALLY going on (and I may be able to explain it to my children better).
> 
> I personally would be traumatised if I later found out that that's what had occurred.


I had two very close friends I will call B and J when I was a young woman. J was very sweet, but she was not a "touchy" person. By that I mean she was not huggy - not the kind of person who touched a lot or was overly receptive to touch. B was an extroverted person, but she had "don't F with me" written on her forehead. Now she is a great friends and fiercly loyal and big hearted. But she could take you down if you entered her space the wrong way lol. Then there was me. I was relatively quiet unless I knew you, was somewhat of a people pleaser, had very strict parents, so I wasn't very assertive, and I craved acceptance.


All 3 of us took private voice lessons from the same man. Why do you think_* I *_was the one he chose to molest?

There is a reason the jerk guy tends to chose the quiet, unassuming girl. The one he can sense might not be too experienced and really wants a boyfriend? Because it is easier to coerce past her "no." The girl like that....well for her to say 'No" twice took just about every ounce of courage she had. To imply that she "should have" left is to be completely ignorant of the kind of target a sexual predator almost always chooses.

I'm stronger now. But I will tell you the NUMBER 1 reason that I waited over 10 years to tell anyone was this:

I went back to voice lessons after it happened, and I didn't tell him to stop (even though my body language was rigid and there were tears in my eyes and give me a break he was my teacher). So if I didn't run away or "make" him stop....it was my fault, right?

No, it wasn't, but that was what I told myself. That is also why a lot of people wait years to come forward. Which is why when people say "If she was really assaulted she wouldn't have waited X years" makes me want to throat punch someone.

This kind of stuff is all over the media. Campuses and corporations have been doing training and educational meetings on this stuff for decades.

So a man has to be intentionally obtuse, stubborn, or just not very bright not to know that saying "Why didn't she....." to a victim is just.....ridiculous.

Or he's just a pot stirrer who needs some sort of EQ training.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> The key word is was. Other than perhaps a few cases involving high profile sports (and I'm pretty sure that's changing now as well). The best interests of universities is now best protected by erring on the side of finding all complaints as valid and penalizing the the alleged perpetrator.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine how AC helps in "he said she said" cases. Now, instead of arguing about whether it was consensual or not, we'll just be arguing about whether she consented (verbally, non-verbally, whatever) or not. There will be no more proof either way (unless, of course, the consent was documented or recorded).


Affirmative consent *is* the reason that I used the past tense. 

The situation is still plenty bad, but with affirmative consent, well, the odds of sexual assault are greatly reduced, there are fewer charges, and overall everyone is happier.

Don't know why you think the total opposite of this. 

(Although I do agree that once there is an accusation, there will always be an element of he said, she said. That part can't be dodged. What we can do is lower overall incidence and empower everyone.)


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Yes, I would completely go along with this. However - and I am not sure whether you noticed this ('let me connect the dots for you', a la Personofineterst style :wink2 - but by you putting forward the idea that women need to take a course in assertiveness training, you are in fact implying that women lack autonomy and are unable to assert themselves clearly.


Yes, when originally putting this idea forward (long ago, on another thread), I half expected push back for this reason.

But, it's the women who are always saying that women are "raised not to say no", that it "goes against their social conditioning" or "they aren't comfortable saying "no". So what choice is there? 

There's the idea somehow that a man saying "if you love me, you'll have sex with me" or "I'll break up with you if you don't have sex with me" or "I'll get blue balls if you don't have sex with me" or "if I don't have casual sex, everyone will think I'm a prude" and things of that sort somehow put women in the impossible situation of not being able to keep everybody happy and that saying "no" will result in conflict, so sometimes they don;t say "no" when they'd like to. This surprised me.

Sure, it would be nice if women (especially young women) weren't put in this position (and guys that would put them in this position are *******s), but the problem just can't be resolved by somehow compelling guys to not put them there. That's not how life works. Even if somehow 95% of guys get educated, there's still the 5% (undoubtedly, the same 5% as before) to worry about. 

If this is a problem, then I really don't see a good solution other than educating women to be more assertive.

It seems to me that some women want to be equal (in many areas, which is a goal I wholeheartedly support) but have the system changed so they don't have to do things that they're uncomfortable doing.


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> Depending on our personal history - it's fear and the direct experience of "if I do a smaller thing that I have some control over and/or does not harm me as much me, I will not get actually hurt and/or raped." Depending on our personal history/experience, the word "no" is more dangerous than acquiescence. If there is any sort of power differential, this is a factor.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no good way of saying that without somewhat offending those who are 100% not trying to hurt women because it sounds like I'm saying "men who don't get yes are trying to hurt women." I'm not saying this, I am saying that the above is one of the main reasons/ rationalizations why. The male abuse survivors I have had the honor to talk with agree - it's not always physical, it's emotional and socially as well.
> 
> 
> 
> When I talk about affirmative consent outside of TAM, it's less about covering your own ass and more about deciphering desire vs. coercion and how much easier it is when you know what "yes" sounds like vs the "no, playful no, maybe no no but turned away is that really a no?" situation. It's more about after you do have sex with a person, not feeling like a scummy salesperson just manipulated you into buying more than you wanted. More about those guys who want mutual desire to be the paramount of sexual interactions - how they get those.



Thank you for this. It is not so easy to put yourself into the mindset where you feel compelled to have to make those choices; and I am sure this mindset will be very alien to many men. I can’t be the only one. I think men/boys should learn about the ‘freeze’ effect (it was new to me). People normally talk about the fight or flight response; it’s the complete opposite of being frozen with fear.

This is why we need this dialogue and it should be part of the education to reach some kind of enlightenment. Rather than dismissing and ignoring the differences between genders, I think it would be more beneficial to acknowledge and embrace and learn about them early on.

I’m not certain AC takes us in the right direction. Nor does the new wave of feminism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> Depending on our personal history - it's fear and the direct experience of "if I do a smaller thing that I have some control over and/or does not harm me as much me, I will not get actually hurt and/or raped." Depending on our personal history/experience, the word "no" is more dangerous than acquiescence. If there is any sort of power differential, this is a factor.
> 
> There is no good way of saying that without somewhat offending those who are 100% not trying to hurt women because it sounds like I'm saying "men who don't get yes are trying to hurt women." I'm not saying this, I am saying that the above is one of the main reasons/ rationalizations why. The male abuse survivors I have had the honor to talk with agree - it's not always physical, it's emotional and socially as well.
> 
> When I talk about affirmative consent outside of TAM, it's less about covering your own ass and more about deciphering desire vs. coercion and how much easier it is when you know what "yes" sounds like vs the "no, playful no, maybe no no but turned away is that really a no?" situation. It's more about after you do have sex with a person, not feeling like a scummy salesperson just manipulated you into buying more than you wanted. More about those guys who want mutual desire to be the paramount of sexual interactions - how they get those.


It's good to know the thinking behind women sometimes not saying "no" in these situations.

If we're talking about AC in terms of something that might be useful to men who want to make certain that there's mutual desire, that's good.

But, if you're hoping get the scummy salesperson who manipulates you into buying more than you wanted and change his behavior, that's not going to happen. They don't care if you're happy about your purchase (or, they're convinced you will be later).

Instituting AC as a policy also isn't going to get the scummy salesman to change his ways. At best, a couple of scummy salespeople will change due to fear of violating the policy. But at the cost of many innocent, well meaning men being charged with violations of a unclear and largely unenforceable policy. 

And, keep in mind, successfully changing social mores is problematic even when the majority support the change. And I'm not sure that even a majority of women support this effort.


----------



## wild jade

Cletus said:


> I\
> 
> Two people are in a room, of their own volition. One wants sex* and the other does not but is fine with a little foreplay*. Gender doesn't matter. Either person could be of any sexual orientation and presentation. Don't care. Which one should assume the primary responsibility of ensuring that no boundary is crossed - the one who has the boundary or the one who does not?
> 
> That's it. That's the argument in a nut shell. Shifting the responsibility for ensuring that the boundary isn't crossed to the person who does not hold it, _particularly_ when the boundary is not expressly stated, is to put it in the wrong hands.
> 
> * Whatever those two terms mean for the group in question.


I was thinking about this, and it strikes me as a pretty dog-eat-dog, lacking in compassion attitude.

Everyone, I don't care who you are, has some sort of boundaries, and most of them aren't front and center. We need to assume these boundaries exist, even if we don't know exactly where they are, for all types of relationships -- not just sexual ones. Shouldn't we? 

Assuming that there are no boundaries until otherwise told seems pretty naive and not a terribly great way to deal with people -- at best.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> It's good to know the thinking behind women sometimes not saying "no" in these situations.
> 
> If we're talking about AC in terms of something that might be useful to men who want to make certain that there's mutual desire, that's good.
> 
> But, if you're hoping get the scummy salesperson who manipulates you into buying more than you wanted and change his behavior, that's not going to happen. They don't care if you're happy about your purchase (or, they're convinced you will be later).
> 
> Instituting AC as a policy also isn't going to get the scummy salesman to change his ways. At best, a couple of scummy salespeople will change due to fear of violating the policy. But at the cost of many innocent, well meaning men being charged with violations of a unclear and largely unenforceable policy.
> 
> And, keep in mind, successfully changing social mores is problematic even when the majority support the change. And I'm not sure that even a majority of women support this effort.


What makes you think more men will be accused of sexual assault under affirmative consent? 

And why do you think that most of these accused are actually innocent? And not just innocent, but destined to be pilloried no matter what?


----------



## wild jade

I find it interesting that the assumption here seems to be that on one hand, there are good guys, who would never do anything to hurt anyone, at least not knowingly (hence any untoward action is purely accidental, he really isn't at fault) and on the other, the scummy low-lifes who don't care about any rules and are just out to be evil.

IME, people are a whole lot more morally ambiguous than all of that. 

There's been quite a bit of research done that shows pretty clearly that people would do all sorts of unsavory things if they knew there would be no consequences.


----------



## 269370

uhtred said:


> there are some grey areas, but to me once someone has said "no", there is no grey anymore. I don't see the problem with that.
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is stupid enough to say "no" when they don't mean it, then they get what they deserve - which is to not have sex that time. Maybe to be dumped.
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of subtleties in non-verbal communication, etc etc but language fixes that and while I think that there are non-verbal ways to give consent, but I can't think of any situation in which a verbal "no" should be ignored. Does anyone really want to have sex with someone who plays the sort of game where they intentionally muddy consent?
> 
> 
> 
> Once you no longer stop at a "no", where do you stop? Did she not push hands away hard enough. Not struggle hard enough to get away when she tried to get up and you didn't let her? Not hit hard enough, or scream loud enough? Why go that way at all?
> 
> 
> 
> As far as why a woman might not get up: I could easily see ignoring a clear "no" as changing the situation from consensual sex to rape. Now she is in a room with a rapist and there is no telling what violence a rapist might do. In some cases going along may be safer than resisting.



For me, it’s the ‘and you didn’t let her’ where it crosses into assault territory. 
I agree that given the environment we currently live in, it makes sense to be extremely careful.

I don’t want to make this discussion too tedious but whatever happened to romantic pursuits? There is always a price to pay: you loose some of that if you are too paranoid about consent.

Remember the National Geographic documentary Lion King, where Simba chases after Nala (no talking or verbal consent there)?

https://youtu.be/G2cdp7hDi6E

I think it would be a shame to loose this for good. And I think it’s the women who will pay the price in the end. I don’t see how AC is going to fix anything (it’s the ‘affirmative’ part that I have an issue with; you should ALWAYS act with consent in mind and not against anyone’s will, whether explicit or implied) and acknowledge that this ‘system’ is imperfect. Because there is no perfect system.

I was speaking about AC with my wife; she also doesn’t seem to think that anyone is going to be having much sex in the future...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> I was thinking about this, and it strikes me as a pretty dog-eat-dog, lacking in compassion attitude.
> 
> Everyone, I don't care who you are, has some sort of boundaries, and most of them aren't front and center. We need to assume these boundaries exist, even if we don't know exactly where they are, for all types of relationships -- not just sexual ones. Shouldn't we?
> 
> *Assuming that there are no boundaries until otherwise told seems pretty naive and not a terribly great way to deal with people -- at best.*


Classic strawman. Nobody has said that should be the going in assumption. I think we all pretty much think there's some boundary going in. We just don't know exactly where they are. So we gotta' find them. 

How do we find them? Somebody's gotta' say. So the question becomes who should have to say? It seems to make some sense that the person with the boundary should say so. 

This in no way implies a lack of compassion. As soon as one says they don't want to go any further, it stops, without rancor or judgment. On more than one occasion, I continued making out after having my hands redirected, and my partner was very pleased to keep doing so. So she was out nothing for her refusal, and more importantly, she knew she was respected, But she was the one who decided where the boundary was. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## personofinterest

wild jade said:


> What makes you think more men will be accused of sexual assault under affirmative consent?
> 
> And why do you think that most of these accused are actually innocent? And not just innocent, but destined to be pilloried no matter what?


A little history here....

In the early 1980's there was a case of a child at a daycare accusing a worker of touching them. Child Sex Abuse and child molesters and such were just necoming something that was more widely talked about. Some of you who are older may remember the avalanche of Daycare molestation cases and accusations that began to follow. Each getting wilder than the next. Then the barrage of "child molestation satanic cults". Each story became wilder than the next. 

Well, right before all this and a little bit tangential to it, there was a movement among child psychologists to "believe the children." As in believe the children no matter what, no matter how young, and get the "story" however you had to get it. You had police officers promising little kids ice cream if they just "told the truth."

Another group of psychologists did extensive study about the....crowd affect of these kinds of cases and accusations. About the peer pressure for the children and families. About the wy children were interrogated (and yes, it was an interrogation). It was these studies and cases that planted the seed for an organization i worked with for awhile in a tech capacity.

Bottom line....only one daycare of the dozens accused actually had a predator. The rest was mass hysteria and coerced testimony. That is why now we have children's advocates and trained forensic interviewers who know how to ask children open-ended questions (as in: "Tell about what happened after lunch Tuesday" instead of: "Where did Miss Judy touch you? How many times did she touch you")

So what the heck does this have to do with rape or campus assault.

The "believe the accuser no matter what" narrative is still around. As a pendulum swing from when rape victims were OFTEN re-victimized by skeptical police or questioning juries.

And regardless of the research or what actually ended up being true back in the early 80's, there is a very VERY vocal segment of people - very extreme new wave feminists being the loudest - that every accuser should be believed, period, and everyone who is accused probably did it, or else why would they be accused?

And because we have 24/7 access to everything, and because to the press, a retracted allegation is not nearly as "sexy" a headline as the accusation.....

Once a man has been accused and it becomes public, his life IS ruined or at least changed forever. To deny this is to be intentionally ignorant and possibly agenda-blind. Even when he is cleared, his life never ever goes back to normal. Like the two teachers I know whose accusers ADMITTED they made it up. neither of them will ever teach again because the accusations are public record.

So no.....it is NOT acceptable collateral damage, and it DOES happen, and this hand wave-off, shrugging, "Oh, please, like that would actually happen. Quit whining!" thing is completely inappropriate.

I think men would be more willing to listen if this particaulr subset of women would stop being so dismissive and closed-minded.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I had two very close friends I will call B and J when I was a young woman. J was very sweet, but she was not a "touchy" person. By that I mean she was not huggy - not the kind of person who touched a lot or was overly receptive to touch. B was an extroverted person, but she had "don't F with me" written on her forehead. Now she is a great friends and fiercly loyal and big hearted. But she could take you down if you entered her space the wrong way lol. Then there was me. I was relatively quiet unless I knew you, was somewhat of a people pleaser, had very strict parents, so I wasn't very assertive, and I craved acceptance.
> 
> 
> All 3 of us took private voice lessons from the same man. Why do you think_* I *_was the one he chose to molest?
> 
> There is a reason the jerk guy tends to chose the quiet, unassuming girl. The one he can sense might not be too experienced and really wants a boyfriend? Because it is easier to coerce past her "no." The girl like that....well for her to say 'No" twice took just about every ounce of courage she had. To imply that she "should have" left is to be completely ignorant of the kind of target a sexual predator almost always chooses.
> 
> I'm stronger now. But I will tell you the NUMBER 1 reason that I waited over 10 years to tell anyone was this:
> 
> I went back to voice lessons after it happened, and I didn't tell him to stop (even though my body language was rigid and there were tears in my eyes and give me a break he was my teacher). So if I didn't run away or "make" him stop....it was my fault, right?
> 
> No, it wasn't, but that was what I told myself. That is also why a lot of people wait years to come forward. Which is why when people say "If she was really assaulted she wouldn't have waited X years" makes me want to throat punch someone.
> 
> This kind of stuff is all over the media. Campuses and corporations have been doing training and educational meetings on this stuff for decades.
> 
> So a man has to be intentionally obtuse, stubborn, or just not very bright not to know that saying "Why didn't she....." to a victim is just.....ridiculous.
> 
> Or he's just a pot stirrer who needs some sort of EQ training.


This instance is in fact quite black and white: a teacher & student relationship is very intricate. Even if the student initiates (which you didn't), the teacher is *still* guilty of abusing his position of trust and power and should be prosecuted. Can I ask how old you were when this happened?

I was also shy and extremely introverted as a kid. I also had music lessons with someone who was later convicted (pedo). He would place his hands in places on me where they didn't belong. I didn't return for another lesson after the first time it happened and said to my parents that if they took me, I would slice my wrists. (I am not comparing who dealt with this situation better; just that everyone seems to be dealing with them differently).

On the other hand I had students (private students, that i taught, many years later) who would initiate on occasion or make it clear that they were interested (girls in their late teens and twenties and no, they weren't all wearing short skirts...), flirt and try to meet with me outside of lessons, privately. I always avoided those situations like the plague. To follow up and violate the code of conduct that a teacher is supposed to adhere to would be completely immoral and incomprehensible to me.


----------



## 269370

.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> I was thinking about this, and it strikes me as a pretty dog-eat-dog, lacking in compassion attitude.
> 
> Everyone, I don't care who you are, has some sort of boundaries, and most of them aren't front and center. We need to assume these boundaries exist, even if we don't know exactly where they are, for all types of relationships -- not just sexual ones. Shouldn't we?
> 
> Assuming that there are no boundaries until otherwise told seems pretty naive and not a terribly great way to deal with people -- at best.


You never assume there are no boundaries (who said this?). But the person with narrower boundaries is the one who should (in theory) reinforce those boundaries by making it clear where those boundaries are. Why is it more reasonable to make the person with broader boundaries keep guessing until they get it wrong?


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had two very close friends I will call B and J when I was a young woman. J was very sweet, but she was not a "touchy" person. By that I mean she was not huggy - not the kind of person who touched a lot or was overly receptive to touch. B was an extroverted person, but she had "don't F with me" written on her forehead. Now she is a great friends and fiercly loyal and big hearted. But she could take you down if you entered her space the wrong way lol. Then there was me. I was relatively quiet unless I knew you, was somewhat of a people pleaser, had very strict parents, so I wasn't very assertive, and I craved acceptance.
> 
> 
> All 3 of us took private voice lessons from the same man. Why do you think_* I *_was the one he chose to molest?
> 
> There is a reason the jerk guy tends to chose the quiet, unassuming girl. The one he can sense might not be too experienced and really wants a boyfriend? Because it is easier to coerce past her "no." The girl like that....well for her to say 'No" twice took just about every ounce of courage she had. To imply that she "should have" left is to be completely ignorant of the kind of target a sexual predator almost always chooses.
> 
> I'm stronger now. But I will tell you the NUMBER 1 reason that I waited over 10 years to tell anyone was this:
> 
> I went back to voice lessons after it happened, and I didn't tell him to stop (even though my body language was rigid and there were tears in my eyes and give me a break he was my teacher). So if I didn't run away or "make" him stop....it was my fault, right?
> 
> No, it wasn't, but that was what I told myself. That is also why a lot of people wait years to come forward. Which is why when people say "If she was really assaulted she wouldn't have waited X years" makes me want to throat punch someone.
> 
> This kind of stuff is all over the media. Campuses and corporations have been doing training and educational meetings on this stuff for decades.
> 
> So a man has to be intentionally obtuse, stubborn, or just not very bright not to know that saying "Why didn't she....." to a victim is just.....ridiculous.
> 
> Or he's just a pot stirrer who needs some sort of EQ training.
> 
> 
> 
> This instance is in fact quite black and white: a teacher & student relationship is very intricate. Even if the student initiates (which you didn't), the teacher is *still* guilty of abusing his position of trust and power and should be prosecuted. Can I ask how old you were when this happened?
> 
> I was also shy and extremely introverted as a kid. I also had music lessons with someone who was later convicted (pedo). He would place his hands in places on me where they didn't belong. I didn't return for another lesson after the first time it happened and said to my parents that if they take me, I would slice my wrists.
> 
> On the other hand I had students (private students) who would initiate on occasion or make it clear that they were interested (girls in their twenties and no, they weren't all wearing short skirts...), flirt and try to meet with me outside of lessons, privately. I always avoided those situations like the plague. To follow up and violate the code of conduct would be completely immoral and incomprehensible to me.
Click to expand...

 So this is why we clashed so much… two artsy people with a lot of Passion and extremely strong opinions lol


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> I was thinking about this, and it strikes me as a pretty dog-eat-dog, lacking in compassion attitude.
> 
> Everyone, I don't care who you are, has some sort of boundaries, and most of them aren't front and center. We need to assume these boundaries exist, even if we don't know exactly where they are, for all types of relationships -- not just sexual ones. Shouldn't we?
> 
> Assuming that there are no boundaries until otherwise told seems pretty naive and not a terribly great way to deal with people -- at best.


Obviously there are boundaries. To be crude, I'd never assume anal.

But, once the kissing has begun and the clothes start to come off, thinking that sex is a reasonable result isn't outlandish.

People have boundaries involving how close someone stands to them (by personal boundaries on this matter are constantly violated by others in line at the grocery checkout). But there's no good way to know ahead of time where exactly that boundary is. We could just stand 5 feet away at all times, or I suppose we could ask everyone we approach......


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> A little history here....
> 
> In the early 1980's there was a case of a child at a daycare accusing a worker of touching them. Child Sex Abuse and child molesters and such were just necoming something that was more widely talked about. Some of you who are older may remember the avalanche of Daycare molestation cases and accusations that began to follow. Each getting wilder than the next. Then the barrage of "child molestation satanic cults". Each story became wilder than the next.
> 
> Well, right before all this and a little bit tangential to it, there was a movement among child psychologists to "believe the children." As in believe the children no matter what, no matter how young, and get the "story" however you had to get it. You had police officers promising little kids ice cream if they just "told the truth."
> 
> Another group of psychologists did extensive study about the....crowd affect of these kinds of cases and accusations. About the peer pressure for the children and families. About the wy children were interrogated (and yes, it was an interrogation). It was these studies and cases that planted the seed for an organization i worked with for awhile in a tech capacity.
> 
> Bottom line....only one daycare of the dozens accused actually had a predator. The rest was mass hysteria and coerced testimony. That is why now we have children's advocates and trained forensic interviewers who know how to ask children open-ended questions (as in: "Tell about what happened after lunch Tuesday" instead of: "Where did Miss Judy touch you? How many times did she touch you")
> 
> So what the heck does this have to do with rape or campus assault.
> 
> The "believe the accuser no matter what" narrative is still around. As a pendulum swing from when rape victims were OFTEN re-victimized by skeptical police or questioning juries.
> 
> And regardless of the research or what actually ended up being true back in the early 80's, there is a very VERY vocal segment of people - very extreme new wave feminists being the loudest - that every accuser should be believed, period, and everyone who is accused probably did it, or else why would they be accused?
> 
> And because we have 24/7 access to everything, and because to the press, a retracted allegation is not nearly as "sexy" a headline as the accusation.....
> 
> Once a man has been accused and it becomes public, his life IS ruined or at least changed forever. To deny this is to be intentionally ignorant and possibly agenda-blind. Even when he is cleared, his life never ever goes back to normal. Like the two teachers I know whose accusers ADMITTED they made it up. neither of them will ever teach again because the accusations are public record.
> 
> So no.....it is NOT acceptable collateral damage, and it DOES happen, and this hand wave-off, shrugging, "Oh, please, like that would actually happen. Quit whining!" thing is completely inappropriate.
> 
> *I think men would be more willing to listen if this particaulr subset of women would stop being so dismissive and closed-minded*.


Exceptional! If that doesn't have an impact, I can't imagine what would.

The bolded is also very on point.


----------



## RandomDude

ConanHub said:


> What happened with your gf? Sorry to ask for a repeat but late joining this thread. I participated in a fairly thorough one a while back by Anon Pink I believe so wasn't joining in here.


Here, was responding in regards to my point about women taking responsibility, but I guess it came across wrong, as I failed to mention it doesn't invalidate the responsibility of the assaulter until the later post.



RandomDude said:


> ... She gets invitations to parties all the time, and some of these parties include sex, drugs, alcohol. She goes to those where she's sure she can control the situation, and is somewhat a 'big sister' to her friends. She will leave if the situation seemed treacherous. She was sexually assaulted in one party already where her instincts felt that the environment was off and she wasn't comfortable with it but played too nice and although she did remove herself from the situation before it got serious she was still touched inappropriately. When she told me for ten minutes I only asked for who and where. I was in a murderous mood but she calmed me down, and took responsibility for putting herself in such a situation...





RandomDude said:


> She isn't traumatised over it, and elaborated on every detail of the event and how she reckons he's an a-hole but wouldn't go as far as call the guy a rapist. She was young and inexperienced at that time, so were the guys. When she realised what the situation was leading into she was stern and fought him off, making it very clear, the guy did not push further and she left. I also relented from pushing her further for his details as it's her decision to leave it as it is. The environment they were in was full of sex, drugs, and alcohol. Hooking up at such parties is the norm. She was there to look after her friend and was her first time dealing with such a situation.
> Also the girl he had sex with after, who regreted it, is she or he responsible for it? I say *both*, and taking responsibility for something does not invalidate the responsibility of the other. My girlfriend's case isn't that grey - if I was there the boy would be pissing and sh-tting his pants and in tears crying to make me stop the pain.
> More grey is what happened to the girl after her - who didn't even say no, let alone fight him off. IF you can isolate the two scenarios, which actually happened in the same night.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> What makes you think more men will be accused of sexual assault under affirmative consent?
> 
> And why do you think that most of these accused are actually innocent? And not just innocent, but destined to be pilloried no matter what?


I think more men will be accused because the AC rules are too unclear. 

When the rules aren't clear, one gets more violations and worse than that, selective enforcement.

I don't think most accused are actually innocent. 

The more accusations, the more innocent are accused.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> I find it interesting that the assumption here seems to be that on one hand, there are good guys, who would never do anything to hurt anyone, at least not knowingly (hence any untoward action is purely accidental, he really isn't at fault) and on the other, the scummy low-lifes who don't care about any rules and are just out to be evil.
> 
> IME, people are a whole lot more morally ambiguous than all of that.
> 
> There's been quite a bit of research done that shows pretty clearly that people would do all sorts of unsavory things if they knew there would be no consequences.


While I'm sure that many people would keep $10,000 they found lying on the street, I'm pretty sure a large majority of men wouldn't rape a woman even if there were no consequences.

I'm sure there are more who would than I'd like to think. I also don't see what impact AC would have on them.

But rape is a crime on a par with murder and I just don't see most people killing people if they knew they could get away with it.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> Only problematic to those who aren't benefiting, imo. It doesn't matter if the majority of the women support it or not if society changes so much so that it becomes less beneficial to get a yes vs. wait for a no. *If enough men were sufficiently scared of not waiting for yes* and enough women were cool with it, more likely than not it would change.


So the point *IS* to scare men.

It's working.

And you don't need most women to be cool with it? Just enough?

Is it really good to let a minority try to change society via threats?


----------



## personofinterest

Honestly, if I were a man, those sex bots would be looking better and better...


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Honestly, if I were a man, those sex bots would be looking better and better...



Oh but you now need affirmative consent to have sex with a robot  too. They are all part of #metoo 

“One of the biggest tools that teenagers and adults alike need to be taught is consent. And what better way to teach it than within a simulated sexual situation itself? Instead of learning the fundamental rules of consent with a stranger in inebriated circumstances, where a misunderstanding could lead to arrest, you could learn with a sex doll imbued with artificial intelligence.”

https://qz.com/1215360/in-defense-of-sex-robots/

I’m still waiting for my best two buddies, Mr Buttplug and Mr Fleshlight, to give me affirmative consent in vein.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomDude

Buddy400 said:


> While I'm sure that many people would keep $10,000 they found lying on the street, I'm pretty sure a large majority of men wouldn't rape a woman even if there were no consequences.
> 
> I'm sure there are more who would than I'd like to think. I also don't see what impact AC would have on them.
> 
> But rape is a crime on a par with murder and I just don't see most people killing people if they knew they could get away with it.


Well I dunno, if I had my way I would be feeding rapists and pedos into garbage compactors, log shredders feet first or have their impaled carcasses adorn my garden or have them thrown into a brazen bull screaming while I dine. IF I could get away with it.

I reckon rape is worse than murder. Everyone has their own moral code, my morality only extends to humans and animals. Rapists and pedos aren't human nor animal for me.

Also why this topic is quite troubling for me, because it complicates the whole damn justice system when I want legal justice so I don't have to feel the murderous urge to go flaying subhumans alive.


----------



## RandomDude

inmyprime said:


> Oh but you now need affirmative consent to have sex with a robot  too. They are all part of #metoo
> 
> https://qz.com/1215360/in-defense-of-sex-robots/
> 
> I’m still waiting for my best two buddies, Mr Buttplug and Mr Fleshlight, to give me affirmative consent in vein.


And if you fail to obtain consent it will notify the authorities immediately lol :rofl:


----------



## personofinterest

My point is that a fake woman might end up being safer, than live women especially the screeching variety with pink hats and hairy armpits.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> My point is that a fake woman might end up being safer, than live women especially the screeching variety with pink hats and hairy armpits.



Not sure about that. If you spill any liquids and get your Dshonson electrocuted by mistake, I’m not sure it will be that better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> Old married people hubris. Sorry, but people are going to **** even if that ****ing is all done virtually on a holodeck and our babies are raised in vats.


So funny too...when I was young the old married people were worried that we WOULD have sex. Now the old married people worry that young people WON'T have sex.

:lol:

As if what old people think ever stopped young people from having sex. Lolz.


----------



## ConanHub

RandomDude said:


> Here, was responding in regards to my point about women taking responsibility, but I guess it came across wrong, as I failed to mention it doesn't invalidate the responsibility of the assaulter until the later post.


Thanks for illuminating. I'm 100% with you about destroying the prick.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## Faithful Wife

When I advocate AC and offer my knowledge about it, I am referring to a cultural change in what we think of as best practices regarding not only sexual encounters but also general principles of conduct that apply to any situation.

When I’m speaking of AC, I’m not speaking of the laws about it. Those are part of the conversation but to me are not as relevant as simply educating everyone who can be reached about AC. There are no laws before me to vote upon. When/if there ever are I will quickly be up to speed on that ballot. Until then the debates around what other states are doing are just interesting for me to watch as we see the world change before our eyes.

Here is an example of how AC has changed how we raise our kids. It used to be that kids were basically taught to do anything any adult asked of them, and also that their bodies did not belong to them in the case of adults who had other ideas in mind. This resulted in disastrous problems for the millions of children who were (and still are) raped and molested and who did not know that they had any right to say no to an adult. This power predatory adults had over kids - I am the adult and I can get you in trouble if you tell anyone, you are a child and they will punish you for this not me - showed up later over and over as a huge part of the problem. As the world became more aware and less tolerant of the abuse of children and as millions of children who had been abused grew to adulthood and told their stories to the world or to mental health professionals, eventually it became common wisdom that you must arm children with the understanding that they own their own bodies and all the rights to them. Not to tell them to obey what any adult says just because they are adults.

In practice, this means that if your 3 year old doesn’t want aunt Agnes to hug and kiss him or her, you don’t force your child to do it anyway just so that aunt Agnes’s feels won’t be hurt. Instead you explain to the child that no one has the right to touch you unless you have consented first. And you explain to aunt Agnes that you are teaching your children about consent practices and that unwanted touching from anyone does not need to be defended or justified. There’s no guilting the child with “but pookums auntie won’t see you again for months!” The rights the child has to their own body are placed higher than the desire of auntie wanting to touch the child.

It helps the child to see the disappointed adult be the one who is told they are wrong. It helps them to know that some people don’t understand consent yet. But they see the other adults are standing up and teaching them as we go along. This helps them because part of AC is understanding that not everyone knows about or practices AC. But you learn you have the right to your boundaries whether someone else knows about AC or not. 

This then helps you lead the child easily into more AC discussions as is appropriate. Obviously it is much easier for a child to now understand that some creepy predator neighbor dude doesn’t have the right to touch them if even aunt Agnes doesn’t have that right. They now have the basic understanding to use their voices, to understand their own boundaries, and to understand that any unwanted touching or attempt at it should be disclosed to a trusted parent (and other trusted adults, some families have a sort of list of who to go to for which kinds of help).

Predators actually do back off many times if a child is armed with the right words to use. The kind of predators that abduct and kill kids of course do not back off. But the creepy neighbor who is trying to find the kids he thinks won’t talk will. 

I recall hearing stories from other kids about attempts at molestation, and actual molesation. Things like the creepy neighbor who had a pool and welcomed all the neighbor kids. The kids all talked about how the neighbor would get in the pool with you and try to fondle you. Like at least 30 kids all knew this about the guy. Yet not one kid told any adult. The man was an upstanding member of their church and community. And the kids learned to just avoid him getting near you in the pool and never go in to the house with him. Otherwise the kids were friendly to him and pretended the molestation attempts didn’t exist.

At the time, these kids thought they had no right to tell anyone about the immediate danger this man posed. They felt his creepy adult stuff was going to be seen as more important than their right to not be violated. They felt this way because of the culture at the time.

It is now more important than ever to teach everyone from the youngest age about AC.

Now if someone can’t get over the need for the word yes being involved, then fine. Just teach consent. Teach no means no. Call it whatever you want. Teach personal responsibility for saying no clearly (which is also part of AC, by the way).

But the basic of consent is the same and important. You are the only one who gets to decide who can touch you and how. You also have no right to touch others without consent.

Kids who learn this basic concept can then easily move into school and work situations and understand the new culture in those places. 

Of course eventually these kids learn how consent works in sexual relationships too. By the time they get there, their understanding is so solid they can be as safe as possible.

The world will gently amble toward more of a culture of consent - and it already is. As the young ones grow up with a much different narrative and personal empowerment, they will show any doubters that AC is the best practice, in so much more than just the world of college campuses. It is a culture of respecting ourselves and everyone else.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> So funny too...when I was young the old married people were worried that we WOULD have sex. Now the old married people worry that young people WON'T have sex.
> :lol:
> As if what old people think ever stopped young people from having sex. Lolz.









Faithful Wife said:


> When I advocate AC and offer my knowledge about it, I am referring to a cultural change in what we think of as best practices regarding not only sexual encounters but also general principles of conduct that apply to any situation....
> 
> Now if someone can’t get over the need for the word yes being involved, then fine. Just teach consent. Teach no means no. Call it whatever you want. Teach personal responsibility for saying no clearly (which is also part of AC, by the way). But the basic of consent is the same and important. You are the only one who gets to decide who can touch you and how. You also have no right to touch others without consent. Kids who learn this basic concept can then easily move into school and work situations and understand the new culture in those places. Of course eventually these kids learn how consent works in sexual relationships too. By the time they get there, their understanding is so solid they can be as safe as possible. The world will gently amble toward more of a culture of consent - and it already is. As the young ones grow up with a much different narrative and personal empowerment, they will show any doubters that AC is the best practice, in so much more than just the world of college campuses. It is a culture of respecting ourselves and everyone else.


Well when you put it that way, even though consent itself can be blurred, the fact of the matter that people are being raised to know that they have the right to their own bodies is a good cause. Even in the Aziz Ansari case where a tragic misunderstanding had taken place (if you believe his side of the story), she would have been raised to assert herself sooner and avoid the whole situation to begin with.

When it comes to affirmative consent I'm trying to find a solution that can be undisputed, 'no means no' as well as 'yes means yes' can still be misunderstood, such as the cases being brought up with playful nos that my girlfriend and I also play as well as the case of a man having to prove he had consent throughout his whole marriage or something. Solution? Safewords.

Shouldn't extend to just BDSM play, hell I don't even do BDSM and I established safewords very early on. Hell she uses the safeword with tickles lol. Initially even any suspicion she was shy or reluctant I also asked if she's comfortable, not the same as straight out asking for permission. Hell I don't either and I encourage married couples on the SIM section to romance and turn on their partners rather than just asking straight out "can we have sex please?" It is unsexy for me and I cringe too.

But with safewords and boundaries being established very early on and your partner made to feel comfortable that they can stop you anytime or for any reason gives them the much needed control that each party needs to have in any physical encounter not just sexual. And IMO you can make it sexy too. What you think?


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> Old married people hubris. Sorry, but people are going to **** even if that ****ing is all done virtually on a holodeck and our babies are raised in vats.



We are 36 and 38....I thought old people worry that young people have too much sex??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

RandomDude said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrADTN-dvg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well when you put it that way, even though consent itself can be blurred, the fact of the matter that people are being raised to know that they have the right to their own bodies is a good cause. Even in the Aziz Ansari case where a tragic misunderstanding had taken place (if you believe his side of the story), she would have been raised to assert herself sooner and avoid the whole situation to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to affirmative consent I'm trying to find a solution that can be undisputed, 'no means no' as well as 'yes means yes' can still be misunderstood, such as the cases being brought up with playful nos that my girlfriend and I also play as well as the case of a man having to prove he had consent throughout his whole marriage or something. Solution? Safewords.
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't extend to just BDSM play, hell I don't even do BDSM and I established safewords very early on. Hell she uses the safeword with tickles lol. Initially even any suspicion she was shy or reluctant I also asked if she's comfortable, not the same as straight out asking for permission. Hell I don't either and I encourage married couples on the SIM section to romance and turn on their partners rather than just asking straight out "can we have sex please?" It is unsexy for me and I cringe too.
> 
> 
> 
> But with safewords and boundaries being established very early on and your partner made to feel comfortable that they can stop you anytime or for any reason gives them the much needed control that each party needs to have in any physical encounter not just sexual. And IMO you can make it sexy too. What you think?




“Hello, nice to meet you. What is your safe word? My safe word is “harder””.

There’s nothing wrong with safe words once you are further along in a sexual relationship. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

I don’t think anyone is arguing with the basic principles and benefits of consent; that’s something that has been part of society for a very long time (with exceptions because idiots and criminals are everywhere); that you have to make and be responsible for your own decisions as early on as you can.

But ‘affirmative consent’ is a new thing and is now being codified into law in certain places and it is not really solving the underlying problem and is clearly creating more new problems.

As for ‘affirmative consent’ with kids...I’m not even sure why this has been brought up in this context....

But it is extremely important to educate kids about predators, what is acceptable behaviour of an adult and what is not; how to do it effectively is really the question. 
How far should the requirement for permission to hug go? (Should it extend to parents? Grand parents? Close relatives? Close friends?) you also don’t want to starve the kids of love.

But at the end of the day, unfortunately the adult carries the sole responsibility with the child, whether the child ‘consents’ or not or whether they know about consent at all. The child will group the adults they know in someone they trust and someone they don’t trust and if an adult they learnt to trust asks them ‘can I give you a hug?’, no child will say ‘no’.

In short, I have absolutely no disagreements about the principles of consent, just about the form it takes and it’s practical applicability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Even when it comes to kids:

Why not teach them that if they don’t want to be hugged, they don’t NEED to be hugged and similar. Rather than going to the extremes of having to give permission to hug?


Watching this video, all I could think was:

Me: “Do you want to do your homework now?”

Child: “Screw you, my body, I do what I want!”

https://youtu.be/h3nhM9UlJjc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> I’m 32 and if you’ve been married more than 3 years and are worried about what kids are doing in the future - old married. 🤗 I’m an old married too, it’s okay.


Phew. Well, as long as I get to sometimes play with the cool kidz and not always stand around in the corner with the geeks & librarians, I am content with it.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Interesting response from the wife on this one:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/640992992/former-cdc-director-arrested-and-charged-with-sexual-misconduct

I didn't even know this happened. She was reading the news and came across an article on this and she guffawed. I said what's up? She explained (the victim was listed as 55 years old in the article she was reading) that the former CDC director was arrested for grabbing a 55 year old woman's buttocks without her consent and is facing criminal charges. 

Somewhat to my surprise, my wife said "C'mon, lady, you're 55 years old and you can't just say "no" without crying to the police?"

And she then doubled down by saying "Look, honey, you're 55. Just be glad somebody finds your butt worth grabbing!" 

And yes, my wife has been the victim of real sexual assault, so its not like she is without empathy in this. 

And yes, the guy's a jackass and should be put in his place. No disagreement about that. But my wife was just saying that even as a meek, nonconfrontational person, she would simply handle it herself, burn the guy to the ground, and move on without making a federal case out of it.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Interesting response from the wife on this one:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/6409...r-arrested-and-charged-with-sexual-misconduct
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even know this happened. She was reading the news and came across an article on this and she guffawed. I said what's up? She explained (the victim was listed as 55 years old in the article she was reading) that the former CDC director was arrested for grabbing a 55 year old woman's buttocks without her consent and is facing criminal charges.
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhat to my surprise, my wife said "C'mon, lady, you're 55 years old and you can't just say "no" without crying to the police?"
> 
> 
> 
> And she then doubled down by saying "Look, honey, you're 55. Just be glad somebody finds your butt worth grabbing!"
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, my wife has been the victim of real sexual assault, so its not like she is without empathy in this.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, the guy's a jackass and should be put in his place. No disagreement about that. But my wife was just saying that even as a meek, nonconfrontational person, she would simply handle it herself, burn the guy to the ground, and move on without making a federal case out of it.




I like your wife  (not in a weird or creepy way).
This happened to my wife too btw (someone grabbing her buttocks). In retrospect though, I should have handled the situation differently...
instead of saying ‘no wonder, who can resist such a tight ass?’ (Ouch. {moron alert})


Ps: it was more of a ‘strategic hand placement’, to walk passed her. But still.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Double


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Interesting response from the wife on this one:
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/6409...r-arrested-and-charged-with-sexual-misconduct
> 
> I didn't even know this happened. She was reading the news and came across an article on this and she guffawed. I said what's up? She explained (the victim was listed as 55 years old in the article she was reading) that the former CDC director was arrested for grabbing a 55 year old woman's buttocks without her consent and is facing criminal charges.
> 
> Somewhat to my surprise, my wife said "C'mon, lady, you're 55 years old and you can't just say "no" without crying to the police?"
> 
> And she then doubled down by saying "Look, honey, you're 55. Just be glad somebody finds your butt worth grabbing!"
> 
> And yes, my wife has been the victim of real sexual assault, so its not like she is without empathy in this.
> 
> And yes, the guy's a jackass and should be put in his place. No disagreement about that. But my wife was just saying that even as a meek, nonconfrontational person, she would simply handle it herself, burn the guy to the ground, and move on without making a federal case out of it.


The article doesn’t say who the woman was, her relationship to the guy, or why she was in his house. Reasons those would be interesting to know is not because it makes what he did right, but did she even know him or was she there as a guest for the first time? Just totally odd story when it’s just “a woman who was in his house” and he apparently groped her ass. Sounds like he isn’t denying it.

It is each person’s choice on how to handle a situation like this. Your wife’s sentiment is normal. It happens all the time and isn’t worth making a fuss usually, in many women’s view.

But isn’t it an odd world we live in when you really think about it, where it is so common for women to be literally touched, grabbed and groped by men (unwanted) that many of us wouldn’t be bothered about it enough to say anything to anyone else? Many would prefer to just handle it ourselves, and handling it usually means ignoring it and pretending it didn’t happen.

I’ve done this too, not spoken up about completely creepy and indecent behavior by men I’ve worked with, some peers, some subordinates, some superiors. Ignoring it and trying to avoid those people and conversations was easier for me personally. 

I actually don’t feel I’m in the right by not saying anything. I’m just too lazy to put forth the effort I know it would take to open a report. (This of course only applies to what I’ve seen and heard this far. I would make a report about certain things but haven’t seen or heard anything that is above my personal threshold of need to report.)

In your wife’s words, what did she mean by burn the guy to the ground? How would you be able to burn a guys life down without telling someone else? If not police, at least his wife (does he have one?) or his employer? How does one burn him down without actually filing charges?

As for her comment about being grateful someone still wants to grab it, that seems really insensitive. If a man at her work or on a train grabbed her ass unwanted I don’t think she would be grateful.

Actually I find that part of her comment a little suspicious.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> But with safewords and boundaries being established very early on and your partner made to feel comfortable that they can stop you anytime or for any reason gives them the much needed control that each party needs to have in any physical encounter not just sexual. And IMO you can make it sexy too. What you think?


Yes RD. Did you know in fact that the kink community were the first to understand consent issues, and that they practiced with them and created guidelines and principles and that these principles eventually led to the mainstream understanding of what AC is today.

AC is incredibly sexy and kinky for those who are using it that way. 

Personally, safe words for me or in my sex life would be silly and unnecessary. If I want to stop, I say stop. Very simple.

But some people eroticize their safe words and have lots of extra fun with it that way. 

Sounds like you are using it in a fun way, too.

Kinksters who enjoy consensual non consent are very clear on what it is all about, and so for those who want to pretend they are abducted and raped, this can be negotiated with as much realism as the lovers want to use. This is why kink has been on the leading edge of AC. They have tested it out for a long time and understand how and why it works. They were pioneers for the rest of us.


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> Did you ever have the experience as a kid of the aunt/uncle/cousin that you were kind of scared of but mom or dad said "go over there and give so and so a hug?"



I don’t really remember it being an issue when small. I remember older people smelling sometimes a bit funky but I don’t see what the problem is giving someone a hug or a kiss even when you are not especially thrilled about it; I mean we do it when we say hello/bye very frequently as adults, and I personally don’t always particularly want to kiss/hug anyone but still do it, as a custom. Why teach someone to act like a little prick as a child?

One memory that stands out was my great grandmother. She would sometimes lie in bed with me during my nap time, place her hands inside my underwear on my buttocks and ask me to fart into her palm. I found this a little odd because I could never understand how you can just fart on demand. 

Anyway, I don’t think about it much. It didn’t really disturb me at the time (I must have been about 4 I think) and I am not really that disturbed by it now. She didn’t touch me anywhere else.

As a young teenager, I did have plenty of opportunities to say ‘no’ to pretty much anything. Isn’t it what every teenager does automatically anyway and when they learn it properly? 

The crux is: you can explain to a child that they can say no to hugs and kisses but will they actually do it? Or understand why they need or don’t need to do it? My 7 year old daughter is an extremely ‘huggy’ person. My 5 year old son runs away from adults when it’s bye/hug time. We never force him if he doesn’t want to. Either way, I don’t see any of my kids using an actual verbal yes/no in those situations.

I think educating them how to improve odds of being safe from predators and looking out for signs and making them feel comfortable telling the parents anything suspicious is very important and my wife (who is a teacher and has to do training on these subjects regularly) seems to have been doing it from a young age. It still didn’t stop a pedophile being caught, where the kids have gone to (he wasn’t there when my kids were there but still, way too close to home).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> The article doesn’t say who the woman was, her relationship to the guy, or why she was in his house. Reasons those would be interesting to know is not because it makes what he did right, but did she even know him or was she there as a guest for the first time? Just totally odd story when it’s just “a woman who was in his house” and he apparently groped her ass. Sounds like he isn’t denying it.
> 
> It is each person’s choice on how to handle a situation like this. Your wife’s sentiment is normal. It happens all the time and isn’t worth making a fuss usually, in many women’s view.
> 
> But isn’t it an odd world we live in when you really think about it, where it is so common for women to be literally touched, grabbed and groped by men (unwanted) that many of us wouldn’t be bothered about it enough to say anything to anyone else? Many would prefer to just handle it ourselves, and handling it usually means ignoring it and pretending it didn’t happen.
> 
> I’ve done this too, not spoken up about completely creepy and indecent behavior by men I’ve worked with, some peers, some subordinates, some superiors. Ignoring it and trying to avoid those people and conversations was easier for me personally.
> 
> I actually don’t feel I’m in the right by not saying anything. I’m just too lazy to put forth the effort I know it would take to open a report. (This of course only applies to what I’ve seen and heard this far. I would make a report about certain things but haven’t seen or heard anything that is above my personal threshold of need to report.)
> 
> In your wife’s words, what did she mean by burn the guy to the ground? How would you be able to burn a guys life down without telling someone else? If not police, at least his wife (does he have one?) or his employer? How does one burn him down without actually filing charges?
> 
> As for her comment about being grateful someone still wants to grab it, that seems really insensitive. If a man at her work or on a train grabbed her ass unwanted I don’t think she would be grateful.
> 
> Actually I find that part of her comment a little suspicious.


Mrs. Conan is 58 and extremely "grabbable" (yes, that is a made up word) all over her delicious body but would probably deliver a kneecap to scrotum maneuver if anyone but me tried.

Mrs. Yeti has an interesting POV about getting groped.


----------



## ConanHub

Ok. That gma hand fart thing just made the world a little more weird...

😵


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes RD. Did you know in fact that the kink community were the first to understand consent issues, and that they practiced with them and created guidelines and principles and that these principles eventually led to the mainstream understanding of what AC is today.
> 
> AC is incredibly sexy and kinky for those who are using it that way.
> 
> Personally, safe words for me or in my sex life would be silly and unnecessary. If I want to stop, I say stop. Very simple.
> 
> But some people eroticize their safe words and have lots of extra fun with it that way.
> 
> Sounds like you are using it in a fun way, too.
> 
> Kinksters who enjoy consensual non consent are very clear on what it is all about, and so for those who want to pretend they are abducted and raped, this can be negotiated with as much realism as the lovers want to use. This is why kink has been on the leading edge of AC. They have tested it out for a long time and understand how and why it works. They were pioneers for the rest of us.


Heh for us our safewords are not very erotic at all, more funny than anything, it's just there as a safeguard. We never used it in sex actually, only time they were used was when we wrestle and/or tickle and one of us are at the point of submission, we're weird I know. While MMA has tapping out, we have safewords lol

And argh, abduction and rape are too strong words for consensual non consent, I prefer domination and submission.

No idea they were the first, but it makes sense considering how wrong it could go if their community doesn't establish that. I always found these communities very interesting with their open dialogue with sex, it's taboo for far too long in many cultures.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> Ok. That gma hand fart thing just made the world a little more weird...



Haha, I know. I still to this day haven’t figured out what the deal was. I mean if she touched me from the other side, at least it would be clear what it was. But this...left me confused. She was old (not gma: ggma). My gma was very sweet. Both of them were actually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> And argh, abduction and rape are too strong words for consensual non consent, I prefer domination and submission.


Not my thing, either. But some kinksters literally play rape and abduction games.

There was a couple where I live who played these games and one time they did it publicly. The guy tied her up and gagged her and tossed her in the back seat of their car. He then cussed her and threatened her while he drove around town with her, pretending he was taking her to a secret place where he would (consenually) rape her. 

He stopped to get gas, yelled at her to stay put or something like that, went inside to pay, and other customers saw the woman in the back seat. They called 911 and police pulled in just after the guy pulled out of the station. They pulled him over after a short distance to investigate. (ETA: after refreshing my memory with the story posted below, I think it was actually neighbors who spotted the girl in the back. The guy then assured them this was consensual and then left. The neighbor did not believe him and called 911).

They took the gag off the woman and the couple explained that this was just a kinky consensual game they were playing. 

The cops didn’t think it was funny and fined them (can’t remember what the charge was).

This story was told around in the kink community (people debating over whether it was just funny and no big deal, or if it was unethical because the bystanders had not consented to being part of the game and therefore they were unnecessarily hurt by being so alarmed at what they had seen, thinking it was real). Eventually the story was picked up by a “sex sent me to the ER” type of show (only I guess it was “sex got me arrested”) where they interviewed the couple and had actors do a re-enactment. 

The kink community weighed in about it even more after that story aired. Do people have the right to alarm others without their consent when it is part of an AC sexual endeavor? Food for thought among kinksters.


----------



## Faithful Wife

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/valentines-day-role-play-ends-in-oregon-couples-arrest/


----------



## Buddy400

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Interesting response from the wife on this one:
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/640992992/former-cdc-director-arrested-and-charged-with-sexual-misconduct
> 
> I didn't even know this happened. She was reading the news and came across an article on this and she guffawed. I said what's up? She explained (the victim was listed as 55 years old in the article she was reading) that the former CDC director was arrested for grabbing a 55 year old woman's buttocks without her consent and is facing criminal charges.
> 
> Somewhat to my surprise, my wife said "C'mon, lady, you're 55 years old and you can't just say "no" without crying to the police?"
> 
> And she then doubled down by saying "Look, honey, you're 55. Just be glad somebody finds your butt worth grabbing!"
> 
> And yes, my wife has been the victim of real sexual assault, so its not like she is without empathy in this.
> 
> And yes, the guy's a jackass and should be put in his place. No disagreement about that. But my wife was just saying that even as a meek, nonconfrontational person, she would simply handle it herself, burn the guy to the ground, and move on without making a federal case out of it.


In my experience, responses like this from women are common. This is what leads me to believe that not even a majority of women are on board with this.

I think it's a generational thing. Older women, even older feminists seem to usually have this attitude. Young women attending or alumni of elite universities seem to be the majority of the activists here. I'm not sure (and would very much like to know) what the attitude of younger non-college (or non-elite college) women think.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Not my thing, either. But some kinksters literally play rape and abduction games.
> 
> There was a couple where I live who played these games and one time they did it publicly. The guy tied her up and gagged her and tossed her in the back seat of their car. He then cussed her and threatened her while he drove around town with her, pretending he was taking her to a secret place where he would (consenually) rape her.
> 
> He stopped to get gas, yelled at her to stay put or something like that, went inside to pay, and other customers saw the woman in the back seat. They called 911 and police pulled in just after the guy pulled out of the station. They pulled him over after a short distance to investigate. (ETA: after refreshing my memory with the story posted below, I think it was actually neighbors who spotted the girl in the back. The guy then assured them this was consensual and then left. The neighbor did not believe him and called 911).
> 
> They took the gag off the woman and the couple explained that this was just a kinky consensual game they were playing.
> 
> The cops didn’t think it was funny and fined them (can’t remember what the charge was).
> 
> This story was told around in the kink community (people debating over whether it was just funny and no big deal, or if it was unethical because the bystanders had not consented to being part of the game and therefore they were unnecessarily hurt by being so alarmed at what they had seen, thinking it was real). Eventually the story was picked up by a “sex sent me to the ER” type of show (only I guess it was “sex got me arrested”) where they interviewed the couple and had actors do a re-enactment.
> 
> The kink community weighed in about it even more after that story aired. Do people have the right to alarm others without their consent when it is part of an AC sexual endeavor? Food for thought among kinksters.


Well quite frankly that's very dangerous, I agree with the cops;
"Role-play all you want," he said. "But when you do something that is going to generate a 911 call you should probably do it at home."

Forget the law, that guy could have been attacked. Personally I would have attacked without warning or provocation if I saw that. Hell I can imagine myself getting an assault charge (if not worse) for nothing.

So NO WAY! Keep those games at home people!


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> It’s straight up like wanting all the privileges of being afforded the benefit of the doubt but not taking any of the responsiblity of getting a yes. *Just like women don’t have it both ways,* I’m not certain why men should have it either.


Women don't have it both ways?

When was the last time a woman got drunk, went to a frat party, was sexually assaulted and was told (by people in authority or positions of influence) that it was her own fault?

Emily Yoffe (Dear Prudence) suggested that it wasn't a good idea for young women to get blind drunk and go to frat parties and was vilified as being a rape apologist.

https://www.salon.com/2013/10/16/blaming_assault_on_womens_drinking_is_tired_dangerous_rape_apology/


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my thing, either. But some kinksters literally play rape and abduction games.
> 
> There was a couple where I live who played these games and one time they did it publicly. The guy tied her up and gagged her and tossed her in the back seat of their car. He then cussed her and threatened her while he drove around town with her, pretending he was taking her to a secret place where he would (consenually) rape her.
> 
> He stopped to get gas, yelled at her to stay put or something like that, went inside to pay, and other customers saw the woman in the back seat. They called 911 and police pulled in just after the guy pulled out of the station. They pulled him over after a short distance to investigate. (ETA: after refreshing my memory with the story posted below, I think it was actually neighbors who spotted the girl in the back. The guy then assured them this was consensual and then left. The neighbor did not believe him and called 911).
> 
> They took the gag off the woman and the couple explained that this was just a kinky consensual game they were playing.
> 
> The cops didn’t think it was funny and fined them (can’t remember what the charge was).
> 
> This story was told around in the kink community (people debating over whether it was just funny and no big deal, or if it was unethical because the bystanders had not consented to being part of the game and therefore they were unnecessarily hurt by being so alarmed at what they had seen, thinking it was real). Eventually the story was picked up by a “sex sent me to the ER” type of show (only I guess it was “sex got me arrested”) where they interviewed the couple and had actors do a re-enactment.
> 
> The kink community weighed in about it even more after that story aired. Do people have the right to alarm others without their consent when it is part of an AC sexual endeavor? Food for thought among kinksters.
> 
> 
> 
> Well quite frankly that's very dangerous, I agree with the cops;
> "Role-play all you want," he said. "But when you do something that is going to generate a 911 call you should probably do it at home."
> 
> Forget the law, that guy could have been attacked. Personally I would have attacked without warning or provocation if I saw that. Hell I can imagine myself getting an assault charge (if not worse) for nothing.
> 
> So NO WAY! Keep those games at home people!
Click to expand...

I totally agree and so did most of the kink community. 

New ways of thinking about consent happen as the result of actual things happening and then the culture shifts in a new way to respond to it. We sometimes need real examples in order to consider new things.

In looking for this story I came across a story of 2 people who met on Craigslist, fully intending to consensually act out a rape in the woods. Someone saw them and called 911, but the point was made what if the witness had a gun? This very easily could have gotten someone killed. 

.....

Off topic a bit but related...

As an introverted person I wish more extroverted people understood AC. I do not wish to be in a conversation with strangers and due to my introversion and desire to be “polite”, I find myself unable to stop strangers from talking to me to be hard to process sometimes. I am in no way suggesting that talking to a stranger is a crime or even a bad thing. I’m just pointing out how AC can apply to other areas of our lives where we could take it upon ourselves to watch for signs of our presence being unwanted in some way. 

I do not choose to use a strong “no” when a stranger talks to me at the grocery store because I know that the stranger will most likely have no idea what I’m trying to do and keep talking anyway. I could say “I do not wish to talk” and they would probably stop talking to me, but they also may act rude and weird to me after that (because they think I’ve just been weird and rude).

So knowing that most extroverts who enjoy talking to strangers mean absolutely no harm and that vocally saying to them they don’t have my consent to speak to me would just make me look insane, I just stand there while they are talking to me and I look uncomfortable. Because I am. And because I have no control over this happening.

Am I harmed by this even though there is no intent of harm? No of course not. It is just people trying to be friendly and my inability to feel extroverted at certain times.

But there is a way that it harms the unaware extrovert. It makes them look foolish to others, because others can clearly see how uncomfortable I am while the extrovert talks and talks. Witnesses may be thinking “sad this person doesn’t see how much the person they are speaking to wants the hell away from them” and give me a sympathetic side eye. When someone is not sensitive to the cues given off by others, and with their good will and intentions, it does not occur to them they may be offending someone. And even if they find out they are offending, many would brush it off because they have done nothing wrong.

True it is not wrong to be unaware of the signals that someone wants you to stop talking to them. But it is also not wrong to not want to engage in conversation with a stranger. Some extroverts are adept at knowing when an introverted person would like be not spoken to. I’m not sure of the reason some of them get it and some don’t, but it certainly seems to have to do empathy and the desire to consider the other person’s well being before proceeding. Which is a basic of AC. 

It’s not just applicable to sex and touching. It’s applicable to life in general and is hopefully helping to change the standards of what is “polite”.

Many would say I am not polite because I don’t want to talk to harmless, friendly strangers. I say others are not polite when they cannot see that not everyone wants to be talked to, and even if they do see it they are not kind about it, they get rude and make insults.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> The article doesn’t say who the woman was, her relationship to the guy, or why she was in his house. Reasons those would be interesting to know is not because it makes what he did right, but did she even know him or was she there as a guest for the first time? Just totally odd story when it’s just “a woman who was in his house” and he apparently groped her ass. Sounds like he isn’t denying it.
> 
> It is each person’s choice on how to handle a situation like this. Your wife’s sentiment is normal. It happens all the time and isn’t worth making a fuss usually, in many women’s view.
> 
> But isn’t it an odd world we live in when you really think about it, where it is so common for women to be literally touched, grabbed and groped by men (unwanted) that many of us wouldn’t be bothered about it enough to say anything to anyone else? Many would prefer to just handle it ourselves, and handling it usually means ignoring it and pretending it didn’t happen.
> 
> I’ve done this too, not spoken up about completely creepy and indecent behavior by men I’ve worked with, some peers, some subordinates, some superiors. Ignoring it and trying to avoid those people and conversations was easier for me personally.
> 
> I actually don’t feel I’m in the right by not saying anything. I’m just too lazy to put forth the effort I know it would take to open a report. (This of course only applies to what I’ve seen and heard this far. I would make a report about certain things but haven’t seen or heard anything that is above my personal threshold of need to report.)
> 
> In your wife’s words, what did she mean by burn the guy to the ground? How would you be able to burn a guys life down without telling someone else? If not police, at least his wife (does he have one?) or his employer? How does one burn him down without actually filing charges?
> 
> As for her comment about being grateful someone still wants to grab it, that seems really insensitive. If a man at her work or on a train grabbed her ass unwanted I don’t think she would be grateful.
> 
> Actually I find that part of her comment a little suspicious.


I was also curious about any possible back story.

The burn him wording was my own. It's just an extreme way of putting him in his place, usually through a very pointed and humiliating rejection. She did this to a lot of guys before letting me in. It was merciless. She has a way of making a guy she doesn't like feel less than human. So it wasn't burn him to the ground publicly but rather privately. Although, I suspect had there been a wife nearby, she would have been notified as well.


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> Because it's not acting like a little prick, it's teaching bodily autonomy. If you want women to be assertive, you have to teach them that their body is theirs first. You are so big into making women say No if they don't want to be kissed and running away - this is not a lesson that is learned automatically and in fact, most of the time women are socialized the exact opposite way.



Who are these women ‘socialized’ by, to give into something they don’t want to do?
In the majority of cases, nobody is actually ‘forcing’ them. Have you read Ansari’s case?

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

She is an adult woman. There was no threat (explicit or implicit). She can leave any time (which she did, eventually). She describes in great deal how she hated every minute of it and how she felt pressured and ‘forced’. Yet she blows the guy during their encounter. Twice. Incomprehensible to me and any male. 

Do these women want men to treat them as equals or do they want to be treated like children instead? Because it seems like they want the flexibility to be able to have both and decide not only interchangeably, but also with hindsight, depending what suits their situation. 

If you tell the guy to slow down a bit but then give BJ and later paint yourself as the victim and recite how ‘all men are the same’...it sounds very messed up to me. Words should be followed by the corresponding action. I understand this is difficult with very young people/children or between student/teacher (person of trust) but there should NOT be an issue in other, normal situations.

Sorry for the rant. I feel bad for how the woman felt afterwards but I don’t see where the guy went wrong. It looks like a misunderstanding to me. He probably thought of himself as having that irresistible sexual prowess that ppl on this thread keep talking about...The scary part is that the two accounts could not have been more different from each other.
And AC would NOT have changed anything because the woman would just claim that she felt pressured into saying ‘yes’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> Because it's not acting like a little prick, it's teaching bodily autonomy. If you want women to be assertive, you have to teach them that their body is theirs first. You are so big into making women say No if they don't want to be kissed and running away - this is not a lesson that is learned automatically and in fact, most of the time women are socialized the exact opposite way.




Also how can this be at all about ‘socialisation’ or anything to do with children learning about consent early on? If that was the case then grown men would be affected just the same. But only (some) women seem to be affected by it.
Why are these things always end up being blamed on society? (And society then ends up being blamed on men, inevitably). Sometimes it’s nobody’s fault.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> I'm (not) sorry it annoys you but because you personally don't experience it you are not extra quick to disregard it and as such it's real difficult to tell you my exact experiences when you are so dismissive. Its life if it's not you or you wife that feels a certain way, it's all bull**** inmyprime so like, what is the point of talking about it?I'm done sharing anecdotes with you or explaining my feelings.




I’m not dismissive of your feelings or your experiences (you haven’t shared any to be dismissive about, and whatever you shared, I acknowledged and thanked you). I was ranting about that article and cases similar to this.

Anyway, I’m pretty certain this madness / overcorrection (what some mistakenly view as ‘the new order’) is already going away on its own. The ‘war’ and disagreements are mainly within the various feminist ‘factions’; most men (apart from me it seems) don’t seem to even participate or care about this all that much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FrenchFry

.


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> It's not, but when ideas become law, it's not that radical anymore. You are an old married, you are at best on the peripheral of the whole shebang.



That may well be but it is entirely inconsequential where I am or whether I’m new or old married: what matters is that the majority of WOMEN don’t actually want those radical changes implemented and coded into law - that is pretty clear if you watch the news and debates about this topic. It is only the small hard left feminist minority that is making all those noises.
It won’t make ANY difference to men either way, in the long run - this is what I’m trying to drive home. And the only party suffering from the negative consequences of poor decision making in legislation will still be women. That is abundantly clear.

https://youtu.be/_6eGhCetjBQ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Btw I just want to make clear that I do believe the ‘freeze’ response by some women is a real thing and that it should be made known and talked about more since it obviously has potential and does cause a lot of misunderstanding, pain and suffering to both genders.

However it becomes very difficult to talk about it when men get put into the position of being expected to read women’s minds or making choices for them when it suits them versus having no choice when it doesn’t, i.e. ‘no, lets not have sex now because I’m getting mixed signals from you and you seem tense’ versus making the choice to continue, when a woman is unable to assert herself what it is she wants or doesn’t want but then later can decide either way, depending which way the wind is blowing.

The two (first and second paragraphs) are separate observations but both valid and can coexist.

No amount of legislation will fix the underlying issue, as long as the underlying issue is being obfuscated and dodged. (And I’m not saying you are obfuscating those issues, but cases like above do).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Here is an article that articulates the main issue that I seem to be failing to communicate properly. Unless the little noisy fringe at least begin to acknowledge the actual issue (in those types of cases), things won’t improve, AC or no AC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-but-is-it-working/?utm_term=.b8ba9d4a6778


Boy meets girl at a party. Boy and girl get drunk. Boy asks girl to go back to his room. Boy and girl kiss. Boy wants to go further. Girl hesitates; she isn’t sure. Boy takes out a condom. Girl opens it.

So did both parties consent to sex?

That’s the question du jour on our college campuses. And on many of them, the answer would almost surely be “no.” At least 800 institutions have established some kind of “affirmative consent” policy, whereby both partners must give clear and unambiguous consent to every sexual act. Simply engaging in sex doesn’t signify that you have consented to it; you have to agree directly and explicitly to anything that you do. And two states, California and New York, have written that standard into law.

But I’ve got a different question, one which you don’t hear nearly as often: If boy and girl don’t really know each other, how could they know what each other really wants?

That’s a question about intimacy, not just about consent. And the discussion about emotional connection and communication is mostly missing from the endless role-plays, workshops and online courses that we foist upon our students when they get to college. In fact, it’s the great contradiction at the heart of our college sex wars.

University administrators take it for granted that a certain amount of sex will be “casual,” that is, devoid of intimate emotion or connection. But our rules now require the sharing of feelings, even in an encounter that is by definition divorced from them. We simply assume that virtual strangers will be having sex. But we urge them — or, even legally enjoin them — to communicate openly and explicitly about it.


Good luck with that. We might succeed in cajoling more students into some kind of verbal consent. But that’s a script, a bedroom contract between sexual vendors. Yes, it will make the whole transaction legal. But consensual? Really? If you met somebody an hour ago, how can you tell what they want? And since you know so little about them, aren’t you more likely to do something that they don’t want, no matter what kind of “consent” they have given?

I’d like to suggest a modest addition to our campaigns against sexual assault on campus: Instead of simply pleading with students to ask for explicit consent when having sex, we should be asking them why they are having sex in the first place.

I think that we’ll find the answers are often troubling. In several recent studies, college women have told researchers that they dislike the hookup culture. But they engage in it anyway. “It’s just something that I feel like as a college student you’re supposed to do,” one woman told journalist Donna Freitas, who surveyed 2,500 college students about sex.


Many women also think it’s the only way to get what they really want: a romantic relationship with a man. But they often find that men don’t share that goal. “They’re in college, they don’t want a girlfriend,” a female student told La Salle University sociologist Kathleen Bogle, describing men on her campus. “They basically just want to get (sex).”

They’re succeeding, too. “No real commitment, no real feelings involved, this is like a guy’s paradise,” a male student told Bogle. “I mean, this is what guys have been wanting for many, many years. And women have always resisted, but now they are going along with it.”

Despite new regulations meant to ensure that these women have given their verbal consent during sexual encounters, these women still feel pressured into activities they would prefer to avoid. And not just at the individual level, where one party does something the other doesn’t want, but on a cultural level, where there is widespread pressure on women to conform to a sexual ideal that they don’t share.


So what should our colleges do about it? Right now, they’re doing all they can to avoid getting sued by assault victims or investigated by the federal government. They are embracing the new affirmative consent guidelines because they might give them legal protection by providing a clearer set of rules for sexual encounters.

But if we want to protect our students, not just their colleges, we will have to begin a deeper dialogue about the meaning of sex itself. Who wants to have sex, and why? And who really benefits from a “friends-with-benefits” system? When we separate physical intimacy from the emotional kind, we provide a fertile soil for sexual miscommunication and, yes, sexual coercion. For the past several years, we’ve tried to be casual about sex but serious about consent. And it’s not working.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

That is an excellent article.

It makes no sense to be so ultra militantly serious about consent to something we have made as casual as ordering a pizza.

Maybe sex IS actually a special, intimate, important act after all....and one we SHOULDNT treat like a handshake.

Oh the hirror.....


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> I totally agree and so did most of the kink community.
> 
> New ways of thinking about consent happen as the result of actual things happening and then the culture shifts in a new way to respond to it. We sometimes need real examples in order to consider new things.
> 
> In looking for this story I came across a story of 2 people who met on Craigslist, fully intending to consensually act out a rape in the woods. Someone saw them and called 911, but the point was made what if the witness had a gun? This very easily could have gotten someone killed.


Exactly! Hell especially in your country where there's guns everywhere an innocent man killed for no reason! Imagine the pain the gunman would feel too, trying to stop a rape which is the right thing to do, only to find out he robbed someone of an innocent (but stupid) loved one. 

Argh, that's rather tragic.


----------



## personofinterest

The lesson there is it's stupid to act that out in public.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> That is an excellent article.
> 
> It makes no sense to be so ultra militantly serious about consent to something we have made as casual as ordering a pizza.
> 
> Maybe sex IS actually a special, intimate, important act after all....and one we SHOULDNT treat like a handshake.
> 
> Oh the hirror.....



Exactly my sentiment. I worry that some women might be confusing ‘the new world of liberating freedom over bodily autonomy’, with old fashioned, casual sex where not only men will continue to take advantage and benefit from the most, but will also open other loopholes and benefit women who don’t want to play those affirmative consent games. What’s wrong with just sticking with regular consent and spend the rest of the time learning more about yourself and the meaning and value of sexual intimacy.

Some old values may be outdated and others, are there for a reason - because they are the least worst of some of the other options.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> most men (apart from me it seems) don’t seem to even participate or care about this all that much.


Most men are smart enough not to get involved in this.

Matt Damon made the mistake of having am opinion.

He pointed out that there's a difference between patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation and had to walk it back afterwards.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/16/entertainment/matt-damon-metoo/index.html


----------



## 269370

As for how ‘sexy’ AC is, check out this instructional ‘fun’ and ‘sexy’ video:

https://youtu.be/bVHYvUpeqKI

In a nutshell:

May I go in?
Yes
May I come out
Yes
May I go in?
Yes
May I come out
Yes
May I ejaculate?
No
Oops

Game over


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Who are these women ‘socialized’ by, to give into something they don’t want to do?
> In the majority of cases, nobody is actually ‘forcing’ them. Have you read Ansari’s case?
> 
> https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355
> 
> She is an adult woman. There was no threat (explicit or implicit). She can leave any time (which she did, eventually). She describes in great deal how she hated every minute of it and how she felt pressured and ‘forced’. Yet she blows the guy during their encounter. Twice. Incomprehensible to me and any male.
> 
> Do these women want men to treat them as equals or do they want to be treated like children instead? Because it seems like they want the flexibility to be able to have both and decide not only interchangeably, but also with hindsight, depending what suits their situation.
> 
> If you tell the guy to slow down a bit but then give BJ and later paint yourself as the victim and recite how ‘all men are the same’...it sounds very messed up to me. Words should be followed by the corresponding action. I understand this is difficult with very young people/children or between student/teacher (person of trust) but there should NOT be an issue in other, normal situations.
> 
> Sorry for the rant. I feel bad for how the woman felt afterwards but I don’t see where the guy went wrong. It looks like a misunderstanding to me. He probably thought of himself as having that irresistible sexual prowess that ppl on this thread keep talking about...The scary part is that the two accounts could not have been more different from each other.
> And AC would NOT have changed anything because the woman would just claim that she felt pressured into saying ‘yes’.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



If you can't see what he did wrong, then you aren't paying very much attention.

Dude Ansari really needs a lesson or ten in affirmative consent. He doesn't even really appear to understand the word no.


----------



## 269370

I’m not that bothered about the stupidity of it but more about the fact that there are quite major implications with AC and ‘yes means yes’:

The small group of women who are fighting for this non-sense surely realise what it means when you are ‘presumed guilty, until proven innocent’, within the justice system. When the burden of proof lies solely with the accused. Men are not idiots. Well, some are I’m sure. But those probably won’t have the chance to pass their genes on in any case.

Women don’t get to decide whether a guy is guilty or innocent. The justice system does. It’s not perfect, but it sure is a better system than the former.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Obviously there are boundaries. To be crude, I'd never assume anal.
> 
> But, once the kissing has begun and the clothes start to come off, thinking that sex is a reasonable result isn't outlandish.
> 
> People have boundaries involving how close someone stands to them (by personal boundaries on this matter are constantly violated by others in line at the grocery checkout). But there's no good way to know ahead of time where exactly that boundary is. We could just stand 5 feet away at all times, or I suppose we could ask everyone we approach......


Yes, exactly. People have boundaries. You wouldn't run up to a complete stranger and hug them ... because you know it probably would cross their boundaries. You wouldn't keep pressuring a friend to give you favor after favor because you expect that you will run up against their boundaries.

But, for some reason, just because one person is willing to kiss another, all of a sudden it's to be assumed they want sex? That's a pretty big leap.

Expecting that you won't encounter any boundaries at all until otherwise told is basically treating another person as means to your ends. (not you personally, but generally)

Which is why I suggested it is dog eat dog and lacking in compassion.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> I’m not that bothered about the stupidity of it but more about the fact that there are quite major implications with AC and ‘yes means yes’:
> 
> The small group of women who are fighting for this non-sense surely realise what it means when you are ‘presumed guilty, until proven innocent’, within the justice system. When the burden of proof lies solely with the accused. Men are not idiots. Well, some are I’m sure. But those probably won’t have the chance to pass their genes on in any case.
> 
> Women don’t get to decide whether a guy is guilty or innocent. The justice system does. It’s not perfect, but it sure is a better system than the former.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Characterizing affirmative consent as "guilty until proven innocent" is completely off the mark and nothing more than fear-mongering hype. 

Individual women *don't* decide. And affirmative consent *isn't* part of the criminal justice system.

Not sure why you are so desperately clinging to these total misinterpretations of both the issues and the policies.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> If you can't see what he did wrong, then you aren't paying very much attention.
> 
> Dude Ansari really needs a lesson or ten in affirmative consent. He doesn't even really appear to understand the word no.




She never said ‘no’ throughout the whole time, that’s the whole point. She blew him twice. She decided afterwards that she didn’t really want any of it. The problem is - and this is exactly what happens on these boards too - other people read a misquoted commentary on the matter (such as yours), rather than go to the source and decide that this is what happened and the story explodes. It makes money for the gossip columns but the guy and his career is toast. 
Not that I’m defending how he went about it during their date. But lets call it what it was: a ****ty date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> She never said ‘no’ throughout the whole time, that’s the whole point. She blew him twice. She decided afterwards that she didn’t really want any of it. The problem is - and this is exactly what happens on these boards too - other people read a misquoted commentary on the matter (such as yours), rather than go to the source and decide that this is what happened and the story explodes. It makes money for the gossip columns but the guy and his career is toast.
> Not that I’m defending how he went about it during their date. But lets call it what it was: a ****ty date.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Maybe you need to read the link that you posted again, then. She did say "no" explicitly, along with giving him a whole range of verbal and non-verbal cues that she wasn't into it.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> She did say "no" explicitly,



Where exactly? Quote please.

As for ‘non verbal’ cues, I don’t want to sound insensitive, in view of how some women feel uncomfortable in such situations. 

But if I wanted to give out ‘non verbal cues’, i think it would really have helped him, if she didn’t go down on him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> Characterizing affirmative consent as "guilty until proven innocent" is completely off the mark and nothing more than fear-mongering hype.
> 
> 
> 
> Individual women *don't* decide. And affirmative consent *isn't* part of the criminal justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why you are so desperately clinging to these total misinterpretations of both the issues and the policies.



Please read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.la...al-assault-20170303-story.html?outputType=amp

Several women upthread have said and welcomed the fact that this might soon become part of the justice system (it won’t, but if it does, of course it means women decide who is guilty, by proxy. How else do you prove that you obtained consent?).

It’s not fear mongering. It’s the ‘new order’. Lets try making it sexy and fun. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/valentines-day-role-play-ends-in-oregon-couples-arrest/


Cute couple. Bad choice.


----------



## ConanHub

wild jade said:


> If you can't see what he did wrong, then you aren't paying very much attention.
> 
> Dude Ansari really needs a lesson or ten in affirmative consent. He doesn't even really appear to understand the word no.


He is extremely pathetic but she took a little too long to establish herself against an aggressive idiot.

Would have never happened with me and I can't understand anyone older than 13 acting like he did.

Is this bull **** rampant? If so I'm amazed the human race is still ongoing.

Hopefully she has learned to put morons like this in their place far more firmly and quickly in the future.

He was an idiot and out of line. She needed to be a lot harder in stopping him, she didn't realize what was happening quickly enough.

He did seriously blow a good chance at romance because she really put up with a lot before leaving.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> He is extremely pathetic but she took a little too long to establish herself against an aggressive idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Would have never happened with me and I can't understand anyone older than 13 acting like he did.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this bull **** rampant? If so I'm amazed the human race is still ongoing.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully she has learned to put morons like this in their place far more firmly and quickly in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> He was an idiot and out of line. She needed to be a lot harder in stopping him, she didn't realize what was happening quickly enough.
> 
> 
> 
> He did seriously blow a good chance at romance because she really put up with a lot before leaving.




Remember this is her account, not his. Of course it’s pathetic. What do you reckon is this article trying to show? How amazing he was at seducing her?
This publication was compared by many (normal) feminists to revenge porn and they all distance themselves from this non sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

The English tea version is so much clearer on consent: 

https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8

(“Trust me on this” )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

And why ‘yes means yes’ and AC might be a touch problematic @wild jade

https://youtu.be/WOrGa7vPzvQ




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

I’m making tea for everyone...Right, i need to take a break from this.

https://youtu.be/yX6va9glqgA
@Buddy400 @ConanHub 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> He is extremely pathetic but she took a little too long to establish herself against an aggressive idiot.
> 
> Would have never happened with me and I can't understand anyone older than 13 acting like he did.
> 
> Is this bull **** rampant? If so I'm amazed the human race is still ongoing.
> 
> Hopefully she has learned to put morons like this in their place far more firmly and quickly in the future.
> 
> He was an idiot and out of line. She needed to be a lot harder in stopping him, she didn't realize what was happening quickly enough.
> 
> He did seriously blow a good chance at romance because she really put up with a lot before leaving.


Yes, misunderstandings are rampant. And then a case gets isolated and examined. And that gives the rest of us something to talk about and to think about our own thoughts, and over time, it gives people better understanding and models of behavior.

In order to avoid this type of misunderstanding, if either of these kids in the Aziz scenario had been educated in how to practice AC, the misunderstanding would not have happened. If she was educated in it, she would have been more clear in her no and would know how to avoid being pressured, and also she probably would have left. If he was educated in it, he would have stopped immediately at her first hesitation. He may then have tried to secure a yes, and at that point she would not have given one. Then he would stop and also stop asking. Yes, it is fair to continue to ask, but in AC you learn the difference between asking again and pressuring or being coercive with guilt, etc. 

I would call the situation with those two a misunderstanding. Not an assault or any type of crime. However, this type of misunderstanding could have easily been solved with the AC practices that others use. Sex would most likely not have occurred at all, and perhaps the young woman would have instead written about how awesome it was that AC allowed them to have a successful ending to their date with no misunderstandings. 

The woman in this story has a lot to learn about AC, as much or more than Aziz does.


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> I’m not that bothered about the stupidity of it but more about the fact that there are quite major implications with AC and ‘yes means yes’:
> 
> The small group of women who are fighting for this non-sense surely realise what it means when you are ‘presumed guilty, until proven innocent’, within the justice system. When the burden of proof lies solely with the accused. Men are not idiots. Well, some are I’m sure. But those probably won’t have the chance to pass their genes on in any case.
> 
> Women don’t get to decide whether a guy is guilty or innocent. The justice system does. It’s not perfect, but it sure is a better system than the former.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You cant see it, but I am giving this post a standing ovation as I set a pink hat on fire lol


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> You cant see it, but I am giving this post a standing ovation as I set a pink hat on fire lol



I wish I never started looking into or reading about this...It actually looks malignant to me. It’s not going to end well for anybody. I don’t want to become ‘that guy’ who makes fun and criticises feminism because I actually love women and people in general 
I hope that wisdom prevails. But given history, it isn’t something one should just assume will happen automatically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

"I don’t want to become ‘that guy’ who makes fun and criticises feminism because I actually love women and people in general "

Go right ahead. This new, gross, angry, man-hating, hairy version of femusism is anything but feminine and is, quite frankly, an embarrassment to rational womanhood.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Btw I just want to make clear that I do believe the ‘freeze’ response by some women is a real thing and that it should be made known and talked about more since it obviously has potential and does cause a lot of misunderstanding, pain and suffering to both genders.


For the other side of the "freeze response is scientifically proven" debate:

https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...ind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> But, for some reason, just because one person is willing to kiss another, all of a sudden it's to be assumed they want sex? That's a pretty big leap.


Well, I said "But, once the kissing has begun and the clothes start to come off, thinking that sex is a reasonable result isn't outlandish"

Notice that I said "once the kissing has begun *and the clothes come off*".

Not "When one person is willing to kiss another"

And, I didn't say "it's to be assumed that they want sex".

I said "thinking that sex is a reasonable result isn't outlandish".

Is it really possible for you to read what I said and think I said what you claim I did?

Are you intentionally twisting my words? Or are you not aware that you're doing it?

Do you think you will gain credibility with people reading this exchange by doing so? Or lose it?


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Characterizing affirmative consent as "guilty until proven innocent" is completely off the mark and nothing more than fear-mongering hype.


Alan Dershowitz is also spreads fear-mongering hype.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-of-fairness-at-risk/?utm_term=.ba7bb19fdb37

He also makes the excellent point that using a preponderance of the evidence standard to judge guilt by definition requires accepting the possibility that 49% of those accused are actually innocent.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Buddy400 said:


> Alan Dershowitz is also spreads fear-mongering hype.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-of-fairness-at-risk/?utm_term=.ba7bb19fdb37
> 
> He also makes the excellent point that using a preponderance of the evidence standard to judge guilt by definition requires accepting the possibility that 49% of those accused are actually innocent.


But hey, that's okay since giving someone the boot from college is really no biggie. Remember, it's nothing like the trauma of being assaulted, so any comparison to a criminal threshold for conviction is irrelevant.

Hell, since assault is far more common than false accusation, in any such case, it is therefore more likely that an assault took place, so why even have a board review at all? As soon as a claim is made, escort the accused from campus and be done with it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> "I don’t want to become ‘that guy’ who makes fun and criticises feminism because I actually love women and people in general "
> 
> Go right ahead. This new, gross, angry, man-hating, hairy version of femusism is anything but feminine and is, quite frankly, an embarrassment to rational womanhood.


For my part, I am glad no one defines what is feminine for me but me. Talk about angry. Your posts waft barely controlled anger. It is clear that you have no idea what the protests with people donning pink hats was about or who these horrible terrible feminists are. On the political front, where these hats were used as a protest symbol, there was and is plenty to be angry about. But the categorization of man hating (and hairy?? why would you care whether someone chooses to shave or not??) speaks volumes about you, your ignorance and your own anger. Or is it fear? 

I showed this thread to some of the men I care about in my life. I can't repeat the words that were used to express the disgust. They would all get bleeped out.


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> For my part, I am glad no one defines what is feminine for me but me. Talk about angry. Your posts waft barely controlled anger. It is clear that you have no idea what the protests with people donning pink hats was about or who these horrible terrible feminists are. On the political front, where these hats were used as a protest symbol, there was and is plenty to be angry about. But the categorization of man hating (and hairy?? why would you care whether someone chooses to shave or not??) speaks volumes about you, your ignorance and your own anger. Or is it fear?
> 
> I showed this thread to some of the men I care about in my life. I can't repeat the words that were used to express the disgust. They would all get bleeped out.


Haha, come on, it was a bit of humour (we still need to work on that...). Because tone is missing, I am sure you wouldn't get offended in real life about it.

Please please please watch this, and tell me that there's currently _*nothing*_ going wrong in our society at the moment:


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Well, I said "But, once the kissing has begun and the clothes start to come off, thinking that sex is a reasonable result isn't outlandish"
> 
> Notice that I said "once the kissing has begun *and the clothes come off*".
> 
> Not "When one person is willing to kiss another"
> 
> And, I didn't say "it's to be assumed that they want sex".
> 
> I said "thinking that sex is a reasonable result isn't outlandish".
> 
> Is it really possible for you to read what I said and think I said what you claim I did?
> 
> Are you intentionally twisting my words? Or are you not aware that you're doing it?
> 
> Do you think you will gain credibility with people reading this exchange by doing so? Or lose it?


 @Buddy400. There is more than one hypothetical situation being postulated in this discussion. Yes, I read what you said. No I am not twisting what you said -- just acknowledging that this line of discussion also has a history. I was, for example, originally replying to @Cletus.

You don't need to take everything I say as a personal attack or a dissection of every word that you say.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Where exactly? Quote please.
> 
> As for ‘non verbal’ cues, I don’t want to sound insensitive, in view of how some women feel uncomfortable in such situations.
> 
> But if I wanted to give out ‘non verbal cues’, i think it would really have helped him, if she didn’t go down on him.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is from the link you posted. 

Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’”

“Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling. I know that my hand stopped moving at some points,” she said. “I stopped moving my lips and turned cold.”

“I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” 

“After he bent me over is when *I stood up and said no*, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Alan Dershowitz is also spreads fear-mongering hype.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-of-fairness-at-risk/?utm_term=.ba7bb19fdb37
> 
> He also makes the excellent point that using a preponderance of the evidence standard to judge guilt by definition requires accepting the possibility that 49% of those accused are actually innocent.


For a Harvard Law professor, he's a bit math challenged don't you think?

He is, after all, confusing the definition of preponderance with the number of people who are innocent.

To him, I would point out that assuming that all universities will automatically choose the lowest possible bar for defining "preponderance" is both naive and wrong-headed. Universities are extremely risk adverse and absolutely do not want a reputation for railroading innocent people just for the pure sport of it.

As for the 49% are actually innocent? This is absolutely hype. He's assuming, for starters, an astronomical false accusation rate, as well as making some of the most basic fallacies out there.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> This is from the link you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’”
> 
> 
> 
> “Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling. I know that my hand stopped moving at some points,” she said. “I stopped moving my lips and turned cold.”
> 
> 
> 
> “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,”
> 
> 
> 
> “After he bent me over is when *I stood up and said no*, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this.



Urrgh. Why don’t you put part of a word in bold. Who quotes and singles out one word? I do t know if you are deliberately trying to be disingenuous.

“I don’t think I’m ready to do this” is not the same as “No, please stop. Don’t do it”.

And btw he did stop and they went to watch tv on the couch where she proceeded to give him a BJ.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter. I get that women sometimes feel pressured and can’t always communicate things clearly in those situations. 
I always understood this to some extent.

That’s why I wasn’t sure that the requirement for a verbal consent SHOULD be a requirement and that men should learn better to read those bodily cues or whatever and that there should be an unspoken understanding that men can sometimes get it wrong and if they do, there should be helped with a stronger indication from the woman, such as her leaving or turning away or whatever. 

My thoughts on this arose out of consideration for women and how they actually behave in real life, but the more I’m reading these kinds of articles (which are based on revenge more than anything IMO) and listen to the replies here and other places, the more I’m beginning to think like Buddy and the others, which is: “**** this, I’m getting verbal consent or signature on the dotted line, or she is not getting ****ed”.

Trust me, most men are not going to have a problem with this. (And it will do absolutely nothing to curb actual rape and sexual assault unfortunately). And eventually feminists will come out and say stuff like “but why do men always have to be the ones asking for consent? We womenz absolutely can and will be equalz, ****ing anyone we want: say the word, man-*****”.  

Couple that with the laws of not being allowed to educate women that perhaps this is actually not in their best interest etc (‘Cos, you know, ****-shaming etc) and I think men should start opening the champagne 🥂 
Crazy world.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Urrgh. Why don’t you put part of a word in bold. Who quotes and singles out one word? I do t know if you are deliberately trying to be disingenuous.
> 
> “I don’t think I’m ready to do this” is not the same as “No, please stop. Don’t do it”.
> 
> And btw he did stop and they went to watch tv on the couch where she proceeded to give him a BJ.
> 
> Anyway, it doesn’t matter. I get that women sometimes feel pressured and can’t always communicate things clearly in those situations.
> I always understood this to some extent.
> 
> That’s why I wasn’t sure that the requirement for a verbal consent SHOULD be a requirement and that men should learn better to read those bodily cues or whatever and that there should be an unspoken understanding that men can sometimes get it wrong and if they do, there should be helped with a stronger indication from the woman, such as her leaving or turning away or whatever.
> 
> My thoughts on this arose out of consideration for women and how they actually behave in real life, but the more I’m reading these kinds of articles (which are based on revenge more than anything IMO) and listen to the replies here and other places, the more I’m beginning to think like Buddy and the others, which is: “**** this, I’m getting verbal consent or signature on the dotted line, or she is not getting ****ed”.
> 
> Trust me, most men are not going to have a problem with this. (And it will do absolutely nothing to curb actual rape and sexual assault unfortunately). And eventually feminists will come out and say stuff like “but why do men always have to be the ones asking for consent? We womenz absolutely can and will be equalz, ****ing anyone we want: say the word, man-*****”.
> 
> Couple that with the laws of not being allowed to educate women that perhaps this is actually not in their best interest etc (‘Cos, you know, ****-shaming etc) and I think men should start opening the champagne &#55358;&#56642;
> Crazy world.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You asked where she said no -- and so I highlighted it. That's definitely a "no".

Could she have been more forceful? Yes. Could she have been clearer? Yes. Could she have bit it off instead of giving him a BJ when he pushed her towards it? Yes.

But what no one seems to want to allow is that women can have mixed feelings about these things. She liked him. She went on a date with him. She suggested maybe next time would be a better time. If he had gone about this any other way, she probably would have been into him. But because he really only cared about himself and getting off right then and there, he ignored her feelings entirely and pressed and pressed.

I agree with @Faithful Wife that this is in the misunderstanding territory, the safe side of the grey zone. 

But it illustrates why affirmative consent is so very important. If you're trying to have sex with someone, you should take a moment to care a tiny whit about their feelings.


----------



## wild jade

I think affirmative consent will reduce assault and rape because it will greatly reduce those grey zone cases, where one person thinks it's not so bad if they treat another person as a means to their ends. They will realize that there might actually be consequences to that.


----------



## personofinterest

If I seemed angry, it's because I am kind of angry. I'm tired of a tiny radical minority of women thinking they speak for me or speak for many of us out there. In fact, this tiny radical fringe does not speak for the vast majority of women. Most of us do not consider that all men are probably rapists. Most of us know the wage gap is a complete myth. Most of us don't expect someone else to pay for our birth control and don't expect doctors to violate their beliefs to perform abortions. Most of us don't have a giant chip on our shoulder against anyone with a pene'us. If you don't think that the impression I gave of radical feminists is V impression almost everyone outside their little circle has of the on, then you have not been paying attention. People are sick of the screaming and screeching about things that aren't even necessarily real. And I have to say, I am not one bit sorry that I'm not a fan of women who hate men.


----------



## 269370

Double


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> You asked where she said no -- and so I highlighted it. That's definitely a "no".
> 
> Could she have been more forceful? Yes. Could she have been clearer? Yes. Could she have bit it off instead of giving him a BJ when he pushed her towards it? Yes.
> 
> But what no one seems to want to allow is that women can have mixed feelings about these things. She liked him. She went on a date with him. She suggested maybe next time would be a better time. If he had gone about this any other way, she probably would have been into him. But because he really only cared about himself and getting off right then and there, he ignored her feelings entirely and pressed and pressed.
> 
> I agree with @Faithful Wife that this is in the misunderstanding territory, the safe side of the grey zone.
> 
> But it illustrates why affirmative consent is so very important. If you're trying to have sex with someone, you should take a moment to care a tiny whit about their feelings.



Of course ‘we’ can allow her to feel anyhow she wants afterwards. But when she starts the slandering, that’s when you have to draw the line. And it doesn’t help her cause. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> But it illustrates why affirmative consent is so very important. If you're trying to have sex with someone, you should take a moment to care a tiny whit about their feelings.



But Affirmative Consent does not work if the person in question doesn’t actually know what it is he or she ACTUALLY WANTS or if they are going to change their mind later.

AC is not some magic panacea that suddenly brings clarity to the ambiguous nature of the actual situation. She may think she wants it now, she may change her mind, she may not be sure, she may see where it leads, she may this, she may that. 

The problem has nothing to do with AC, because regular consent is just fine, the problem is the easy, casual, hookup nature of these encounters.

It’s nuts to think that a verbal yes or no is going to fix or change anything. It’s like trying to fix accidents caused by drink driving with signing forms that ‘drink driving is at your own risk’. No, you have to educate people why drink driving is dangerous in the first place so you don’t get into a car when drunk in the first place. You otherwise get yourself in precisely the same ****, but this time it’s ‘legal' and with your eyes wide open.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

NobodySpecial said:


> For my part, I am glad no one defines what is feminine for me but me. Talk about angry. Your posts waft barely controlled anger. It is clear that you have no idea what the protests with people donning pink hats was about or who these horrible terrible feminists are. On the political front, where these hats were used as a protest symbol, there was and is plenty to be angry about. But the categorization of man hating (and hairy?? why would you care whether someone chooses to shave or not??) speaks volumes about you, your ignorance and your own anger. Or is it fear?
> 
> I showed this thread to some of the men I care about in my life. I can't repeat the words that were used to express the disgust. They would all get bleeped out.


@NobodySpecial and other wannabe (new) feminists:

Please watch this. Don't make your own lives worse. It's a relief to hear that most women are sensible and do not want to have anything to do with this 'new order' crap.


----------



## FrenchFry

-Sorry. This was all a mistake.


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> I can't tell you to please stop posting idiotic clickbait ****, but I don't know who you think you are convincing by doing so.


I have heard plenty of 'idiotic ****' from some posters that made absolutely no sense to me. Now I know where it is coming from. I think this is important and directly topical. If you don't want to watch it, nobody is forcing you to. But at least be polite about it. :x


----------



## 269370

FrenchFry said:


> -Sorry. This was all a mistake.


I don't get why any of this offends you. Can you explain? I am not trying to offend anyone.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Of course ‘we’ can allow her to feel anyhow she wants afterwards. But when she starts the slandering, that’s when you have to draw the line. And it doesn’t help her cause.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's only slander if it's false. 

Hmmm, I wonder if there's a reason he didn't accuse her of slander?


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> I don't get why any of this offends you. Can you explain? I am not trying to offend anyone.


I can't speak for @FrenchFry, but I can tell you that Christina Hoff Sommers dismisses a whole lot of research conducted by a variety of different, reputable and competent people with zero facts and lots of bs rhetoric.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> It's only slander if it's false.
> 
> Hmmm, I wonder if there's a reason he didn't accuse her of slander?


Because he is a decent human being perhaps? Or is that too far-fetched? 
Also because it was not necessary: she made a fool out of herself with this unfortunately.

Uploading a video of having sex with your wife is not slander either. But it's still in very bad taste (plus it is now illegal, I believe, if it's done without her consent).


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> I can't speak for @FrenchFry, but I can tell you that Christina Hoff Sommers dismisses a whole lot of research conducted by a variety of different, reputable and competent people with zero facts and lots of bs rhetoric.


She addresses this so-called 'research' in the video.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> @Buddy400. There is more than one hypothetical situation being postulated in this discussion. Yes, I read what you said. No I am not twisting what you said -- just acknowledging that this line of discussion also has a history. I was, for example, originally replying to @Cletus.
> 
> You don't need to take everything I say as a personal attack or a dissection of every word that you say.


Well, when you quote me and respond, I tend to think that you're responding to what I said. Not what someone else might have said.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> She addresses this so-called 'research' in the video.


Well, since @wild jade can so easily dismiss the legal opinions of Alan Dershowitz, she's not going to have any trouble not being convinced by Susanna Hoff Summers (who, by the way, I think is brilliant).


----------



## EllisRedding

personofinterest said:


> If I seemed angry, it's because I am kind of angry. I'm tired of a tiny radical minority of women thinking they speak for me or speak for many of us out there. In fact, this tiny radical fringe does not speak for the vast majority of women. Most of us do not consider that all men are probably rapists. Most of us know the wage gap is a complete myth. Most of us don't expect someone else to pay for our birth control and don't expect doctors to violate their beliefs to perform abortions. Most of us don't have a giant chip on our shoulder against anyone with a pene'us. If you don't think that the impression I gave of radical feminists is V impression almost everyone outside their little circle has of the on, then you have not been paying attention. People are sick of the screaming and screeching about things that aren't even necessarily real. And I have to say, I am not one bit sorry that I'm not a fan of women who hate men.


Oh man, you are playing with fire, especially bringing up the mythical "pay gap". 

The problem, some people believe that equal opportunity should result in equal outcome when we know that is total BS.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> -Sorry. This was all a mistake.


Agree. 

It is actually a little better than it was like 4 years ago. But still a mistake, for now. 

See ya at the secret meeting of screeching fems! >


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Oh man, you are playing with fire, especially bringing up the mythical "pay gap".
> 
> The problem, some people believe that equal opportunity should result in equal outcome when we know that is total BS.


Meh, not worth the energy.


----------



## RandomDude

FrenchFry said:


> -Sorry. This was all a mistake.


Errr... wtf...

:surprise:


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> She addresses this so-called 'research' in the video.


Yes. With rhetoric and hand waving.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Well, when you quote me and respond, I tend to think that you're responding to what I said. Not what someone else might have said.


 @Buddy400. You were defending Cletus, and now you want to make it all about you. Okay. Let's make it all about you.

No it's not "outlandish" to think that if you are kissing and getting more and more naked that sex is on the table. 

But you still have to remember that people have boundaries, and at any point they may decide you're being too pushy and just want to get the hell out of there.


----------



## personofinterest

wild jade said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you quote me and respond, I tend to think that you're responding to what I said. Not what someone else might have said.
> 
> 
> 
> @Buddy400. You were defending Cletus, and now you want to make it all about you. Okay. Let's make it all about you.
> 
> No it's not "outlandish" to think that if you are kissing and getting more and more naked that sex is on the table.
> 
> But you still have to remember that people have boundaries, and at any point they may decide you're being too pushy and just want to get the hell out of there.
Click to expand...

 Did buddy or anyone else say that this was a problem? Has anyone on this thread said that once we start kissing a man is entitled to 6? 2 or 3 of you keep going to these extremes acting as if no one here understands that no means no. That is the same kind of rhetoric the pink hats screen at rallies that makes me want to roll my eyes. No 1 is saying rape is OK. No 1 is saying coercion is OK.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Well, since @wild jade can so easily dismiss the legal opinions of Alan Dershowitz, she's not going to have any trouble not being convinced by Susanna Hoff Summers (who, by the way, I think is brilliant).


I'm not dismissing the legal opinions of Alan Dershowitz. I'm pointing out that the calculations in that article were seriously flawed. He's assuming the lowest bar possible for "preponderance" of evidence in all instances. Assuming it quite possible that all accusations are entirely false. And assuming that there will never be any evidence showing affirmative consent.

As a general rule, though, it's a whole lot easier to prove an affirmative than a negative.


----------



## wild jade

personofinterest said:


> Did buddy or anyone else say that this was a problem? Has anyone on this thread said that once we start kissing a man is entitled to 6? 2 or 3 of you keep going to these extremes acting as if no one here understands that no means no. That is the same kind of rhetoric the pink hats screen at rallies that makes me want to roll my eyes. No 1 is saying rape is OK. No 1 is saying coercion is OK.


No. And I have never accused him of any of this, so I don't know why you feel the need to protect him. 
@Cletus said that it was up to the person with the boundaries to make them known. I pointed out that everyone has boundaries and that should be our assumption going in t o any relationship, not just sexual ones. @Buddy400 jumps in and says if you're getting close to sex, it isn't outlandish to expect that it will happen.

To which I respond: Ok, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Which is simply this: It's not just up to the person with the boundaries to announce them. It's up to the person with different boundaries to not treat others as a means to their own end. 

And yes, they can be taught this. And yes, it will reduce those situations where someone is simply just taking advantage, thinking it won't come back to bite them.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> I'm not dismissing the legal opinions of Alan Dershowitz. I'm pointing out that the calculations in that article were seriously flawed. He's assuming the lowest bar possible for "preponderance" of evidence in all instances. Assuming it quite possible that all accusations are entirely false. And assuming that there will never be any evidence showing affirmative consent.
> 
> As a general rule, though, it's a whole lot easier to prove an affirmative than a negative.


Why do you ignore this?

_The system currently in place at colleges and universities runs far too great a risk of innocent students being found guilty. A recent study from UCLA’s John Villasenor estimated that *as many as 1 in 3 innocent students suffer this fate. The actual percentage is likely higher*, since Villasenor’s study couldn’t take into account some aspects of the college process (such as the ability of the accuser to appeal not-guilty findings and the lack of direct cross-examination at most schools) that increase the chances of a finding of guilt._

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-sexual-assault-cases/?utm_term=.60b3bebf91d9


----------



## personofinterest

Prime, surely you know why the new wave feminists ignore this period look at what new way feminism is, even in the news. Sex equals rate, all men are potential rapist, anything that is traditionally female is marked, and parties and celebrations are held to celebrate abortion. I mean, they're not gonna be too worried about a few guys getting unfairly accused. That's just not how it works.


----------



## personofinterest

Then there's this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=0rTMLCfvNIE

https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/22/texts-asia-argento-jimmy-bennett/

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11249


----------



## EllisRedding

inmyprime said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-sexual-assault-cases/?utm_term=.60b3bebf91d9


What a load of garbage as well, in particular the bolded. You are guilty until you can prove your innocence, based on some vague concept of what constitutes affirmative consent



> While most of the troubling procedural changes have come from federal pressure or the ideological urges of colleges and universities, some states have also advanced the guilt-presuming bandwagon. Four blue states (California, New York, Illinois and Connecticut) have adopted “affirmative consent” (or “yes means yes”) laws. These states’ laws now have enormous inconsistencies between their definitions of sexual assault for campus tribunals and for criminal courts. *In the former, an accused student must prove that he obtained “affirmative consent” throughout every sexual encounter, even with a longtime partner.* This standard “is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused,” a Tennessee state judge has ruled. While the peculiarities of campus tribunals have not yet spread to the criminal-justice system, a powerful faction of the American Law Institute is seeking to import into the criminal law rules very much like those used by the campus kangaroo courts.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

personofinterest said:


> https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/22/texts-asia-argento-jimmy-bennett/


"Argento also claimed in a text to her friend that if she loses her job following the allegations, she will move to Africa or the Amazon rainforest so she is not around entitled westerners."

:grin2::grin2::grin2:


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Why do you ignore this?
> 
> _The system currently in place at colleges and universities runs far too great a risk of innocent students being found guilty. A recent study from UCLA’s John Villasenor estimated that *as many as 1 in 3 innocent students suffer this fate. The actual percentage is likely higher*, since Villasenor’s study couldn’t take into account some aspects of the college process (such as the ability of the accuser to appeal not-guilty findings and the lack of direct cross-examination at most schools) that increase the chances of a finding of guilt._
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-sexual-assault-cases/?utm_term=.60b3bebf91d9


I agree that 1 in 3 innocent students being found guilty is unacceptable. And if I believed this were actually happening, I would be as up in arms as you are.

The study, though, is again assuming the lowest possible standards for a finding of guilt. It also doesn't even touch the question of just how many of these accusations are false.

It's easy to be swept up in media hype and rhetoric, but this whole image of universities being run by screaming banshees in pink hats out to railroad innocent young men is really beyond the pale. 

I mean, just look at the way it is worded in the article you cite. 1 in 3 students?? Really?? No, what they mean is 1 in 3 *falsely accused* students -- which is a vastly different starting point. 

How many students do you believe are falsely accused?? Do you not think that this might change the picture a little bit?

Don't get me wrong. I still think the 1 in 3 is unacceptable. But it isn't a reality -- it's just what some people are assuming will happen without any empirical evidence to support it.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> How many students do you believe are falsely accused??



Like all the studies show (this is not the only one): 1 in 3. This is the lowest estimate, not the highest. The actual numbers are likely to be higher, as per the study, and could be as much as half, as Buddy sighted from his source.

I don’t understand why you are ignoring reality? If you need to prove consent was given (which in most circumstances, you can’t), do you not see this as a problem? I really don’t get what or why you are trying to argue.

It doesn’t matter; people who make the decisions hopefully won’t ignore it and legislate accordingly. But I wouldn’t take it for granted given the current insanity.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> [MENTION=154305]
> But you still have to remember that people have boundaries, and at any point they may decide you're being too pushy and just want to get the hell out of there.


Of course. That's never happened to me but I always tried to avoid being pushy.

Getting the hell out of there is certainly a reasonable response to someone who's being too pushy.

That's what I advised my daughter. Say "No" and get the hell out of there (along with suggestions if doing so seems like it might be a problem).


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> Like all the studies show (this is not the only one): 1 in 3. This is the lowest estimate, not the highest. The actual numbers are likely to be higher, as per the study, and could be as much as half, as Buddy sighted from his source.
> 
> I don’t understand why you are ignoring reality? If you need to prove consent was given (which in most circumstances, you can’t), do you not see this as a problem? I really don’t get what or why you are trying to argue.
> 
> It doesn’t matter; people who make the decisions hopefully won’t ignore it and legislate accordingly. But I wouldn’t take it for granted given the current insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually, it is NOT statistically accurate that 1 in 3 accusations are false. Most researchers estimate that 4-6% of sexual assault/abuse cases are false accusations. But it really doesn't matter. Just like 1 rape is too mane, 1 innocent person's life ruined by a false accusation is too many.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Prime, surely you know why the new wave feminists ignore this period look at what new way feminism is, even in the news. Sex equals rate, all men are potential rapist, anything that is traditionally female is marked, and parties and celebrations are held to celebrate abortion. I mean, they're not gonna be too worried about a few guys getting unfairly accused. That's just not how it works.



It’s sad. They seem to identify themselves with all the wrong aspects that feminism originally stood for. It’s mostly misguided entitlement. 

They are going to try and legislate having to ask for AC to be able to address a woman next:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6173284

Similar non-sense that I noticed with some posters on this board (who don’t want to be addressed, and for them, the ‘audacity’ of being addressed, constitutes ‘harassment’).
It’s insane. 

I heard that all the pet shops are running out of cats because those will be the only creatures who they will end up living with as nobody else is going to be willing to put up with this bull****.
It’s time people have a reality check where this is going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Actually, it is NOT statistically accurate that 1 in 3 accusations are false. Most researchers estimate that 4-6% of sexual assault/abuse cases are false accusations. But it really doesn't matter. Just like 1 rape is too mane, 1 innocent person's life ruined by a false accusation is too many.



Are these the findings from college campuses? (Since the implementation of AC).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

I just don't understand how THINKING people expect men to read women's minds. I mean, I don't know how many times I have heard "Well, no she didn't say no, _but he should have known_...." Really? How??


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> It's only slander if it's false.
> 
> Hmmm, I wonder if there's a reason he didn't accuse her of slander?


Even Jezebel was critical of the Babe.net piece

https://jezebel.com/babe-what-are-you-doing-1822114753


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> Are these the findings from college campuses? (Since the implementation of AC).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No they were not. If we stick to JUST college campuses, I would bet the numbers probably ARE closer to 1 in 3. Especially now that young women who might be embarrassed or hung over basically have a "get out of jail free" card. And it;s a shame, because the idea of needing to have clear consent is NOT a bad idea. It's an EXCELLENT idea.

But a hand full of loud people with agenda's are weaponizing consent to try to scare men into their place. They are blind to it because they are so deep in their agenda. But the objective observer can see it a mile away.


----------



## Buddy400

inmyprime said:


> Why do you ignore this?
> 
> _The system currently in place at colleges and universities runs far too great a risk of innocent students being found guilty. A recent study from UCLA’s John Villasenor estimated that *as many as 1 in 3 innocent students suffer this fate. The actual percentage is likely higher*, since Villasenor’s study couldn’t take into account some aspects of the college process (such as the ability of the accuser to appeal not-guilty findings and the lack of direct cross-examination at most schools) that increase the chances of a finding of guilt._


This is from the authors of 'Campus Rape Frenzy' which I've referenced before. 

The authors take great pains to explain that they both voted for Obama both times (though the fact that they feel a need to state that says something).

I am certain that if we could make this required reading, minds would be changed on this issue.

Interesting side note: I was reading this book on the lawn before a concert at a upscale venue near Chicago. My wife, who agrees me on this topic, still felt uncomfortable with me reading this in an environment full of liberals. I must admit, I felt some of that as well, but I pressed on.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> I agree that 1 in 3 innocent students being found guilty is unacceptable. And if I believed this were actually happening, I would be as up in arms as you are.
> 
> The study, though, is again assuming the lowest possible standards for a finding of guilt. It also doesn't even touch the question of just how many of these accusations are false.
> 
> It's easy to be swept up in media hype and rhetoric, but this whole image of universities being run by screaming banshees in pink hats out to railroad innocent young men is really beyond the pale.
> 
> I mean, just look at the way it is worded in the article you cite. 1 in 3 students?? Really?? No, what they mean is 1 in 3 *falsely accused* students -- which is a vastly different starting point.
> 
> How many students do you believe are falsely accused?? Do you not think that this might change the picture a little bit?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I still think the 1 in 3 is unacceptable. But it isn't a reality -- it's just what some people are assuming will happen without any empirical evidence to support it.


 @personofinterest, @inmyprime

Here's a thoughtful piece discussing *what we don't know about false rape claims.*

Keep in mind that this is mostly about the old definition of rape (where I would expect false accusations of rape to be rare), not redefining past drunken hookups or bad sex as "sexual assault" retroactively (where I would expect a higher rate of false accusations).

One thing is clear, the popular meme that only 2% of rape accusations are false is based on very little and constantly repeated as if it's scientific proof.

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/what_we_dont_know_about_false.html


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> @personofinterest, @inmyprime
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a thoughtful piece discussing *what we don't know about false rape claims.*
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that this is mostly about the old definition of rape (where I would expect false accusations of rape to be rare), not redefining past drunken hookups or bad sex as "sexual assault" retroactively (where I would expect a higher rate of false accusations).
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is clear, the popular meme that only 2% of rape accusations are false is based on very little and constantly repeated as if it's scientific proof.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/what_we_dont_know_about_false.html




This bit from the article needs to be quoted:

Statistically, between 2% and 8% of reported rapes are found to be false, but only about 40% of rapes are reported. Do a little math and that means that, for every false accusation of rape, there are up to 100 actual rapes that take place." When I pointed out on Twitter that the author did not know the percentage of false rape reports, and therefore could not possibly calculate the ratio of false reports to rapes, he suggested that this was a matter of opinion: Maybe I liked one study better, but he thought his was pretty good. This is not a difference of opinion; it is simply a misunderstanding about the data. *He has substituted a number he knows -- which is, presented in its absolutely best light, the percentage of reports that can definitely be shown to be false by investigators using stringent criteria -- for a number he does not know, which is how many reports of rape are actually false. *




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

I think the desired outcome is an answer that neither disregards innocent men NOR rape victims. That is why dialog is difficult. The extreme AC advocates seem not to care much about innocent men, while the other end of the spectrum comes dangerously close to implying that most women who report assault are liars. As a victim that will ALWAYS rub me wrong.

Honestly, what innocent men NEED is for rational women to advocate for them. I know that sounds....well, I can't think of a word, but biting the hand that can feed one would not be prudent.

Dismissing or casting suspicions on the other side won't really benefit anyone.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> , while the other end of the spectrum comes dangerously close to implying that most women who report assault are liars.



Who claims that? 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

I think one thing that helps is to remember that the great majority of men and women are opposed to rape. I know that sounds dumb, but remember that if you are in a discussion and someone is disagreeing, it is probably NOT because they are a rapist or support rape, it is because they disagree with the solution that is proposed. (which may be due to side effects, or a belief that that particular solution is not effective).






personofinterest said:


> I think the desired outcome is an answer that neither disregards innocent men NOR rape victims. That is why dialog is difficult. The extreme AC advocates seem not to care much about innocent men, while the other end of the spectrum comes dangerously close to implying that most women who report assault are liars. As a victim that will ALWAYS rub me wrong.
> 
> Honestly, what innocent men NEED is for rational women to advocate for them. I know that sounds....well, I can't think of a word, but biting the hand that can feed one would not be prudent.
> 
> Dismissing or casting suspicions on the other side won't really benefit anyone.


----------



## personofinterest

inmyprime said:


> Who claims that?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No one here. But read a little around parts of Reddit....it's scary.


----------



## uhtred

Keep in mind that on any divisive issue, there will be extremists on both sides who are very vocal, AND completely unreasonable. Unfortunately they make good press so they get a lot of air time, and it can look like they represent a significant fraction of the opinion on one side


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> No one here. But read a little around parts of Reddit....it's scary.




Crazy man-b1tches *♀🤬


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

personofinterest said:


> I think the desired outcome is an answer that neither disregards innocent men NOR rape victims. That is why dialog is difficult. The extreme AC advocates seem not to care much about innocent men, while the other end of the spectrum comes dangerously close to implying that most women who report assault are liars. As a victim that will ALWAYS rub me wrong.
> 
> Honestly, what innocent men NEED is for rational women to advocate for them. I know that sounds....well, I can't think of a word, but biting the hand that can feed one would not be prudent.
> 
> Dismissing or casting suspicions on the other side won't really benefit anyone.


What it sounds like is guys needing gals to fight their battles for them; not something most guys, quite understandably, will accept, even if they stand to benefit. 

That said, as long as the discussion automatically disqualifies anybody with a Y chromosome, what you say will remain true.


----------



## personofinterest

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> What it sounds like is guys needing gals to fight their battles for them; not something most guys, quite understandably, will accept, even if they stand to benefit.
> 
> That said, as long as the discussion automatically disqualifies anybody with a Y chromosome, what you say will remain true.


I didn't exactly mean that, though I know it came out that way.

But these kinds of women hate men. They may say they don't, but yeah, their rhetoric gives them away. So anything a man says is "mansplaining" and "toxic masculinity."

They likely won't listen to mainstream women either, because of course we are all sellouts to the patriarchy, traditional roles, and Gillette. But IF feminism IS supposed to be about choice, they really CAN'T logically dismiss another woman's choices. And maybe, just maybe, they are a tad more likely to listen to someone with a vagina, since penises are synonymous with evil oppression.

I have never actually met a happy, well-adjusted extreme third wave feminist.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> And maybe, just maybe, they are a tad more likely to listen to someone with a vagina, since penises are synonymous with evil oppression.



Absolutely, what we really need is more women with vaginas like yours who have the balls to speak up against this non sense bollocks!
(That was not meant to be in an offensive, oppressive, penis-like way).





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomDude

personofinterest said:


> I just don't understand how THINKING people expect men to read women's minds. I mean, I don't know how many times I have heard "Well, no she didn't say no, _but he should have known_...." Really? How??


I agree that it is an unrealistic expectation. Sure many older men may just follow our instincts, drawn from years of experience dealing with the opposite sex so we are more _likely_ to be able to discern a woman's stance. For younger men however, many if not almost all - are still learning at that stage of their lives.

Even with education it takes years before the youth can learn to understand it as it must be reinforced with experiences.


----------



## samyeagar

personofinterest said:


> I didn't exactly mean that, though I know it came out that way.
> 
> But these kinds of women hate men. They may say they don't, but yeah, their rhetoric gives them away. So anything a man says is "mansplaining" and "toxic masculinity."
> 
> They likely won't listen to mainstream women either, because of course we are all sellouts to the patriarchy, traditional roles, and Gillette. But IF feminism IS supposed to be about choice, they really CAN'T logically dismiss another woman's choices. And maybe, just maybe, they are a tad more likely to listen to someone with a vagina, since penises are synonymous with evil oppression.
> 
> I have never actually met a happy, well-adjusted extreme third wave feminist.


Because it's not about equality, choices or logic. It is about directing an agenda under the veil of socially popular and acceptable themes.


----------



## personofinterest

Exactly, Sam!


----------



## ConanHub

Teach women to be comfortable saying no and be ready to follow up with a stiletto.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> Teach women to be comfortable saying no and be ready to follow up with a stiletto.


Right. Just put it all on women’s shoulders. Don’t teach men anything, just let men be men and teach women that they must always protect themselves against men, because poor men can’t be expected to stop themselves once they are horny, which is all the time.

Conan, I know that’s not what you are saying but....really? That’s exactly how it has been forever. The onus being on women to be on guard of men, while men are just assumed to be unable to control their urges.

Men need education too. You know that. But making a one line statement about what women need to do makes it sound like women are responsible for what men do. And since that’s the same view that used to allow judges to ask what a woman was wearing when she was raped, obviously that view needs to change.

I guess it’s irrelevant anyway, since this is thread is now about bashing feminism, rather than about consent and responsibility.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> Teach women to be comfortable saying no and be ready to follow up with a stiletto.




What’s a stiletto? Is it a type of buttplug? ‘Cos I might be up for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

inmyprime said:


> What’s a stiletto? Is it a type of buttplug? ‘Cos I might be up for that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think so. Those things are sharp!


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Is it wrong to find those legs attractive?

(humor)


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Right. Just put it all on women’s shoulders. Don’t teach men anything, just let men be men and teach women that they must always protect themselves against men, because poor men can’t be expected to stop themselves once they are horny, which is all the time.
> 
> Conan, I know that’s not what you are saying but....really? That’s exactly how it has been forever. The onus being on women to be on guard of men, while men are just assumed to be unable to control their urges.
> 
> Men need education too. You know that. But making a one line statement about what women need to do makes it sound like women are responsible for what men do. And since that’s the same view that used to allow judges to ask what a woman was wearing when she was raped, obviously that view needs to change.
> 
> I guess it’s irrelevant anyway, since this is thread is now about bashing feminism, rather than about consent and responsibility.


I think all the shots were clearly taken against extreme third wave feminism, not feminism in general. 

Of course men should be taught responsibility. Conan's remark was certainly cavalier, but I don't think it was intended as a self contained solution.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I think all the shots were clearly taken against extreme third wave feminism, not feminism in general.
> 
> Of course men should be taught responsibility. Conan's remark was certainly cavalier, but *I don't think it was intended as a self contained solution*.


I know it wasn't, but it is also very misleading to leave it in one sentence like that as if it is a self contained solution.

All the shots taken have been taken at women who contribute here regularly, many of whom were contributing on this thread until most other posts became about bashing us.

When some people call others "extreme third wave feminism pink hat wearing screech-bots", they are talking about us. It is just that we don't call ourselves "extreme third wave feminism pink hat wearing screech-bots". We just call ourselves feminists, or in my case, I prefer egalitarian.

It's all good....don't worry about it....we are used to this around here. Anyone who self describes as a feminist is immediately put into the screech-bot camp and nothing we say is considered anything but an agenda. What is the point of "debating" with someone who already assumes everything you say is just an agenda meant to harm men? It isn't a debate at all, it is just a bash session.

Ah...the lovely TAM.


----------



## musicftw07

If the only thing standing between daughter and a rapist is a stiletto, I would encourage her to use it with the utmost force and without mercy. Preferably in the attacker's throat.


----------



## EllisRedding

Somewhat relevant to this thread, not sure how many people know who Alan Aragon is, but he is big in the fitness community and takes part in a lot of speaking seminars (very well respected on the scientific side of nutrition). Apparently at his last seminar he was actually kicked out before he even got a chance to speak. I think yesterday or the day before he posted on FB out of nowhere how he has been battling alcoholism and is seeking treatment, gets a ton of support from his followers to stay strong, etc... Shortly after that post, he does a separate post apologizing to several people (including 2 females) for his behavior (is vague over exactly what behavior, but states again that he is going to stop drinking and seek gender sensitivity training). Turns out he was kicked out of the seminar for harassing/sexually assaulting several female colleagues. One of the females posted online about the experience (he was drunk, kept putting his hands on her, whispering vulgarities into her ears, etc... wouldn't stop even though she kept telling him to). Several other people at the seminar corroborated her story. I guess it was just a coincidence that after word got out about what exactly happened, he first posted about his alcoholism and then followed it up with a vague apology (although I would guess for legal reasons he needs to be careful about what he apologizes for). Sure enough, he supposedly had a reputation for drinking and getting "handsy", and as expected, there are now several other women posting about their experiences with him, all with similar stories.

Now, a situation like this is more black & white since there were actually witnesses to back her story. The problem, this guy is an absolute dbag and honestly I don't see any sort of education correcting his behavior before it started. I am not saying education is not needed for both males and females (exactly what constitutes effective education would be up for debate). Sucks that a jackass such as this sets everything back (especially being a public figure). Even worse I would imagine is his wife (he is married with two sons), especially if she is just finding out now that her husband is a predator (and likely brings into question his fidelity in their marriage as well).


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> I think one thing that helps is to remember that the great majority of men and women are opposed to rape. I know that sounds dumb, but remember that if you are in a discussion and someone is disagreeing, it is probably NOT because they are a rapist or support rape, it is because they disagree with the solution that is proposed. (which may be due to side effects, or a belief that that particular solution is not effective).


And this is *SO* applicable not just to this topic but to all conversations where people have strong feelings and disagree.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> Keep in mind that on any divisive issue, there will be extremists on both sides who are very vocal, AND completely unreasonable. Unfortunately they make good press so they get a lot of air time, and it can look like they represent a significant fraction of the opinion on one side


This seems to imply that this involves only people in the public eye or press or politicians.

As if, removed from the limelight, we'd all just be reasonable and get along.

My experience here is contrary to that expectation.


----------



## MattMatt

There was a case in the UK not so long ago when consent was asked for and given.

Next day the female student told her friends she had had consensual sex with the male student and her friends said: "But he is so vile/ugly/whatever! What were you thinking?"

So she then decided to claim rape.

Luckily the male student was found not guilty.


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I don't think so. Those things are sharp!



Oh I see. Will need to find another place to stick those in then 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> I know it wasn't, but it is also very misleading to leave it in one sentence like that as if it is a self contained solution.
> 
> All the shots taken have been taken at women who contribute here regularly, many of whom were contributing on this thread until most other posts became about bashing us.
> 
> When some people call others "extreme third wave feminism pink hat wearing screech-bots", they are talking about us. It is just that we don't call ourselves "extreme third wave feminism pink hat wearing screech-bots". We just call ourselves feminists, or in my case, I prefer egalitarian.
> 
> It's all good....don't worry about it....we are used to this around here. Anyone who self describes as a feminist is immediately put into the screech-bot camp and nothing we say is considered anything but an agenda. What is the point of "debating" with someone who already assumes everything you say is just an agenda meant to harm men? It isn't a debate at all, it is just a bash session.
> 
> Ah...the lovely TAM.


Interestingly, I haven't observed that (for the most part, there are usually exceptions). It appears to me that the extremist labels don't get applied until extremist views come out. Even on this thread, the accusations of extremism weren't necessarily directed at these long time posters so much as it they were directed at prominent or outspoken feminists in society who have taken views and make statements that warrant such a description. 

On this thread, I think when people decide that the threshold for conviction be lowered without valid justification (i.e. assaults are more common than false accusations, which is true, but doesn't support a guilty until proven innocent baseline) or are based on dismissiveness (getting kicked out of college with a black mark on your record is no big deal), then those posters start to look a little extreme.

And I would remind you that the pejorative sounding terminology you're referring to was first used on this thread by a woman, who I think would be something of a feminist herself, not just because she's a woman, but also because she is (if I recall correctly) a successful professional in a traditionally male dominated field.


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Interestingly, I haven't observed that (for the most part, there are usually exceptions). It appears to me that the extremist labels don't get applied until extremist views come out. Even on this thread, the accusations of extremism weren't necessarily directed at these long time posters so much as it they were directed at prominent or outspoken feminists in society who have taken views and make statements that warrant such a description.
> 
> 
> 
> On this thread, I think when people decide that the threshold for conviction be lowered without valid justification (i.e. assaults are more common than false accusations, which is true, but doesn't support a guilty until proven innocent baseline) or are based on dismissiveness (getting kicked out of college with a black mark on your record is no big deal), then those posters start to look a little extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> And I would remind you that the pejorative sounding terminology you're referring to was first used on this thread by a woman, who I think would be something of a feminist herself, not just because she's a woman, but also because she is (if I recall correctly) a successful professional in a traditionally male dominated field.



Yes, it doesn’t make any sense. Only a third wave feminist would get offended about comments directed at third wave feminists. What’s up with that?  Nobody has EVER questioned that gender equality isn’t a sensible thing (it has been a given for so long that it’s not even worth mentioning) or what original feminism stood for in the beginning.

Feminists hate third wave feminists the most so...yeah, there’s that. 

I have some hope that maybe some of them don’t really understand what these crazies stand for or actually want and perhaps that’s what is happening. Or perhaps they do.

I don’t have a lot of hope for men to stop this non sense because a lot of them are either too smitten or too afraid of political correctness or haven’t caught on - on a biological level, men generally don’t like disagreeing with women much because it lessens the chances of them getting laid - but at least the majority of women seem sensible and understand that it causes and poses a potentially big problem going forward for everyone, especially women themselves.

Similar thing with fundamentalist Islam really: it has always been the Muslims who suffered the most from it and the best chance of success IMO is for Muslims themselves to tackle it, rather than the outsiders. Nobody in their right mind actually thinks that this type of feminism is a good idea. It’s not clear why there even is a discussion about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

That was me. And I consider myself a traditional feminist. I'd get along great with Susan B Anthony. Not so much a gender studies major from Berkeley lol

The new wave feminism angle didnt even occur to me till I saw the irrefutable pattern of post-twisting, wordsmithing, and dismissal of any risk to innocent men. I probably went a little far with the words I chose.

For the record, FW, you never entered my mind, as you actually seem to have the capacity for empathy for the men's view.


----------



## 269370

I found this list quite helpful, in case some men still don’t really know how to treat women properlaaa (this is not made up!):

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-to-change-our-work-and-life-culture#comments

- Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general.

- Do you feel that any woman on earth owes you something? She doesn’t. Even if you’re like, “Hm, but what about basic respect?” ask yourself if you’ve shown her the same.

- When you see another guy talk over a woman, say: “Hey, she was saying something.”

- Don’t need to literally witness a man being horrible in order to believe that he’s horrible. Trust and believe women.

- If you do the right thing, don’t expect praise or payment or a pat on the back or even a “thank you from that woman”. Congratulations, you were baseline decent.

- If a woman tells you that you ****ed up, and you feel like ****, don’t put it on that woman to make you feel better. Apologize without qualification and then go away.

- Don’t use your “feminism” as a way to get women to trust you. Show us in your day-to-day life, not in your self-congratulatory social media.

- If women’s pain makes you feel pain, don’t prize your pain above hers, or make that pain her problem.

- Don’t read a list like this and think that most of these don’t apply to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

Oh good grief, how ridiculous.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> Right. Just put it all on women’s shoulders. Don’t teach men anything, just let men be men and teach women that they must always protect themselves against men, because poor men can’t be expected to stop themselves once they are horny, which is all the time.
> 
> Conan, I know that’s not what you are saying but....really? That’s exactly how it has been forever. The onus being on women to be on guard of men, while men are just assumed to be unable to control their urges.
> 
> Men need education too. You know that. But making a one line statement about what women need to do makes it sound like women are responsible for what men do. And since that’s the same view that used to allow judges to ask what a woman was wearing when she was raped, obviously that view needs to change.
> 
> I guess it’s irrelevant anyway, since this is thread is now about bashing feminism, rather than about consent and responsibility.


Not my point.

I'm mostly in favor of AC as long as I see how the law acts on it.

I'm obviously for education and that includes men.

I've also lived through and witnessed enough human behavior to know that there will always be a need to stop a bad guy or else something bad will happen.

Just the facts of living.

I'm for education and that includes looking at the ugly, naked truth about sexual assault.

Women should be aware of how it occurs, what to expect and options for dealing with sexual assaults of all kinds.

I guess I jumped the topic into what happens after "no".

You are more peaceful than me and the world needs very nice people like you. You are probably more kind than I am capable of, but I'm convinced the world needs people like me as well.

I did post with a little tongue in my cheek.

You know my sensitivity to sexual assault. I have no leeway in my soul for any grace on perpetrators.

This is certainly not all on women.

Women need to feel confident enough to communicate what they want but the rest is certainly on men who are pushy or worse.


----------



## 269370

ConanHub said:


> Women need to feel confident enough to communicate what they want but the rest is certainly on men who are pushy or worse.



Speak for yourself. The only time I’m pushy (‘or worse’), is when the summer sale is on or when I’m constipating. 🧜🏼*♂
What a sexist comment!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> And I would remind you that the pejorative sounding terminology you're referring to was first used on this thread by a woman, who I think would be something of a feminist herself, not just because she's a woman, but also because she is (if I recall correctly) a successful professional in a traditionally male dominated field.


Um...yeah. And that's who is saying how ridiculous the "pink hat wearing" feminists are. Whether she considers herself a feminist or not, we are here yet again having to defend the "pink hat" wearing crowd, from men and women.

But like I said, this used to be much worse at TAM, actually. Things have gotten a lot better.

See here's the deal....everything on this thread that has been said about pink hat wearing screechtard third wave feminists applies to me, FrenchFry, NobodySpecial, and a couple of other great TAM members. Please don't bother trying to figure out if "that's what they really meant". You'll just have to trust me, that those of us who hold the views that are getting thrashed ARE in the pink hat camp, at least as far as others here are describing us.

Yes, yes we are. I'm not ashamed of that fact. Sadly, some people think I should be.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> I'm for education and that includes looking at the ugly, naked truth about sexual assault.


Right. But sadly, *you* can say this with immunity. If a (feminist) woman says this, then she is quoted as saying "all men are rapists!"

Which is why it may be more helpful for you to talk about what kind of education men need, instead of the one liner about teaching women to say no.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> For the record, FW, you never entered my mind, as you actually seem to have the capacity for empathy for the men's view.


I am in fact what you and many others would consider a screeching pink hat waving feminist. 

Wow, so completely shocking that I also actually have empathy for men!

It is nice to hear I didn't enter your mind, but the people who did enter your mind think and speak a lot like I do, therefore, it doesn't make a difference to me.

....off to pick up my pink angora hat from the cleaners now.


----------



## 269370

Ok. Now it ALL makes sense.
Good luck with that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

personofinterest said:


> That was me. And I consider myself a traditional feminist. I'd get along great with Susan B Anthony. Not so much a gender studies major from Berkeley lol
> 
> The new wave feminism angle didnt even occur to me till I saw the irrefutable pattern of post-twisting, wordsmithing, and dismissal of any risk to innocent men. I probably went a little far with the words I chose.
> 
> For the record, FW, you never entered my mind, as you actually seem to have the capacity for empathy for the men's view.


Well, looks like John Mayer is going to have his hands full responding to some of the "feminists". He was asked a question regarding what is take is on feminism and here is his response:



> My take is less about feminism and more about the issue of nomenclature, specifically how the reductiveness of language can turn people off from noble and vital causes.
> 
> If you asked people if they support ensuring equal rights for women in all aspects of their lives, they would very likely answer yes.
> 
> Change that question to “are you a feminist” and the answers instantly become more complicated.
> 
> That’s because a single phrase is much more susceptible to being co-opted than the actual ideal it attempts to represent.
> 
> This is interchangeable with every hashtag in the past several years.
> 
> I support equal rights for women in all arenas. That’s only a few words more than “I’m a feminist” and possibly more salient and unarguable.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Um...yeah. And that's who is saying how ridiculous the "pink hat wearing" feminists are. Whether she considers herself a feminist or not, we are here yet again having to defend the "pink hat" wearing crowd, from men and women.
> 
> But like I said, this used to be much worse at TAM, actually. Things have gotten a lot better.
> 
> See here's the deal....everything on this thread that has been said about pink hat wearing screechtard third wave feminists applies to me, FrenchFry, NobodySpecial, and a couple of other great TAM members. Please don't bother trying to figure out if "that's what they really meant". You'll just have to trust me, that those of us who hold the views that are getting thrashed ARE in the pink hat camp, at least as far as others here are describing us.
> 
> Yes, yes we are. I'm not ashamed of that fact. Sadly, some people think I should be.


It would seem we have a different idea of who those charges are being leveled against. You see, I've never seen you advocate for making it easier to convict innocents as a valid redress. So while you see yourself as a strong feminist, and we all respect, and on occasion, learn from you on that. But your more levelheaded approach clearly separates you from the irrational, hateful wing of the movement.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Well, looks like John Mayer is going to have his hands full responding to some of the "feminists". He was asked a question regarding what is take is on feminism and here is his response:


Why would we care whether any particular celebrity self describes as a feminist or not? As a “feminist” myself (not sure why the quotes are needed, I guess you mean to imply we aren’t actually feminists but are in fact some other descriptive word you would choose?) I have no issue whether anyone else calls themselves a feminist or not and *shocking* I actually don’t expect everyone to agree with everything I believe.

But apparently you know what “feminists” think better than feminists do, so ok.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> It would seem we have a different idea of who those charges are being leveled against. You see, I've never seen you advocate for making it easier to convict innocents as a valid redress. So while you see yourself as a strong feminist, and we all respect, and on occasion, learn from you on that. But your more levelheaded approach clearly separates you from the irrational, hateful wing of the movement.


Sorry but I don’t see anyone on this thread advocating to make it easier to convict innocent men.

Any of the women you feel are saying that, I don’t agree that they are saying that. In fact, all of the pink hat wearing screechers on this thread have said multiple times that they do not want to see innocent men charged and that women (or anyone) making false accusations should be charged with a crime.

There are no “irrational, hateful” women on this thread in my opinion, and yet on this very thread we have been compared to the “irrational, hateful wing of the movement”.

Why? Because we advocate that young people seek each other’s verbal consent in sexual situations. That’s literally all we are saying. And by saying this, we are being quoted as thinking all men are rapists, that we WANT innocent men to go to jail, and that we hate men, period. All because we think it is good practice to get a verbal yes in sexual situations. 

I am one of the feminists on this thread who is being bashed, and again, it’s ok. It’s all good. I’m used to it at TAM. It doesn’t make my pink hat even one bit less pink.

Actually, I don’t even need to wear the hat, since my hair is pink too.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Why would we care whether any particular celebrity self describes as a feminist or not? *As a “feminist” myself (not sure why the quotes are needed, I guess you mean to imply we aren’t actually feminists but are in fact some other descriptive word you would choose?*) I have no issue whether anyone else calls themselves a feminist or not and *shocking* I actually don’t expect everyone to agree with everything I believe.
> 
> But apparently you know what “feminists” think better than feminists do, so ok.


Lol per the bolded. Nothing in my post was directed at you, but if you want to take it personally and put words in my mouth as to what I was trying to say, help yourself. I put "feminists" in quotes because, and as even shown in this thread, there is a varying degree of what really feminists are (third wave, traditional, etc...). There is undoubtedly a segment (small, but seems to be more vocal) who basically ascribe to the fact that unless you support their view 100% on what it means to be a "feminist", then you really aren't a "feminist".

*Nowhere* did I say that I know what "feminists" think better than "feminists" do, but once again, feel free to carry on with your dismissive posts because something about my post (which was just a quote from someone else) apparently triggered you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Lol per the bolded. Nothing in my post was directed at you, but if you want to take it personally and put words in my mouth as to what I was trying to say, help yourself. I put "feminists" in quotes because, and as even shown in this thread, there is a varying degree of what really feminists are (third wave, traditional, etc...). There is undoubtedly a segment (small, but seems to be more vocal) who basically ascribe to the fact that unless you support their view 100% on what it means to be a "feminist", then you really aren't a "feminist".
> 
> *Nowhere* did I say that I know what "feminists" think better than "feminists" do, but once again, feel free to carry on with your dismissive posts because something about my post (which was just a quote from someone else) apparently triggered you.


I was responding to your comment that “feminists” would be having some words for John Mayer. You apparently assumed that we would. I was offering my statement that as a “feminist” I don’t find myself giving any ****s about whether some celeb calls themselves a “feminist” or not.

And if some other feminists want to go bat crap on John Mayer, I don’t give any ****s about that either. People actually get to have opinions and speak them out loud! I know, it’s a crazy thought, but every “feminist” I know feels that way, too.

As for the varying levels of feminism on this thread...those of us who are being bashed are being told that we are not “feminists”, but instead we are “pink hat waving screeching man hating third wave feminists”. Seems like we are the ones who are being told that we should not be allowed to be called what we self identify as.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry but I don’t see anyone on this thread advocating to make it easier to convict innocent men.
> 
> Any of the women you feel are saying that, I don’t agree that they are saying that. In fact, all of the pink hat wearing screechers on this thread have said multiple times that they do not want to see innocent men charged and that women (or anyone) making false accusations should be charged with a crime.
> 
> There are no “irrational, hateful” women on this thread in my opinion, and yet on this very thread we have been compared to the “irrational, hateful wing of the movement”.
> 
> Why? Because we advocate that young people seek each other’s verbal consent in sexual situations. That’s literally all we are saying. And by saying this, we are being quoted as thinking all men are rapists, that we WANT innocent men to go to jail, and that we hate men, period. All because we think it is good practice to get a verbal yes in sexual situations.
> 
> I am one of the feminists on this thread who is being bashed, and again, it’s ok. It’s all good. I’m used to it at TAM. It doesn’t make my pink hat even one bit less pink.
> 
> Actually, I don’t even need to wear the hat, since my hair is pink too.


As I said before, the harshest criticism was levied at prominent people in society or positions of power who advocate extreme positions, not you or even anyone else on these boards.

When someone says that the only threshold for conviction should be "more likely than not," they are literally saying that in they think its 51% likely and 49% unlikely, that that's good enough to convict. Couple that with the fact that false accusations are rare compared to actual assault, then the extremist position is that any accusation can be automatic grounds for expulsion.

Now with regard to people on this thread, at least two have supported, or at least been tacitly supportive of lowering the threshold for conviction/expulsion. One, while paying lip service to the "Im really not looking to convict innocent men" claim, in the very same post goes on to say the threshold should be changed because after all getting kicked out of college is no big deal, and completely dismissed the idea that carrying the stigma of being a sexual convict has serious consequences. (Hmmm... if sexual assault is so heinous, how is it that being branded as such is no big deal?) 

As far as I know, you have not taken such a position, so you therefore have not been bashed here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> As I said before, the harshest criticism was levied at prominent people in society or positions of power who advocate extreme positions, not you or even anyone else on these boards.
> 
> When someone says that the only threshold for conviction should be "more likely than not," they are literally saying that in they think its 51% likely and 49% unlikely, that that's good enough to convict. Couple that with the fact that false accusations are rare compared to actual assault, then the extremist position is that any accusation can be automatic grounds for expulsion.
> 
> Now with regard to people on this thread, at least two have supported, or at least been tacitly supportive of lowering the threshold for conviction/expulsion. One, while paying lip service to the "Im really not looking to convict innocent men" claim, in the very same post goes on to say the threshold should be changed because after all getting kicked out of college is no big deal, and completely dismissed the idea that carrying the stigma of being a sexual convict has serious consequences. (Hmmm... if sexual assault is so heinous, how is it that being branded as such is no big deal?)
> 
> As far as I know, you have not taken such a position, so you therefore have not been bashed here.


Im sorry but again, I don’t agree with your assessment of what was said. If you are talking about Wild Jade, Nobody Special, or FrenchFry, I simply disagree with your interpretation of what was said.

Since I agree with the people who were bashed, how am I not being bashed too? It’s just that those who are doing the bashing aren’t picking apart my posts specifically, so it doesn’t look like I’m being bashed, yet I am. I just didn’t happen to say the words that got bashed this time.

Though I have been directly bashed too many times to count on TAM, and have been called straight up a “man hating feminist screechtard” and other similar lovely phrases. Even though you and many others may not think I’m in the “same camp” as those who are being bashed here, I absolutely am. I just don’t bother to take on other posters with direct back and forth posts the way some of my brave pink hat wearing sisters have on this thread. 

I used to do that more in the past but have realized it just creates drama and goes nowhere, so I gave up on the types of posts you’ve seen my pink hat sisters writing. They have more energy than I do.

Once again a reminder....all of this because we think it is good practice for people to get verbal consent in sexual situations.


----------



## personofinterest

Except it isnt just verbal. Men are also supposed to read minds.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> Except it isnt just verbal. Men are also supposed to read minds.


If it is verbal, how is there also a mind reading expectation?

You can interpret my words however you choose. What you can’t do is assign your own meaning to my words and make it true.

AC is specifically set up to avoid any mind reading. You both lay your cards on the table and go from there.

Tipping my pink hat to you :bunny:


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I am in fact what you and many others would consider a screeching pink hat waving feminist.


Obviously, there are different categories of feminists. There's first, second and third wave; there're "eguity" feminists; sex positive feminists; all sorts.

These different categories of feminists DO disagree with each other on some topics. "Sex positive feminists" disagree with Catherine McKinnon (all sex is rape) and her ilk.

We want to disagree with some ideas generally held by some subset of feminists. In the past, use of the term "feminists" to describe some subset of feminists has been criticized (justly so in my opinion).

So, those of us who disagree with the more radical (is that okay?) subset of feminists are looking for ways to differentiate the various groups so that our words are not addressed to too broad a group. Some have chosen "pink hat wavers", others have used "3rd wave feminists". 

A significant number of young women have stopped calling themselves feminists because they feel that the more radical (extreme?) voices don't reflect their views and that has affected the values they see as being associated with the term.

I, for one, would love to identify the various groups by name (and I'd be happy to use their preferred terms) so that I can talk about issues intelligently without miss-attributing opinions.

Can you, or anyone else provide us with some guidance here?

I'm really not interested in disagreeing with people with whom I have no disagreements.

Not that you care, but my impression of your thoughts regarding AC was that you thought it was very effective, prevents harm and should be the preferred method of sexual interaction between genders. I have no problem with that. 

My interest involves AC being used as a basis for laws and rules (whose violation can result in serious consequences to the alleged violator). 

You admitted to having no familiarity with and no interest in laws and their possible effects until a specific measure is put before you as a voter. So, once that was flushed out, we talking past each other and there really wasn't an argument to be had between us.

I also expressed mystification over how two people (you and I) could read read the same words and come to completely opposite impressions of what was said. No offense was intended as I'm sure you must have had the same feeling. Talking about how that happens would be a very interesting conversation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I also expressed mystification over how two people (you and I) could read read the same words and come to completely opposite impressions of what was said. No offense was intended as I'm sure you must have had the same feeling. Talking about how that happens would be a very interesting conversation.


You and others have said you see views expressed by some women on this thread that you would consider being of the pink hat wingnut variety. (I’m using wingnut just because I think that word is hysterical, not because you or anyone else said it). People have literally said the words man haters about some of the posters here.

I am saying that I have seen no such sentiments. I don’t see any man haters here and I don’t see anyone saying innocent men deserve to be falsely accused. 

Yes, we obviously can read the same posts and come away with totally different interpretations.

But when I interpret a post by say, FrenchFry, and what she is a saying describes my sentiments also, and then when we have liked and quoted each other’s posts, I’m pretty sure I’m the one who is interpreting her correctly. She isn’t a man hater and isn’t saying innocent men should be falsely accused. 

Since those things are not true about her then obviously any interpretation that concludes she is a man hater is incorrect. (I am making an example, not saying you think FF is a man hater). Please do note though that FF left the thread altogether saying this was a mistake once she saw that the interpretation of her posts was incorrect yet those who were misinterpreting her were just going to keep on and on misinterpreting and misrepresenting her, and then argue against what she didn’t even say. 

I also directly agree with almost everything FrenchFry, Jade and Nobody have said. Even though I do not follow what’s going on with the laws, I agree with the principles these women have put forth on this thread.

Therefore, I’m bashed right along with those women. Just because no one targeted me by name doesn’t mean I’m not in the same camp as those who are bashed. I am putting myself in that camp, and have I have been in that camp on the whole thread. I’ve also had quite a lot of my posts be quoted directly and taken to task about things that had nothing to do with what I had written - lots of words and intentions put in my mouth. I just spit em out, I know what I believe and someone trying to assign any meaning other than my actual meaning to my words is just being weird, IMO.

As far as all the many types of feminists, how some don’t like the hats, some don’t want to be called feminist anymore because FITB, some have dissenting views, some think all men are rapists, some this, some that, and what do we call each type....

I don’t give a crap about any of that. I’m not out trying to find which feminists I agree with and which I don’t, or trying to label them all. Like I said on a previous post, I believe people are free to believe and speak as they want. And like all people on all topics or even within political and other groups, they don’t all agree with each other on everything. None of this matters to me, I don’t go around reading articles about the divisions among differing views in feminism. It has nothing to do with me. I feel and believe how I feel and believe and it’s doesn’t matter to me what others think I should be called or how I stack up against other feminists.

I call myself a feminist and egalitarian. Others call me a pink hat screecher man hater feminist. I’m not even “allowed” by some to self describe as a feminist without the other qualifiers, they will just label me what they feel I am no matter what I call myself. I don’t see how you or anyone could expect there to be some kind of answer or consensus as to what to call each type of feminist.

Call us what you want. However, no one can decide for someone else what they believe. People calling me a man hater for instance (not just on this thread, I hear that kind of thing all over the place here at TAM) doesn’t actually make me a man hater. If people want to label me as a pink hat screeching third wave wingnut, they are free to do so. But their label will never make it true that I’m a man hater, etc (man hater chosen as just one of the many untrue things that are being said).


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> People actually get to have opinions and speak them out loud!


And nobody is stopping them. But they shouldn’t get all into a “oh how unfair!” when their opinions are challenged or shown to be false (and stupid) because others (with different opinions) are allowed to challenge those.



Faithful Wife said:


> I know, it’s a crazy thought, but every “feminist” I know feels that way, too.


That’s because insisting that something is true out of some blind principle when all the data and common sense shows that it isn’t, IS completely crazy. Either you (and others) don’t understand what those third wave feminists stand for and continue to insist that there is nothing wrong with those ideas out of ignorance or you know exactly what they stand for but agree with those things anyway.

And both is dangerous. And crazy. Unwillingness to look at actual facts, listen to others (while telling everyone else that they should listen and accept the facts they pick and choose themselves) is blind ignorance and is what extremism is all about.




Faithful Wife said:


> As for the varying levels of feminism on this thread...those of us who are being bashed are being told that we are not “feminists”, but instead we are “pink hat waving screeching man hating third wave feminists”. Seems like we are the ones who are being told that we should not be allowed to be called what we self identify as.



And that’s at the heart of this type of extreme feminism. If I self identify as a cat and I ignore the suggestions and get all puffy that I might not actually be a cat and tell everybody else that I should be allowed to identify as a cat , then later get sick because everybody else started giving me cat food but I continued to blame everyone else because they didn’t buy the right cat food....again, good luck with that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> Why? Because we advocate that young people seek each other’s verbal consent in sexual situations. That’s literally all we are saying.



That’s not all you are saying though. What you are actually saying is that you should be allowed to identify as an extreme feminist AND be allowed to pick and choose and TELL other people what those feminists stand for (even if that completely contradicts reality). It’s this type of insanity that will eventually eat its own tale of pure logical inconsistency.

A person would usually admit and say: “actually, looking at what these extreme feminists identify with, I realise that I don’t actually identify all that much with some of these crazy ideas that the new wave feminists stand for, therefore perhaps I’m not a new wave crazy extreme feminist and don’t care if others criticise a movement that has nothing to do with me”.

Instead, you are saying: “I am part of the extreme feminist movement, you can’t tell me I’m not and you can’t tell me what this movement stands for because I get to pick both of those things and if you tell me this is bat**** crazy, you are the one that is discriminating”. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry but I don’t see anyone on this thread advocating to make it easier to convict innocent men.
> 
> 
> 
> Any of the women you feel are saying that, I don’t agree that they are saying that. In fact, all of the pink hat wearing screechers on this thread have said multiple times that they do not want to see innocent men charged and that women (or anyone) making false accusations should be charged with a crime.



Again, if you agree and stand for AC and agree with the implementation of this new rule on college campuses (where the basic principle of it is ‘yes means yeas’ and ‘guilty until proven innocent’) then you are agreeing that it is acceptable that many innocent men are charged and convicted for crimes they have never committed and that the woman gets to decide whether the guy is guilty or not.

What you can’t do is tell everyone what the reality of the situation actually is or that something actually works when it clearly doesn’t and get upset when data clearly shows otherwise. Or ignore the data. Or femsplain to us what the data actually means (“oh it’s because they are not using AC correctly”).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> You and others have said you see views expressed by some women on this thread that you would consider being of the pink hat wingnut variety. (I’m using wingnut just because I think that word is hysterical, not because you or anyone else said it). People have literally said the words man haters about some of the posters here.
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that I have seen no such sentiments. I don’t see any man haters here and I don’t see anyone saying innocent men deserve to be falsely accused.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we obviously can read the same posts and come away with totally different interpretations.
> 
> 
> 
> But when I interpret a post by say, FrenchFry, and what she is a saying describes my sentiments also, and then when we have liked and quoted each other’s posts, I’m pretty sure I’m the one who is interpreting her correctly. She isn’t a man hater and isn’t saying innocent men should be falsely accused.
> 
> 
> 
> Since those things are not true about her then obviously any interpretation that concludes she is a man hater is incorrect. (I am making an example, not saying you think FF is a man hater). Please do note though that FF left the thread altogether saying this was a mistake once she saw that the interpretation of her posts was incorrect yet those who were misinterpreting her were just going to keep on and on misinterpreting and misrepresenting her, and then argue against what she didn’t even say.



That’s incorrect. She seems to have become offended after I quoted and posted links to the more extremist feminist views. I don’t know what her views are because she has not actually expressed them anywhere in the thread. From the few things she posted, she did strike me like a nice & reasonable person that's why I was surprised at her reaction when I posted the links that she became offended about.

*
Once again: if you or anyone else does not agree with those views, there is absolutely no reason for you or anyone else to get offended with those views. *

It’s very simple.


Example: PersonOfInterest. She does not get offended AND she calls herself a feminist. Because she calls out retardation when she sees it. Whether it is to do with religions or feminism. And I do the same and just as happy to bash idiot atheists when I see one (I bash ignorance, idiocy and hypocrisy - do you choose to take offence with this statement?). If you don't challenge stupid ideas, then stupid ideas become legislations and by the time people find out that the ideas are stupid and try to challenge them, it is too late. Why is this basic concept so difficult to understand?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

double


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> But when I interpret a post by say, FrenchFry, and what she is a saying describes my sentiments also, and then when we have liked and quoted each other’s posts, I’m pretty sure I’m the one who is interpreting her correctly.


Actually it doesn't mean that at all. All it means is that you and her agree on a point of view that others may not agree with. What it doesn't mean, is that you or her are right to hold that point of view nor that your or her interpretation of a point of you is correct and should not be challenged.



Faithful Wife said:


> Since those things are not true about her then obviously any interpretation that concludes she is a man hater is incorrect. (I am making an example, not saying you think FF is a man hater).


And nobody apart from yourself has in fact concluded or even mentioned that SHE is a 'man hater'.



Faithful Wife said:


> I also directly agree with almost everything FrenchFry, Jade and Nobody have said. Even though I do not follow what’s going on with the laws, I agree with the principles these women have put forth on this thread.


But it is directly relevant what is going on with the laws, because college campuses can and do expel students based on their micro 'law enforcement' system. People are trying to explain to you and others WHY it actually matters.



Faithful Wife said:


> Therefore, I’m bashed right along with those women. Just because no one targeted me by name doesn’t mean I’m not in the same camp as those who are bashed. I am putting myself in that camp, and have I have been in that camp on the whole thread. I’ve also had quite a lot of my posts be quoted directly and taken to task about things that had nothing to do with what I had written - lots of words and intentions put in my mouth. I just spit em out, I know what I believe and someone trying to assign any meaning other than my actual meaning to my words is just being weird, IMO.


Sorry you felt left out. I am perfectly happy to address you by name. It's just that you have 'forbid' me addressing you directly in the past on the forum and every time that happened, you complained. I was respecting your wishes as a from of courtesy, but actually I don't see why any sane person should. *Perhaps mods can clarify whether individual posters are entitled to pick and choose who can address them and who cannot, when they post their opinions on a public board. *
(And while we are at it, explain why there is so much pink as a font on a website about marriage  - that's a joke.



Faithful Wife said:


> As far as all the many types of feminists, how some don’t like the hats, some don’t want to be called feminist anymore because FITB, some have dissenting views, some think all men are rapists, some this, some that, and what do we call each type....
> 
> I don’t give a crap about any of that. I’m not out trying to find which feminists I agree with and which I don’t, or trying to label them all. Like I said on a previous post, I believe people are free to believe and speak as they want. And like all people on all topics or even within political and other groups, they don’t all agree with each other on everything. None of this matters to me, I don’t go around reading articles about the divisions among differing views in feminism. It has nothing to do with me. I feel and believe how I feel and believe and it’s doesn’t matter to me what others think I should be called or how I stack up against other feminists.
> 
> Others call me a pink hat screecher man hater feminist. I’m not even “allowed” by some to self describe as a feminist without the other qualifiers, they will just label me what they feel I am no matter what I call myself. I don’t see how you or anyone could expect there to be some kind of answer or consensus as to what to call each type of feminist.


It's very simple: either you agree with the views of extreme feminists on balance or you don't. *Nobody* has in fact put ANY labels on you or anyone else participating in this thread until you (and FF) decided to get offended with the *general comments on 'extremist feminists'*. If you don't agree with extreme feminists' views then there is no reason for you or anyone else to be offended.

"I call myself a feminist and egalitarian." - and therefore, there is absolutely no reason for you to be offended. But somehow, this comment might sound offensive, because...somebody else should be telling you what you can and what you can't be offended about...That's the extent of the insanity of this 'dialogue'.


----------



## 269370

Back to consent vs affirmative consent.

If we all agree (do we?) that AC as a law has no application, what is the point of putting it forward as (enforced?) advice? And what is the difference between law and 'compulsory advice', if colleges have to adhere to it?

What is wrong with publishing guidelines on consent? What does calling consent, 'affirmative consent' add exactly? Is it just about the verbal component?

If you are about to have sex and the woman spreads her legs, takes your penis and inserts it into her vagina and says absolutely nothing, have you obtained 'affirmative consent' or not? Or do you still need to ask her? And more importantly: what can happen to you if you don't?


----------



## personofinterest

I'm not going to bother going back and quote every instance where someone gas said a man should have known without the no, it the insistence that it's fine to have a lower evidence threshold for criminal activity than for plagiarism, or questioning "how many of those false accusations are actually false." But they are here in soades.

Also, if your objective capacity allows, you can see I've been pretty harsh with some men on here too, especially those who think ignoring no is a great "sales tactic."

All that said, I am sorry for my use of words. It's quite obviously a giant trigger. I guess I didnt realize it would be, since MY variety of female is supposed to be "weak" and the real feminists who are in luck step with the latest 2018 thought are the strong ones.


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Like all the studies show (this is not the only one): 1 in 3. This is the lowest estimate, not the highest. The actual numbers are likely to be higher, as per the study, and could be as much as half, as Buddy sighted from his source.
> 
> I don’t understand why you are ignoring reality? If you need to prove consent was given (which in most circumstances, you can’t), do you not see this as a problem? I really don’t get what or why you are trying to argue.
> 
> It doesn’t matter; people who make the decisions hopefully won’t ignore it and legislate accordingly. But I wouldn’t take it for granted given the current insanity.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


LOL! That was not a empiirical study you posted. It was mathematical modelling, and it was based on a whole set of assumptions that are false. Not reality, sorry.

Oh, and for the record, it didn't even conclude that 1 in 3 students are falsely accused. It surmised that 1 in 3 falsely accused students would be found guilty. Very different things.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> since MY variety of female is supposed to be "weak" and the real feminists who are in luck step with the latest 2018 thought are the strong ones.


'Supposed to be', as implied by whom? I certainly don't view you or other women as 'weak'. Physically weaker than men on average?: Yes. But weak? No. 
Who is assigning these attributes?

The way I was brought up, I was always taught to treat women (and everyone) with the utmost respect and it would never have occurred to me, nor would I ever base my thinking on the notion that there even *is* some sort of segregation or conspiracy going on (in the modern age). Yet what has been happening more recently with the movement, is extremely disturbing. I see no reason to tip-toe around it and not to call it out for what it is: which is a form of extremism and misguided ideology. I don't, for the life of me, understand why anyone wants to have anything to do with this and argues in favour of it. It makes no sense.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> I was responding to your comment that “feminists” would be having some words for John Mayer. You apparently assumed that we would. I was offering my statement that as a “feminist” I don’t find myself giving any ****s about whether some celeb calls themselves a “feminist” or not.
> 
> And if some other feminists want to go bat crap on John Mayer, I don’t give any ****s about that either. People actually get to have opinions and speak them out loud! I know, it’s a crazy thought, but every “feminist” I know feels that way, too.
> 
> As for the varying levels of feminism on this thread...those of us who are being bashed are being told that we are not “feminists”, but instead we are “pink hat waving screeching man hating third wave feminists”. Seems like we are the ones who are being told that we should not be allowed to be called what we self identify as.


Well, in terms of my comment about "feminists" having issues with John Mayers words, that is because some did already as soon as he posted lol. Sorry, didn't realize that apparently you represent and speak on behalf of all "feminists"

It is funny, you say again that people can have their opinions but look at your last post to me. Apparently me posting my opinion, and what was your response ("But apparently you know what “feminists” think better than feminists do, so ok."). So I guess since I am a male, if I express an opinion that doesn't jive with you, then apparently I am claiming to know "feminists" better than "feminists", sounds like something a 3rd wave feminist would say


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> LOL! That was not a empiirical study you posted. It was mathematical modelling, and *it was based on a whole set of assumptions that are false*. Not reality, sorry.
> 
> Oh, and for the record, it didn't even conclude that 1 in 3 students are falsely accused. It surmised that 1 in 3 falsely accused students would be found guilty. Very different things.


Can you please quote which assumptions are false and provide your own source with the 'right' or 'better' assumptions? 

Do you agree that 'guilty until proven innocent' is a sensible concept? Because this is at the heart of the AC debate and how colleges are implementing it currently. Discussing the theoretical merits of AC while completely disregarding its practical application and its consequences is....stupid.


----------



## 269370

Interesting case:

https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...rtable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

"In the early hours of Saturday, November 1, 2014, Bonsu, then a junior, was at the house where many of his fraternity brothers lived. There he ran into another junior, whom I’ll call R.M., a white female marketing student. According to a written account by R.M., who declined to be interviewed for this story, the two started talking and smoking marijuana; eventually they kissed. As she wrote, “It got more intense until finally I shifted so that I was straddling him.” She told him she wasn’t interested in intercourse and he said he was fine with that.

Then, she wrote, “I started to move my hand down his chest and into his pants.” R.M. interrupted this to take a phone call from a female friend who was also at the house and trying to find her. The call ended and then, R.M. wrote, “I got on my knees and started to give him a blow job.” After a short time, “I removed my mouth but kept going with my hand and realized just how high I was.” She wrote that she felt conflicted *because she wanted to stop—she said she told him she was feeling uncomfortable and thought she needed to leave—but that she also felt bad about “working him up and then backing out.” (In Bonsu’s written account, he stated that R.M. said she needed to leave because she was concerned her friend might “barge in” on them.)* The encounter continued for a few more minutes, during which, she wrote, he cajoled her to stay—“playfully” grabbing her arm at one point, and drawing her in to kiss—then ended with an exchange of phone numbers. R.M. had not removed any clothing.

R.M. then went down to the kitchen to find her friend. As she explained in her statement, “[My friend] knows I was with Kojo. She probably told all the brothers in the room, and they’re gonna hate me when they find out”—she didn’t explain why. “I can never come back here.” Her friend started teasing her, asking how it had gone. R.M. was a resident adviser in her dormitory—someone tasked with counseling other students—and at that moment, she wrote, *“as my RA training kicked in, I realized I’d been sexually assaulted.” * She wrote that while in retrospect she should have left if she didn’t want to continue the encounter, she hadn’t wanted to be a bad sport—“that UMass Student Culture dictates that when women become sexually involved with men they owe it to them to follow through.” She added, *“I want to fully own my participation in what happened, but at the same time recognize that I felt violated and that I owe it to myself and others to hold him accountable for something I felt in my bones wasn’t right.”*

I would like to understand better, in cases like these (of which there are so many, that it is not funny anymore), what lesson exactly does the guy need to learn to prevent this happening to him in the future? And does anyone seriously think that a verbal 'yes' from her would have prevented her later realising that she shouldn't have blown him, resulting in him later being expelled and his future ruined? (please continue reading the article to find out what happened to him).

She clearly admits her participation yet felt she was violated. Does anybody else not see a problem with this?


----------



## personofinterest

Prime, I'm going to go ahead and seal my identity as a horrible woman who hates other women and say that the person in this story was not sexually assaulted. I repeat, the young woman in this story was not sexually assaulted.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Well, in terms of my comment about "feminists" having issues with John Mayers words, that is because some did already as soon as he posted lol. Sorry, didn't realize that apparently you represent and speak on behalf of all "feminists"
> 
> It is funny, you say again that people can have their opinions but look at your last post to me. Apparently me posting my opinion, and what was your response ("But apparently you know what “feminists” think better than feminists do, so ok."). So I guess since I am a male, if I express an opinion that doesn't jive with you, then apparently I am claiming to know "feminists" better than "feminists", sounds like something a 3rd wave feminist would say


You didn’t express any opinion on this thread that I responded to. I simply responded to your assertion that feminists were going to have words for John Mayer, and I responded as a feminist that I don’t have any care whatsoever that John Mayer doesn’t call himself a feminist, nor would any feminist I know care about that. 

The fact that some people on the internet had words for him doesn’t prove anything to me. Celebs get praised and roasted for everything they say. The same statement they say could receive both at the same time. None of that (anonymous comments made to celebs) is any kind of barometer for understanding what “feminists” think or feel, IMO.

But regardless, I’m fine with being a 3rd wave feminist if that’s what you want to call me. :x


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Prime, I'm going to go ahead and seal my identity as a horrible woman who hates other women and say that the person in this story was not sexually assaulted. I repeat, the young woman in this story was not sexually assaulted.


The intention of my post was not to ask whether the guy was guilty or not (it is clear that he was not): the reason I posted the story is to ask what kind of lesson should the guy learn from such a situation and how affirmative consent can help in these situations.

This is in reply to this sarcastic post #1035: "Right. Just put it all on women’s shoulders. Don’t teach men anything, just let men be men and teach women that they must always protect themselves against men, because poor men can’t be expected to stop themselves once they are horny, which is all the time."

I would like to understand what it is that me or other men, in a situation like this or Ansari's situation (which are not hypothetical situations), can actually do or what we can learn to prevent this from happening.

Why would you hate other women?


----------



## samyeagar

personofinterest said:


> Prime, I'm going to go ahead and seal my identity as a horrible woman who hates other women and say that the person in this story was not sexually assaulted. I repeat, the young woman in this story was not sexually assaulted.


Of course she wasn't, but her official training for her official capacity at the university seems to say otherwise. Another case that involves initially illegal acts that lead to impairment that lead to a bad situation. Most campus alleged sexual assaults involve illegal impairment of some sort. As I said way earlier in this thread, from a practical sense, dropping the hammer on anyone involved in underage drinking, taking other drugs, universities should go zero tolerance on all involved. It would not completely eliminate sexual assault, but I think it would be far more effective in lowering it than affirmative consent.


----------



## personofinterest

Yeah, I noticed that she was high. Last I checked that was illegal. As is drinking at age 18 in my state.

And AGAIN...she may have felt uncomfortable. She may have even mused out loud about whether or not she should stay. But she did NOT say no. And yet, I would bet all those who claim they do not expect men to mind read will say "he should have known".....


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Im sorry but again, I don’t agree with your assessment of what was said. If you are talking about Wild Jade, Nobody Special, or FrenchFry, I simply disagree with your interpretation of what was said.
> 
> Since I agree with the people who were bashed, how am I not being bashed too? It’s just that those who are doing the bashing aren’t picking apart my posts specifically, so it doesn’t look like I’m being bashed, yet I am. I just didn’t happen to say the words that got bashed this time.
> 
> Though I have been directly bashed too many times to count on TAM, and have been called straight up a “man hating feminist screechtard” and other similar lovely phrases. Even though you and many others may not think I’m in the “same camp” as those who are being bashed here, I absolutely am. I just don’t bother to take on other posters with direct back and forth posts the way some of my brave pink hat wearing sisters have on this thread.
> 
> I used to do that more in the past but have realized it just creates drama and goes nowhere, so I gave up on the types of posts you’ve seen my pink hat sisters writing. They have more energy than I do.
> 
> *Once again a reminder....all of this because we think it is good practice for people to get verbal consent in sexual situations.*


I have no problem with that. At least that's where we can agree. Maybe I'm projecting because I think that's perfectly fine, but I haven't had the impression that anybody's bashing that particular position. Were I not tied to work, I could find quotes from both Wild Jade and Nobody Special (whose posts I usually really appreciate) that clearly imply the threshold for conviction should be different, and that blatantly minimize the damage caused by being kicked out of college as a sex abuser.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I have no problem with that. At least that's where we can agree. Maybe I'm projecting because I think that's perfectly fine, but I haven't had the impression that anybody's bashing that particular position. Were I not tied to work, I could find quotes from both Wild Jade and Nobody Special (whose posts I usually really appreciate) that clearly imply the threshold for conviction should be different, and that blatantly minimize the damage caused by being kicked out of college as a sex abuser.


You can find those posts later if you want and point them out to me if it would be interesting to see how differently we interpreted what was said. But I still do not agree that anyone here has “blatantly minimized the damage caused by being kicked out of college as a sex abuser”. (If a person really is a sex abuser, why should they be allowed to stay in college? Some posters were bantering about hypothetical scenarios and then about some he said she said cases and then about some op ed articles. In that fray, people kept taking what NS, FF and WJ said out of context and cramming words they didn’t say down their throats. That’s how I interpreted those posts).

(Change subject)....

When you reported that your wife said she should be grateful anyone still wants to grab her ass about the 50 year old woman in the article she was reading, I’m still kind of finding that hard to swallow. 

What woman anywhere has ever been “grateful” about an unwanted ass grab, or further, that it made her feel like “she’s still got it”?

There’s something odd about her saying this, and I find it kind of suspicious. Like there is something underlying what she said. 

But if not and if she actually meant the woman should feel grateful that she’s still got it, then I just gotta say, your wife has much stranger issues than I previously thought. 

If a female (or male) friend of mine said to me after a stranger grabbed my ass that I should be grateful, I would literally never speak to her again, because it would be so weird and offensive to me that I wouldn’t want anything to do with her. But honestly, if she were in a relationship, I would think she was cheating. There’s something so far off about the statement that my mind ends up trying to find a reason for it and that’s the only one my mind can come up with. It almost sounded like something Cromer’s wife would have said when they were in their sexless years.

The frisky side of me thinks that you should have responded to her remark by grabbing her ass and saying “oh good, you can feel fortunate that I still want to grab yours”. Maybe you did do that 

Anyway, sorry for the TJ, it’s just been rolling around in my head for a bit. I’m glad you two are going to MC. I hope that opens up some more intimacy for you both.


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I have no problem with that. At least that's where we can agree. Maybe I'm projecting because I think that's perfectly fine, but I haven't had the impression that anybody's bashing that particular position. Were I not tied to work, I could find quotes from both Wild Jade and Nobody Special (whose posts I usually really appreciate) that clearly imply the threshold for conviction should be different, and that blatantly minimize the damage caused by being kicked out of college as a sex abuser.


I think getting verbal consent (or negative consent) is great *if you can get it* or if someone is willing to give it to you. My question is whether it fixes the problem of these casual sex encounter 'misunderstandings' or does anything to prevent rape (with the same old 'he said/she said'). I don't see how, because people not only change their stories after thinking about it more, they also change their memories of what happened, versus what they later decide or remember happened.

And what is the difference between regular consent and affirmative consent? In the story, the girl seemed not at ease with he situation and apparently wanted to leave but proceeded to give him a BJ: apparently if she knew about AC, she magically would have known what she wanted to do in that situation and everything would have worked out amazingly and they would have both lived happily ever after. Really?


----------



## personofinterest

> “blatantly minimized the damage caused by being kicked out of college as a sex abuser”. (*If a person really is a sex abuser, why should they be allowed to stay in college?*


Oh my freaking Lord. THIS is why it is so maddening! NO ONE said an actual sex abuser should be allowed to stay in college.

THEY WERE SAYING that it is life-damaging to be FALSELY ACCUSED and kicked out of college for something they did not do.

And I do not believe for one minute that you don't know that is what they were saying.

It is INTENTIONAL misunderstanding by several women that have people wanting to poke themselves in the eye with a fork lol


----------



## wild jade

Okay. Since I am clearly the pink-hatted screetchtard that everyone is singling out, please let me take a moment to clarify my position.

(1) No. I do not think it is "okay" for innocent and falsely accused people to be punished for things they did not do -- and I never said this. Of course it is an injustice.
(2) No. I do not think it is "no big deal" to kick people out of university -- and I have said this. 
(3) No. I do not think that all men are rapists, nor have I indicated this in any way. Quite the contrary.
(4) No. I do not think that it is acceptable to "sacrifice" men just to make sure that women are believed.
(5) No. I do not think that women always tell the truth and should be believed no matter what.
(6) No. I do not think that a person is or should be considered guilty until proven innocent in any circumstance.
(7) No. I do not think that it should be easier to find someone guilty of sexual assault than of plagiarism

In my posts, I am simply trying to point out the following:
(1) Affirmative consent will make it less likely that there will be false accusations because people will have learned better how to express themselves and treat each other.
(2) Affirmative consent will make sexual assault less of a problem because people will have learned better how to express themselves and treat each other.
(3) The hype around universities being run by pink-hatted screech-tards out to railroad young men is just that -- hype. And there is no evidence to support it.
(4) The "guilty until proven innocent" rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. This is not what "affirmative consent" or "preponderance of evidence" means. 
(5) Universities are not in the business of conducting criminal trials. And the sorts of decisions they make are very different than the sorts of decisions that courts, trials, and juries make. 
(6)"Preponderance of evidence" does not mean that the lowest possible bar will be used or that there will be a sudden onslaught of people kicked out of university for no reason. (Remembering that universities have been kicking people out for various reasons for centuries without anyone saying a single word about it.)
(7) Slinging around stats like 1 in 3 when you can't even commit to what the 1 in 3 even means or stands for is just random fire-fuelling for no good reason, and makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational discussion.

Now if you wish to keep twisting my words and insisting on the same erroneous catchphrases, and attributing them to me, by all means, have at it. No skin off my nose. I have done what I can to correct misperceptions and have a rational discussion.


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> When you reported that your wife said she should be grateful anyone still wants to grab her ass about the 50 year old woman in the article she was reading, I’m still kind of finding that hard to swallow.




It’s because she wasn’t completely serious with that comment. And nobody actually thinks it’s great having their asses grabbed and nobody would take the comment 100% seriously. I don’t see anything sinister about it. AT ALL. All she probably meant was why is the newspaper making such a big fuss about a stupid story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> Okay. Since I am clearly the pink-hatted screetchtard that everyone is singling out, please let me take a moment to clarify my position.
> 
> 
> 
> (1) No. I do not think it is "okay" for innocent and falsely accused people to be punished for things they did not do -- and I never said this. Of course it is an injustice.
> 
> (2) No. I do not think it is "no big deal" to kick people out of university -- and I have said this.
> 
> (3) No. I do not think that all men are rapists, nor have I indicated this in any way. Quite the contrary.
> 
> (4) No. I do not think that it is acceptable to "sacrifice" men just to make sure that women are believed.
> 
> (5) No. I do not think that women always tell the truth and should be believed no matter what.
> 
> (6) No. I do not think that a person is or should be considered guilty until proven innocent in any circumstance.
> 
> 
> 
> In my posts, I am simply trying to point out the following:
> 
> (1) Affirmative consent will make it less likely that there will be false accusations because people will have learned better how to express themselves and treat each other.
> 
> (2) Affirmative consent will make sexual assault less of a problem because people will have learned better how to express themselves and treat each other.
> 
> (3) The hype around universities being run by pink-hatted screech-tards out to railroad young men is just that -- hype. And there is no evidence to support it.
> 
> (4) The "guilty until proven innocent" rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. This is not what "affirmative consent" or "preponderance of evidence" means.
> 
> (5) Universities are not in the business of conducting criminal trials. And the sorts of decisions they make are very different than the sorts of decisions that courts, trials, and juries make.
> 
> (6)"Preponderance of evidence" does not mean that the lowest possible bar will be used or that there will be a sudden onslaught of people kicked out of university for no reason. (Remembering that universities have been kicking people out for various reasons for centuries without anyone saying a single word about it.)
> 
> (7) Slinging around stats like 1 in 3 when you can't even commit to what the 1 in 3 even means or stands for is just random fire-fuelling for no good reason, and makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you wish to keep twisting my words and insisting on the same erroneous catchphrases, and attributing them to me, by all means, have at it. No skin off my nose. I have done what I can to correct misperceptions and have a rational discussion.



Then why on earth would you like to side with the crazy extreme feminists if your ideas deviate from theirs? Nobody actually
WANTS to put you or others together with the radical feminists. It’s becoming almost comical: most men here are trying to point out that you (and others) are way smarter and more sensible than that! (Hopefully). But you insist to belong to the crazy crowd? 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

I can't view all the recent posts on this thread. What's going on?
Though maybe it is for the best...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> You can find those posts later if you want and point them out to me if it would be interesting to see how differently we interpreted what was said. But I still do not agree that anyone here has “blatantly minimized the damage caused by being kicked out of college as a sex abuser”. *(If a person really is a sex abuser, why should they be allowed to stay in college?* Some posters were bantering about hypothetical scenarios and then about some he said she said cases and then about some op ed articles. In that fray, people kept taking what NS, FF and WJ said out of context and cramming words they didn’t say down their throats. That’s how I interpreted those posts).
> 
> (Change subject)....
> 
> When you reported that your wife said she should be grateful anyone still wants to grab her ass about the 50 year old woman in the article she was reading, I’m still kind of finding that hard to swallow.
> 
> What woman anywhere has ever been “grateful” about an unwanted ass grab, or further, that it made her feel like “she’s still got it”?
> 
> There’s something odd about her saying this, and I find it kind of suspicious. Like there is something underlying what she said.
> 
> But if not and if she actually meant the woman should feel grateful that she’s still got it, then I just gotta say, your wife has much stranger issues than I previously thought.
> 
> If a female (or male) friend of mine said to me after a stranger grabbed my ass that I should be grateful, I would literally never speak to her again, because it would be so weird and offensive to me that I wouldn’t want anything to do with her. But honestly, if she were in a relationship, I would think she was cheating. There’s something so far off about the statement that my mind ends up trying to find a reason for it and that’s the only one my mind can come up with. It almost sounded like something Cromer’s wife would have said when they were in their sexless years.
> 
> The frisky side of me thinks that you should have responded to her remark by grabbing her ass and saying “oh good, you can feel fortunate that I still want to grab yours”. Maybe you did do that
> 
> Anyway, sorry for the TJ, it’s just been rolling around in my head for a bit. I’m glad you two are going to MC. I hope that opens up some more intimacy for you both.


RE: The bolded text.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Of course, I don't think anybody who commits sexual assault should be able to remain in college. I was referring to how bad it would be for an innocent man to carry the stigma of expulsion as a sex abuser. 

As far as advocating for a lower threshold for conviction on campus vs in the courts, we have: 


NobodySpecial said:


> I don't think that expulsion being seen as "less meaningful" than incarceration has any bearing at all. Beyond a reasonable doubt is right and necessary because you are taking from someone their Constitutional right to liberty. There is no Constitutional right to attendance at a college or university.


Hmmm.... kicking someone out of college is most definitely a denial of a liberty. No way around it. Moreover, it can have lifelong consequences. A criminal conviction for grabbing a butt is likely a misdemeanor, which means nothing in the long run. So in many cases the college expulsion could be far worse than the criminal conviction.

Wild Jade has repeatedly said that because being kicked out of college is less traumatic (after all, you can just go to another college--oh, wait, even that is a false minimization because you cant get into another college with a sexual assault expulsion on your record) than sexual assault, that the threshold for action against the accused should be much lower. Again, how can you (she) say that sexual assault is so heinous on one hand, but that carrying the stigma of expulsion for sexual assault is no biggie?

As for my wife, I'm sure she was being rather facetious. And recall that her statement as you quote didn't stand in isolation--it was accompanied by a strong statement to put the jackass in his place. Her real point was that not everything needs law enforcement involvement. And yes, I do grab her at opportune times. It usually gets a smile, sometimes more. :grin2: But I don't think either of us would use that in any way to equate that to a non consensual grab outside an already established, intimate relationship.


----------



## Faithful Wife

wild jade said:


> Okay. Since I am clearly the pink-hatted screetchtard that everyone is singling out, please let me take a moment to clarify my position.
> 
> (1) No. I do not think it is "okay" for innocent and falsely accused people to be punished for things they did not do -- and I never said this. Of course it is an injustice.
> (2) No. I do not think it is "no big deal" to kick people out of university -- and I have said this.
> (3) No. I do not think that all men are rapists, nor have I indicated this in any way. Quite the contrary.
> (4) No. I do not think that it is acceptable to "sacrifice" men just to make sure that women are believed.
> (5) No. I do not think that women always tell the truth and should be believed no matter what.
> (6) No. I do not think that a person is or should be considered guilty until proven innocent in any circumstance.
> (7) No. I do not think that it should be easier to find someone guilty of sexual assault than of plagiarism
> 
> In my posts, I am simply trying to point out the following:
> (1) Affirmative consent will make it less likely that there will be false accusations because people will have learned better how to express themselves and treat each other.
> (2) Affirmative consent will make sexual assault less of a problem because people will have learned better how to express themselves and treat each other.
> (3) The hype around universities being run by pink-hatted screech-tards out to railroad young men is just that -- hype. And there is no evidence to support it.
> (4) The "guilty until proven innocent" rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. This is not what "affirmative consent" or "preponderance of evidence" means.
> (5) Universities are not in the business of conducting criminal trials. And the sorts of decisions they make are very different than the sorts of decisions that courts, trials, and juries make.
> (6)"Preponderance of evidence" does not mean that the lowest possible bar will be used or that there will be a sudden onslaught of people kicked out of university for no reason. (Remembering that universities have been kicking people out for various reasons for centuries without anyone saying a single word about it.)
> (7) Slinging around stats like 1 in 3 when you can't even commit to what the 1 in 3 even means or stands for is just random fire-fuelling for no good reason, and makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational discussion.
> 
> Now if you wish to keep twisting my words and insisting on the same erroneous catchphrases, and attributing them to me, by all means, have at it. No skin off my nose. I have done what I can to correct misperceptions and have a rational discussion.


You’re awesome, Jade. I have mad respect for your intelligence and viewpoints. I’m proud to be a sister screechtard of yours. :bunny:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> RE: The bolded text.
> I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Of course, I don't think anybody who commits sexual assault should be able to remain in college. I was referring to how bad it would be for an innocent man to carry the stigma of expulsion as a sex abuser.
> 
> As far as advocating for a lower threshold for conviction on campus vs in the courts, we have:
> 
> Hmmm.... kicking someone out of college is most definitely a denial of a liberty. No way around it. Moreover, it can have lifelong consequences. A criminal conviction for grabbing a butt is likely a misdemeanor, which means nothing in the long run. So in many cases the college expulsion could be far worse than the criminal conviction.
> 
> Wild Jade has repeatedly said that because being kicked out of college is less traumatic (after all, you can just go to another college--oh, wait, even that is a false minimization because you cant get into another college with a sexual assault expulsion on your record) than sexual assault, that the threshold for action against the accused should be much lower. Again, how can you (she) say that sexual assault is so heinous on one hand, but that carrying the stigma of expulsion for sexual assault is no biggie?
> 
> As for my wife, I'm sure she was being rather facetious. And recall that her statement as you quote didn't stand in isolation--it was accompanied by a strong statement to put the jackass in his place. Her real point was that not everything needs law enforcement involvement. And yes, I do grab her at opportune times. It usually gets a smile, sometimes more. :grin2: But I don't think either of us would use that in any way to equate that to a non consensual grab outside an already established, intimate relationship.


I’m sorry, I still do not agree with your interpretations of those posts. I think you and others are twisting their words and meanings. I’m not going to go point by point about it because those women can speak for themselves if they want to. But even if they do some are still going to twist their words all over again.

These women don’t need my defense and I’m not trying to defend them. What I’m doing is saying I stand with them on what they have actually said (not what others have misinterpreted) and that I agree with them. You can put me in their camp.

As for the rest....thank you, I probably misinterpreted your wife’s statement.  

Consensual ass grabs are the bomb!


----------



## RandomDude

personofinterest said:


> Oh my freaking Lord. THIS is why it is so maddening! NO ONE said an actual sex abuser should be allowed to stay in college.
> 
> THEY WERE SAYING that it is life-damaging to be FALSELY ACCUSED and kicked out of college for something they did not do.
> 
> And I do not believe for one minute that you don't know that is what they were saying.
> 
> It is INTENTIONAL misunderstanding by several women that have people wanting to poke themselves in the eye with a fork lol


Exactly with no due process from the college.

Should be an easy solution, have expulsion due to sexual misconduct legal only with a guilty verdict of the court.

What isn't this being done?


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> Okay. Since I am clearly the pink-hatted screetchtard that everyone is singling out, please let me take a moment to clarify my position.
> 
> (1) No. I do not think it is "okay" for innocent and falsely accused people to be punished for things they did not do -- and I never said this. Of course it is an injustice.
> (2) No. I do not think it is "no big deal" to kick people out of university -- and I have said this.
> (3) No. I do not think that all men are rapists, nor have I indicated this in any way. Quite the contrary.
> (4) No. I do not think that it is acceptable to "sacrifice" men just to make sure that women are believed.
> (5) No. I do not think that women always tell the truth and should be believed no matter what.
> (6) No. I do not think that a person is or should be considered guilty until proven innocent in any circumstance.
> (7) No. I do not think that it should be easier to find someone guilty of sexual assault than of plagiarism


That's great!

To the rest of your post:

"In my posts, I am simply trying to point out the following:
(1) Affirmative consent will make it less likely that there will be false accusations because people will have learned better how to express themselves and treat each other."

Nobody has ever addressed the question what is so wrong with just regular consent? If a woman is unable to say 'no', why is it any better to expect her to be able to say 'yes'?

"(2) Affirmative consent will make sexual assault less of a problem because people will have learned better how to express themselves and treat each other."

Again: what does it have to do with it being 'affirmative'? If people learn what it is they want and don't want and how to express and make it known properly, it would be the same whether the consent is affirmative or not (and normal consent includes verbal no or yes too btw).

"(3) The hype around universities being run by pink-hatted screech-tards out to railroad young men is just that -- hype. And there is no evidence to support it."

So is the hype surrounding the rape culture. What's the difference?

"(4) The "guilty until proven innocent" rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. This is not what "affirmative consent" or "preponderance of evidence" means."

So I guess you haven't read any of the links or articles regarding what 'yes means yes' and lack of due process means. I will cut and paste the relevant bits for you then.

"(5) Universities are not in the business of conducting criminal trials. And the sorts of decisions they make are very different than the sorts of decisions that courts, trials, and juries make."

Ok...so are you saying they should get involved in sexual assault cases and have a say in the outcome of the student's future or should they not?

"(6)"Preponderance of evidence" does not mean that the lowest possible bar will be used or that there will be a sudden onslaught of people kicked out of university for no reason. (Remembering that universities have been kicking people out for various reasons for centuries without anyone saying a single word about it.)"

Really? Don't you think maybe it's because they haven't been throwing out so many innocent student before, *that's* why nobody made a fuss?

"(7) Slinging around stats like 1 in 3 when you can't even commit to what the 1 in 3 even means or stands for is just random fire-fuelling for no good reason, and makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational discussion."

What figure are YOU comfortable with, for campuses? (with a source please)


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> (4) The "guilty until proven innocent" rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. This is not what "affirmative consent" or "preponderance of evidence" means.


Same link again. Last two paragraphs in particular. The 'guilty until proven innocent' methodology on campuses, with no proper due process, is not really up for debate anymore. *They don't even have to accept evidence to prove your innocence.* Why do you feel it is 'just a rhetoric'? 

https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...rtable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

"As she talked with her friend, R.M. wrote, she became distraught. She contacted the RAs on duty and reported that she had been sexually assaulted. The RAs called the campus police, who notified the Amherst police. R.M. gave her clothes to a police officer for evidence, although she said she was not ready to file charges. Then she went to the hospital, where she was given a battery of medications for possible STDs.

Just before Thanksgiving, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the university by Bonsu’s attorney, Brett Lampiasi, R.M. went to the dean of students and filed a complaint against Bonsu. She also reported him to the Amherst police. The police investigated and closed the case with no charges filed. On January 12, 2015, Bonsu got an email from a school administrator informing him that a “very serious” allegation had been lodged against him and that until a hearing was held, he was subject to “interim restrictions”: He could not contact R.M., he could visit no dormitories other than his own, he was limited to eating at a single dining hall, and he was forbidden from entering the student union.


The restrictions meant that Bonsu could no longer play with his jazz ensemble at a weekly Sunday brunch. Nor could he attend the meetings of the other organizations he’d joined. He was warned not to talk about the allegation, so he couldn’t explain to his friends why he was suddenly withdrawing from his activities. *R.M. soon complained to the school that Bonsu had violated his no-contact order by trying to friend her on Facebook. Bonsu vehemently denied the allegation to administrators. He offered the university full access to his Facebook account and phone records. According to the suit, the university declined the offer. He later sent the records anyway. But in a February 4 letter, Bonsu was told that because of the later allegation, a new set of interim restrictions was being put in place. Effective immediately, Bonsu was banned from all university housing and was allowed on campus only to attend classes.* His mother and an uncle drove up from Maryland to help him appeal his restrictions, but were largely unsuccessful.

He reached out to a student group that helps minority and other underrepresented college students, explaining in an email what had happened with R.M., protesting his innocence, and describing his treatment as discriminatory and unlawful. The student who received the email forwarded it to the group’s listserv, adding a note about spreading the news in order to organize a rally on Bonsu’s behalf. This email got back to campus authorities, the lawsuit says, and because Bonsu had used R.M.’s name, he received a new interim restriction: a total ban from campus.

Bonsu’s lawsuit describes the period that followed as one of extreme stress, during which he lost weight, contracted pneumonia, and was forced to drop two courses because the restrictions placed on him precluded him from attending class during his midterm exams. His hearing was on April 2, 2015. By then he was living back home in Maryland, sick a second time with pneumonia and in a state of emotional collapse. His lawyer asked for the hearing to be rescheduled, but the school refused, so it went on without him. He was found not responsible for sexual misconduct. But he was found responsible for using R.M.’s name in the email asking for assistance and for sending her the Facebook friend request.

The university listed Bonsu’s offense as “failure to comply with the direction of university officials.” His punishment: suspension until May 31, 2016—by which time R.M. was expected to graduate—and a permanent ban from living on campus. He was also required to get counseling to address his “decision-making.”

Bonsu decided never to return to UMass. He applied to universities in other states, but was not accepted. He spent a year studying music at a community college, unable to pursue his engineering degree. Eventually he was accepted into the engineering program at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County, for the fall semester of 2016, a year and a half after he had left UMass. He is on track to finally graduate from college in the fall of 2018. UMass denied Bonsu’s allegations against it and otherwise declined to comment. Last September, his lawsuit against the university was settled for undisclosed terms.

The way in which Bonsu’s case was handled may seem perverse, but many of the university’s actions—the interim restrictions, the full-bore investigation and adjudication even though R.M.’s own statement does not describe a sexual assault—were mandated or strongly encouraged by federal rules that govern the handling of sexual-assault allegations on campus today. These rules proliferated during Barack Obama’s administration, as did threats of sanctions if schools didn’t follow them precisely. The impulse behind them was noble and necessary—sexual assault is a scourge that should not be tolerated in any society, much less by institutions of higher learning. But taken in sum, these directives have left a mess of a system, and many unintended consequences.

*On too many campuses, a new attitude about due process—and the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty—has taken hold*, one that echoes the infamous logic of Edwin Meese, who served in Ronald Reagan’s administration as attorney general, in his argument against the Miranda warning. “The thing is,” Meese said, “you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m sorry, I still do not agree with your interpretations of those posts. I think you and others are twisting their words and meanings. I’m not going to go point by point about it because those women can speak for themselves if they want to. But even if they do some are still going to twist their words all over again.
> 
> These women don’t need my defense and I’m not trying to defend them. What I’m doing is saying I stand with them on what they have actually said (not what others have misinterpreted) and that I agree with them. You can put me in their camp.
> 
> As for the rest....thank you, I probably misinterpreted your wife’s statement.
> 
> Consensual ass grabs are the bomb!


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchFry 
"You highly over estimate the sympathy of men."
Piling on by WildJade
"And underestimate the sympathy of women."

Is it any wonder people might interpret things a certain way with attitudes like that?

And, oh btw, these posts preceded any "feminist bashing."


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> But when I interpret a post by say, FrenchFry, and what she is a saying describes my sentiments also, and then when we have liked and quoted each other’s posts, I’m pretty sure I’m the one who is interpreting her correctly. She isn’t a man hater and isn’t saying innocent men should be falsely accused.


I'm not so sure about that.

If Trump says something that one believes is racist and someone who supports Trump (and likes his posts and quotes him) says it's not racist, does that mean that you have to accept that what Trump said isn't racist?

As far as innocent men being accused, it would be nice if those in favor of laws and policies enforcing AC would acknowledge the possibility and discuss ways in which the odds of this happening might be kept as low as possible. When this doesn't happen, we tend to think that they are dismissing our concerns in this area.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by FrenchFry
> "You highly over estimate the sympathy of men."
> Piling on by WildJade
> "And underestimate the sympathy of women."
> 
> Is it any wonder people might interpret things a certain way *with attitudes like that?*
> 
> And, oh btw, these posts preceded any "feminist bashing."


Sorry, I do not concur with your assumption of the "attitudes" of either JD or FF. I stand behind both of those posts you quoted, even though they aren't mine. In context they mean one thing, and I know what that thing is. But everyone can interpret as they please, as you are doing.


----------



## 269370

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by FrenchFry
> "You highly over estimate the sympathy of men."
> Piling on by WildJade
> "And underestimate the sympathy of women."
> 
> Is it any wonder people might interpret things a certain way with attitudes like that?
> 
> And, oh btw, these posts preceded any "feminist bashing."


Yes, I agree with your assessment of the meaning of these two posts 100%. Oh I guess it makes it true now that two people have agreed with this...:crazy:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> I'm not so sure about that.
> 
> If Trump says something that one believes is racist and someone who supports Trump (and likes his posts and quotes him) says it's not racist, does that mean that you have to accept that what Trump said isn't racist?
> 
> As far as innocent men being accused, it would be nice if those in favor of laws and policies enforcing AC would acknowledge the possibility and discuss ways in which the odds of this happening might be kept as low as possible. When this doesn't happen, we tend to think that they are dismissing our concerns in this area.


Re: Trump....wow, I can't believe somehow his name is in this discussion.

Re: Whether or not FF is a man hater which is what I was actually talking about, no she is not.

Re: Discussing ways in which innocent men may avoid being falsely accused, AC *is* one way which should help that from occurring, which has been repeated several times. It has also been repeated that NO ONE will ever be fully protected against rapists OR false accusers. It has also been asked many times by some of the women on this thread for MEN to give some suggestions as to what may help prevent false accusations, since AC is the suggestion we are making and many of you claim it will not help with anything, and so far I haven't heard any suggestions from the men on that topic. Sooo...wouldn't it be more helpful for MEN to discuss this and come up with suggestions? I don't mean here or discuss it with me (though you can if you want), I mean with each other, start a new thread, start a movement....do something. Keep in mind, AC education would include understanding that false accusations are a crime and that having sex you consented to but regretted isn't rape or assault.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> LOL!


That's a good way to show that you're willing and able to engage in an intellectual discussion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry, I do not concur with your assumption of the "attitudes" of either JD or FF. I stand behind both of those posts you quoted, even though they aren't mine. In context they mean one thing, and I know what that thing is. But everyone can interpret as they please, as you are doing.


So Rocky just to be clear about my response above and the rest of them I have made about this....I am indeed the same type of feminist that JD and FF are. It may seem like a nice thing to say that you don't consider me in that camp, but to me it is actually a privilege to be in their camp.


----------



## uhtred

Sadly I think you are right - but sometimes I think that is based on what people have already seen in the media. 





Buddy400 said:


> This seems to imply that this involves only people in the public eye or press or politicians.
> 
> As if, removed from the limelight, we'd all just be reasonable and get along.
> 
> My experience here is contrary to that expectation.


----------



## 269370

Faithful Wife said:


> Re: Trump....wow, I can't believe somehow his name is in this discussion.
> 
> Re: Whether or not FF is a man hater which is what I was actually talking about, no she is not.
> 
> Re: Discussing ways in which innocent men may avoid being falsely accused, AC *is* one way which should help that from occurring, which has been repeated several times. It has also been repeated that NO ONE will ever be fully protected against rapists OR false accusers. It has also been asked many times by some of the women on this thread for MEN to give some suggestions as to what may help prevent false accusations, since AC is the suggestion we are making and many of you claim it will not help with anything, and so far I haven't heard any suggestions from the men on that topic. Sooo...wouldn't it be more helpful for MEN to discuss this and come up with suggestions? I don't mean here or discuss it with me (though you can if you want), I mean with each other, start a new thread, start a movement....do something. Keep in mind, AC education would include understanding that false accusations are a crime and that having sex you consented to but regretted isn't rape or assault.


Great idea about the movement. But first things first: we need to first settle on the colour of our hats to make sure we get recognised and validated. Brown ok everyone? Because nothing says 'say no to anal, if offered' clearer than the colour of....chocolate.

PS: Serious suggestions were put forward earlier in the thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> That's a good way to show that you're willing and able to engage in an intellectual discussion.


You have directly insulted Jade on this thread more than once, along with other places around TAM in the past. And you think doing that is "intellectual discussion"? When it is clear that someone has you "all figured out" (the way that you have decided that you have Jade "all figured out"), and when that "figured out" doesn't match your actual thoughts or feelings, and when nothing you say or do gets your actual point across and people just continue responding to things you didn't say or mean....coming back to discuss it further is hardly "intellectual discussion".


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> Oh my freaking Lord. THIS is why it is so maddening! NO ONE said an actual sex abuser should be allowed to stay in college.
> 
> THEY WERE SAYING that it is life-damaging to be FALSELY ACCUSED and kicked out of college for something they did not do.
> 
> And I do not believe for one minute that you don't know that is what they were saying.
> 
> It is INTENTIONAL misunderstanding by several women that have people wanting to poke themselves in the eye with a fork lol


That's what bothers me. 

Based on what I know of @faithfulwife on this board, I can't believe that she is intentionally misunderstanding.

However, it is clearly obvious to me that no man on this thread (and no man anywhere as far as I know) believes that an actual sex abuser should be allowed to keep attending college, and certainly not with the victim (note here that, if the person is an* actual* sex abuser, then his accuser must be an actual victim).

I have a really hard time holding both of those thought in my head at the same time.

There must be some psychological process going on (confirmation bias?) where one is so predisposed to see what they expect to see that it affects what they actually read.


----------



## 269370

Buddy400 said:


> That's a good way to show that you're willing and able to engage in an intellectual discussion.


The most legitimate weapon, is to remain offended at all cost.
Is there any other reason one would willingly choose to remain in the sh1ttiest club one can possibly pick, for no particular reason? (the extreme feminist club). Urrgh. Come on women, you are *way* better and smarter than this.
I need to go and jump off a cliff.

Nice to chat. Love to ALL women. :yay::x:moon:


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Okay. Since I am clearly the pink-hatted screetchtard that everyone is singling out, please let me take a moment to clarify my position.
> 
> (1) No. I do not think it is "okay" for innocent and falsely accused people to be punished for things they did not do -- and I never said this. Of course it is an injustice.
> (2) No. I do not think it is "no big deal" to kick people out of university -- and I have said this.
> (3) No. I do not think that all men are rapists, nor have I indicated this in any way. Quite the contrary.
> (4) No. I do not think that it is acceptable to "sacrifice" men just to make sure that women are believed.
> (5) No. I do not think that women always tell the truth and should be believed no matter what.
> (6) No. I do not think that a person is or should be considered guilty until proven innocent in any circumstance.
> (7) No. I do not think that it should be easier to find someone guilty of sexual assault than of plagiarism


I agree with each of these statements.

Having established that all want to reduce sexual assault and not punish innocent people, we're just arguing about which tactics to employ.

If some claim that innocent people may be harmed, then the most effective response would be to help come up with ideas which would minimize this risk (or point out why these fears are unfounded).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Based on what I know of @faithfulwife on this board, I can't believe that she is intentionally misunderstanding.
> .


Just more going round and round and taking things out of context.

Here is what Rocky said to me:

"I have no problem with that. At least that's where we can agree. Maybe I'm projecting because I think that's perfectly fine, but I haven't had the impression that anybody's bashing that particular position. Were I not tied to work, I could find quotes from both Wild Jade and Nobody Special (whose posts I usually really appreciate) that clearly imply the threshold for conviction should be different, and that blatantly minimize the damage caused by being kicked out of college *as a sex abuser*."



Notice he did not say a falsely accused man. He said "as a sex abuser".



And I replied:

"You can find those posts later if you want and point them out to me if it would be interesting to see how differently we interpreted what was said. But I still do not agree that anyone here has “blatantly minimized the damage caused by being kicked out of college as a sex abuser”. (*If a person really is a sex abuser, why should they be allowed to stay in college?* Some posters were bantering about hypothetical scenarios and then about some he said she said cases and then about some op ed articles. In that fray, people kept taking what NS, FF and WJ said out of context and cramming words they didn’t say down their throats. That’s how I interpreted those posts)."



I replied to what _he actually wrote_. Notice I also added "if a person *really is* a sex abuser", differentiating from a falsely accused person. Later he cleared it up by saying he did mean a falsely accused man, and I still disagreed that the women on this thread "don't care" about false accusations.

So there ya go! Evil me in the pink hat, NOT actually saying that falsely accused men should be imprisoned or whatever. :bunny:


----------



## personofinterest

I probably shouldn't even bother, but if what Rocky said IN CONTEXT really matters (you know - context) then it was very obviousw based on the flow of the topic that Rocky was referring to people who ARE NOT sex abusers being kicked out as if they ARE. VERY obvious.

No other possible way to interpret what he said.

And again, I do not believe you did NOT know this.

The whole topic was on false accusations.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Christ, this thread is going on forever and seems to be on a Nascar path, ie at this point round and round. 

No one wants the guilty to go unpunished and no one wants the innocent punished, on both sides of the equation. 

Everyone agrees people lie at times, and there are chronic wrongdoers in the world ie some, me included, call them evil/evil acting folks without care for others.

Or maybe I'm wrong, or just cranky today.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> You have directly insulted Jade on this thread more than once, along with other places around TAM in the past. And you think doing that is "intellectual discussion"? When it is clear that someone has you "all figured out" (the way that you have decided that you have Jade "all figured out"), and when that "figured out" doesn't match your actual thoughts or feelings, and when nothing you say or do gets your actual point across and people just continue responding to things you didn't say or mean....coming back to discuss it further is hardly "intellectual discussion".


It should be clear that I don't hold @wild jade's dismissive posting style in high esteem, but I'm sure she's not concerned about my opinion on that.

I have certainly never claimed that she was dishonest, that her motives were mean spirited, she didn't mean what she says she meant, made any personal insults or ad hominem attacks , accused her of being a man-hater or anything of that nature.


----------



## Buddy400

personofinterest said:


> I probably shouldn't even bother, but if what Rocky said IN CONTEXT really matters (you know - context) then it was very obviousw based on the flow of the topic that Rocky was referring to people who ARE NOT sex abusers being kicked out as if they ARE. VERY obvious.
> 
> No other possible way to interpret what he said.
> 
> And again, I do not believe you did NOT know this.
> 
> The whole topic was on false accusations.


And I find it difficult to believe that she could think that RMY (who has an extensive history here of being a reasonable person) would be thinking that.


----------



## Buddy400

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Christ, this thread is going on forever and seems to be on a Nascar path, ie at this point round and round.
> 
> No one wants the guilty to go unpunished and no one wants the innocent punished, on both sides of the equation.
> 
> Everyone agrees people lie at times, and there are chronic wrongdoers in the world ie some, me included, call them evil/evil acting folks without care for others.
> 
> Or maybe I'm wrong, or just cranky today.


This thread has turned as destructive as any I've ever seen (even "She did it for him..."!).

And it was looking like it might be making progress there for a while.....

Clearly, at this point, nothing can be said that will improve things.

So I'm going to see if I have the willpower to refrain from posting anymore on this (it'll be touch & go).


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I probably shouldn't even bother, but if what Rocky said IN CONTEXT really matters (you know - context) then it was very obviousw based on the flow of the topic that Rocky was referring to people who ARE NOT sex abusers being kicked out as if they ARE. VERY obvious.
> 
> No other possible way to interpret what he said.
> 
> And again, I do not believe you did NOT know this.
> 
> The whole topic was on false accusations.


Hey, guess what? On the post of mine that you are having such an huge issue with (this time anyway), _I was actually talking to Rocky about how I am in the same camp as FF, WJ and NS_. 

He was pointing out how my opinion seems different to him than those women. And we went back and forth about THAT.

He and I *weren't* actually talking about false accusations. We *weren't* talking about AC either. We *were* talking about whether or not I'm in alignment with those other fuzzy bunny pink hat wearing femnazis. I proclaimed that I am. He wanted to believe I am not. 

You don't believe me? :rofl: Like I even give a ****! You've made it quite clear what you think of me, you can go on posting to me if you want....but all that will do is cause me to keep coming back and telling you how I don't give a **** and flipping my pink at at you. :bunny:


----------



## 269370

WTF? The asylum is out of control. I noticed it mid-jump. 
Can we not all go back to being morons again, instead of angry morons?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I regret this already but in fun, does anyone know where I can get a rat's a$$ emoji?


----------



## EllisRedding

On the topic of consent / responsibility and what can be done, one obvious answer would be using drugs / alcohol responsibly. I don't know if there is some sort of stat that shows incidents that occurred where some form of impairment was involved. The question still remains though, it both parties are impaired, can either be solely assigned responsibility? The obvious scenario here would be two people (M/F) has sex while drunk and the next day the female claims she never gave consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> And I find it difficult to believe that she could think that RMY (who has an extensive history here of being a reasonable person) would be thinking that.


*"She"* here, speaking for myself.

Did you notice that although I obviously misinterpreted that part of Rocky's post, _he and I were able to have cordial discourse about it?_ When Rocky read my response, he said:

"RE: The bolded text.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Of course, I don't think anybody who commits sexual assault should be able to remain in college. I was referring to how bad it would be for an innocent man to carry the stigma of expulsion as a sex abuser."

See how he just cleared it up for me without accusing me of being dishonest?

That's why Rocky and I can get along so well even when we don't agree. 

Funny how OTHERS here can't do the same and I wasn't even speaking to them but.....this is TAM afterall.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

EllisRedding said:


> On the topic of consent / responsibility and what can be done, one obvious answer would be using drugs / alcohol responsibly. I don't know if there is some sort of stat that shows incidents that occurred where some form of impairment was involved. The question still remains though, it both parties are impaired, can either be solely assigned responsibility? The obvious scenario here would be two people (M/F) has sex while drunk and the next day the female claims she never gave consent.


All good points, I believe already covered. (I'm guilty of that too I'm sure here and there so no offense intended).

And here we go again on another lap. 😎😎😎


----------



## 269370

Difficult to believe this kind of tone and childish behaviour is tolerated here. Unacceptable. Anyone else would be banned for this straight away.


----------



## EllisRedding

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> All good points, I believe already covered. (I'm guilty of that too I'm sure here and there so no offense intended).
> 
> And here we go again on another lap. 😎😎😎


Just trying to get the thread back on track


----------



## samyeagar

EllisRedding said:


> On the topic of consent / responsibility and what can be done, one obvious answer would be using drugs / alcohol responsibly. I don't know if there is some sort of stat that shows incidents that occurred where some form of impairment was involved. The question still remains though, it both parties are impaired, can either be solely assigned responsibility? The obvious scenario here would be two people (M/F) has sex while drunk and the next day the female claims she never gave consent.


I did bring this up much earlier, and it really didn't seem to be something people wanted to discuss. Especially the mutual consent and mutual inability to consent due to mutual impairment. Not sure that scenario fits well within any current narrative, even though it is likely a very common, if not the most common scenario.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> I did bring this up much earlier, and it really didn't seem to be something people wanted to discuss. Especially the mutual consent and mutual inability to consent due to mutual impairment. Not sure that scenario fits well within any current narrative, even though it is likely a very common, if not the most common scenario.


To me, a case where one accused the other after both had been drinking (assuming there was not actual assault or rape, just drunken consent), then the one making the accusation is doing it falsely.

I know many men want to hear suggestions on how men can be protected from false accusations. I don’t know how anyone can guard against a false accusation about anything. So what are we supposed to discuss?

But as far as good AC practices go, the youngsters would have learned that before engaging in drugs or alcohol, they would need to discuss what their intentions are after they are impaired. If their mutual intent is to get jiggy, they could verbalize their intent and consent and then go for it. Or they could even jot it down first (written consent). They would also be advised not to engage in sexual activity at all when drinking or drugging, unless they already know this partner and consent is in tact for the relationship.

Do you have any ideas on how to prevent false accusations, Sam? I’m just curious why anyone thinks they can actually prevent an evil person from sand bagging them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> No one wants the guilty to go unpunished and no one wants the innocent punished, on both sides of the equation.
> 
> Everyone agrees people lie at times, and there are chronic wrongdoers in the world ie some, me included, call them evil/evil acting folks without care for others.
> 
> Or maybe I'm wrong, or just cranky today.


I totally agree! No one on this thread wants the innocent punished or raped/assaulted. And some evil people are going to rape and falsely accuse no matter what we do.

Pull up a chair and put on your Viking hat. It’s actually not as crazy as it seems, this is TAM for ya. As a Viking, this must seem like a kindergarten sand box fight compared to “real” warfare.


----------



## 269370

We are not trying to prevent false accusations (why are the goal posts keep getting moved), we are trying to reduce the occurrences of false convictions/expulsions, given the current guidelines and practices at most campuses. The way it is set up right now makes it very easy for an 'evil person' to tea bag anyone. The whole point about reasonable guidelines/laws is that they are supposed to protect both parties and give you a chance at a fair 'trial' (due process), and not favour one outcome over the other.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> To me, a case where one accused the other after both had been drinking (assuming there was not actual assault or rape, just drunken consent), then the one making the accusation is doing it falsely.
> 
> I know many men want to hear suggestions on how men can be protected from false accusations. I don’t know how anyone can guard against a false accusation about anything. So what are we supposed to discuss?
> 
> But as far as good AC practices go, the youngsters would have learned that before engaging in drugs or alcohol, they would need to discuss what their intentions are after they are impaired. If their mutual intent is to get jiggy, they could verbalize their intent and consent and then go for it. Or they could even jot it down first (written consent). They would also be advised not to engage in sexual activity at all when drinking or drugging, unless they already know this partner and consent is in tact for the relationship.
> 
> Do you have any ideas on how to prevent false accusations, Sam? I’m just curious why anyone thinks they can actually prevent an evil person from sand bagging them.


I would actually imagine that many, if not most, false accusations don't even start out with malicious intent. I imagine they start as some sort of self preservation measure, or something that just gets conflated over time, without any real thought as to the potential ramifications beyond the person making the false accusation. In short, I think many of the accusations are made without thinking about the consequences.

And what you describe they could do pre impairment is not really consistent with the continued nature of affirmative consent, as impairment could render someone unable to withdraw consent, and we're back to square one.

As it pertains to college campuses, they are far and away the biggest concentration of these types of scenarios. The dangers of impairment are common knowledge, so anyone involved in college life is well aware of all of the dangerous possibilities. I think there are ultimately only two options to quickly and dramatically lower the rates of sex related incidents, and both are pretty heavy handed, and neither are particularly appealing, but in most cases, we're talking about stupid kids with little common sense and even less life experience. One direction would be complete zero tolerance for anything drug and alcohol related. One strike and you're out. The other is to basically go the other way, and say you get involved in a drinking and drugging situation, you're on your own.


----------



## personofinterest

When I was working on my PhD, one of my roommates was an undergraduate who was president of her sorority (I didn't do the sorority thing - we met at church). During a "swap" a fraternity brother and a member of her sorority hooked up. A coupld of days later, the young woman claimed she was sexually assaulted. There were quite a few people at the swap who observed both of them as very intoxicated. I know my roommate was conflicted because, on one hand, she hated to think of something happening to one of her sisters. On the other hand, they were BOTH intoxicated and handsy with each other. The faculty board eventually decided to take no action since both parties were very intoxicated. Well, they did write up both Greek organizations for the use of alcohol (even though both parties were 21). The young woman opted NOT to make a criminal complaint for the same reason.

I believe the right decision was made. However, I cannot help but wonder how this exact scenario might play out in 2018. I think one would have to be very naive or willfully obtuse not to wonder the same thing. I am sure this was an uncomfortable situation for both parties, but it was a learning experience as well. He hopefully learned not to get smashed and have sex with someone else who was smashed. She hopefully learned the same thing. And neither of them had their lives ruined.

Now, if SHE had been the only one drunk and he had taken her upstairs....I'd feel differently. Or if he was drunk and she was sober....then I might view him as the victim.

As it was, in the dark ages of the early 90's I think the most logical and fair choice was made - nobody was a criminal.


----------



## 269370

samyeagar said:


> I would actually imagine that many, if not most, false accusations don't even start out with malicious intent. I imagine they start as some sort of self preservation measure, or something that just gets conflated over time, without any real thought as to the potential ramifications beyond the person making the false accusation. In short, I think many of the accusations are made without thinking about the consequences.
> 
> And what you describe they could do pre impairment is not really consistent with the continued nature of affirmative consent, as impairment could render someone unable to withdraw consent, and we're back to square one.
> 
> As it pertains to college campuses, they are far and away the biggest concentration of these types of scenarios. The dangers of impairment are common knowledge, so anyone involved in college life is well aware of all of the dangerous possibilities. I think there are ultimately only two options to quickly and dramatically lower the rates of sex related incidents, and both are pretty heavy handed, and neither are particularly appealing, but in most cases, we're talking about stupid kids with little common sense and even less life experience. One direction would be complete zero tolerance for anything drug and alcohol related. One strike and you're out. The other is to basically go the other way, and say you get involved in a drinking and drugging situation, you're on your own.


There is a third option, and the one I would favour if I was a student right now: keep your d1ck in your pants till you finish college and get good grades! (Ok, the second part is not really compulsory). And wait till they sort out this mess.

Ironically for the radical leftists, it is the Trump administration (shock & horror) that is relaxing those guidelines originally put forward by the Obama administration. The double irony...well, you can work it out what the double irony is, when you see him hiding in the closets, jerking off at beauty pageants. I cannot believe I am beginning to lean more and more right as time goes on...What's happening to me. :surprise:

"The Trump administration has recently begun to reconsider—and in some cases, roll back—many of the rules and policies made by the Obama administration regarding campus sexual assault. It has encountered immediate skepticism and fierce pushback; given Trump’s own behavior, this reaction is not surprising.

That pushback grew more forceful in July, after Candice Jackson, the new head of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the arm of the Department of Education that governs the adjudication of sexual assault on campus, tossed off some made-up statistics in remarks to The New York Times that were broadly dismissive of assault. Many college administrators have said they will not alter the adjudication policies now enshrined on their campus even if recent federal guidelines are rescinded; capacious campus bureaucracies that were created at the behest of Obama’s OCR are likely to resist change.

The Trump administration has amply demonstrated that its words cannot be taken at face value, and that its policy views, in many cases, are born of ignorance or calculated to inflame. Even so, a reconsideration of the policies surrounding sexual assault on campus, and public debate about them, is necessary."

https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...rtable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/


----------



## personofinterest

I think there probably ARE young women who have sex and then feel shame or worry about what their parents would say. As someone reaised with strict parents, I absolutely empathize with that feeling.

But here's the thing....

When you choose to deal with your shame by accusing someone of assaulting you, you are potentially changing their life FOREVER. Yes, forever. Because even if he is found innocent, everyone willing to see things objectively KNOWS what a public accusation does to a man. And if, heaven forbid, he is found guilty.....expulsion, jail, sex offender registry.

Because a young woman was embarrassed or didn't want to get into trouble.

This is NOT an acceptable coping mechanism. It;s just not. Period.

And when we hem and haw and say "but....." then we are implying it IS an acceptable coping mechanism, young man be damned.

Look, there's no denying we women have gotten the short end of the stick in a lot of ways for centuries (millennia, even). But you don't fix that by swinging the opposite way.

In the scenario from my PhD days, some would actually say the young man SHOULD be found guilty because he didn't get anything verbal - even though BOTH were impaired. And why shouldn't SHE have also gotten verbal consent, since he was drunk?

It's just way too.....muddy.

I think the only fair answer is that BOTH parties should get verbal consent from each other.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Now, if SHE had been the only one drunk and he had taken her upstairs....I'd feel differently.


I know. I think it depends how heavy she was to be carried upstairs. :slap:


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> And what you describe they could do pre impairment is not really consistent with the continued nature of affirmative consent, as impairment could render someone unable to withdraw consent, and we're back to square one.


This is all covered in good AC education. As I said, they would be advised first that they should not enter sexual activity while drinking or drugging unless with a partner who you already have a known consensual relationship with. If you choose to anyway, you should get mutual stated consent before getting intoxicated. 

They would also be educated about what you said, that the danger here is that one or the other may change their mind while intoxicated and then the risks of misunderstandings get higher again.

We try to explain to people that they should understand all the risks involved and that drugs and alcohol are always going to be a potential problem.

I wouldn't mind alcohol free campuses, but I can't see how that will ever happen. As for if they are impaired "they are on their own", I don't agree with that one because plenty of actual rapes and assaults do happen when one or both are drunk, so I certainly wouldn't suggest any wording that makes it seem as if you have no recourse for being assaulted if you were drunk at the time.

So, back to square one again?

For all of the fears of false accusations, I just don't know what men expect us to say about that. We (on this thread at least) aren't the evil women who would do such a thing, so what would we suggest? We don't know what is in the minds of false accusers. As you said, I think usually it happens but wasn't intended to be what it ended up being. I don't think there is a huge number of women who will falsely accuse, but for those who do exist, I have no idea what to do or say about them.

When I was very young, maybe 8 or 9, my step father and I did not get along at all. (We patched it all up in later years). He was abusive in a way (not physical or sexual) and I was struggling to cope. I was discussing with my cousin once that I wished I could get away from him. My cousin (about 13) suggested that I throw myself against a wall and bruise myself up, and then tell my mom he beat me.

In my head, I went through that scenario, but knew my mom would never believe he had beaten me. So then I started thinking "maybe I'll say he was touching me down there?" I thought well that is something my mom might believe, since it would have happened in private somehow if it was real.

Then I thought "ugh, no...that's just gross, both if it really did happen and also if I made it up and accused him".

The reality is that I did need help. I needed to talk to someone about my feelings and the abuse. I did not know who to talk to and as it turned out, I never really talked to anyone while I was young. Over the years I forgave him for the abuse and he stopped doing it as I got older. I sorted the rest out for myself as an adult and he and I were on good terms. But my actual need to talk to someone and get some kind of help with the situation was my only motivation for thinking up that potentially disastrous lie. I'm glad I did not give it a second thought after that. It would have been so horrible for all involved. I had no idea of course what would have happened, being I was so young and clueless.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I think the only fair answer is that BOTH parties should get verbal consent from each other.


Which is what I've been saying this whole time.


----------



## samyeagar

personofinterest said:


> I think there probably ARE young women who have sex and then feel shame or worry about what their parents would say. As someone reaised with strict parents, I absolutely empathize with that feeling.
> 
> But here's the thing....
> 
> When you choose to deal with your shame by accusing someone of assaulting you, you are potentially changing their life FOREVER. Yes, forever. Because even if he is found innocent, everyone willing to see things objectively KNOWS what a public accusation does to a man. And if, heaven forbid, he is found guilty.....expulsion, jail, sex offender registry.
> 
> Because a young woman was embarrassed or didn't want to get into trouble.
> 
> This is NOT an acceptable coping mechanism. It;s just not. Period.
> 
> And when we hem and haw and say "but....." then we are implying it IS an acceptable coping mechanism, young man be damned.
> 
> Look, there's no denying we women have gotten the short end of the stick in a lot of ways for centuries (millennia, even). But you don't fix that by swinging the opposite way.
> 
> In the scenario from my PhD days, some would actually say the young man SHOULD be found guilty because he didn't get anything verbal - even though BOTH were impaired. And why shouldn't SHE have also gotten verbal consent, since he was drunk?
> 
> It's just way too.....muddy.
> 
> I think the only fair answer is that BOTH parties should get verbal consent from each other.



And then another thing in today's society of collecting likes, hashtagging, and fifteen minutes of fame seeking, it's really easy for some to spin a situation, or be convinced to spin a situation in such a way as to maximize one's attention benefit, again, without any real malicious intent, but also without any consideration of broader consequences.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Re: Trump....wow, I can't believe somehow his name is in this discussion.
> 
> Re: Whether or not FF is a man hater which is what I was actually talking about, no she is not.
> 
> Re: Discussing ways in which innocent men may avoid being falsely accused, AC *is* one way which should help that from occurring, which has been repeated several times. It has also been repeated that NO ONE will ever be fully protected against rapists OR false accusers. It has also been asked many times by some of the women on this thread for MEN to give some suggestions as to what may help prevent false accusations, since AC is the suggestion we are making and many of you claim it will not help with anything, and so far I haven't heard any suggestions from the men on that topic. Sooo...wouldn't it be more helpful for MEN to discuss this and come up with suggestions? I don't mean here or discuss it with me (though you can if you want), I mean with each other, start a new thread, start a movement....do something. Keep in mind, AC education would include understanding that false accusations are a crime and that having sex you consented to but regretted isn't rape or assault.


AC education is great.
All other things being equal, having it is better than not having it (although I personally have a hard time believing it is necessary as I personally would never push without the enthusiastic participation of my partner--it baffles me that other men would continue after his partner freezes up or shows a lack of interest).

The problem as I see it is that it doesn't seem to fix anything from the standpoint of knowing if something was consensual or if it was assault. We've already acknowledged that most assault cases have no witnesses other than the two involved, so it becomes a he said/she said thing, which is impossible to prove either way. AC won't change that one bit. An assaulter will simply say she gave AC when she didn't and a false accuse will simply say she didn't give AC when she did. As far as I can tell, this really solves nothing. (Women already know that false accusation is a crime just as men already know sexual assault is a crime)..

I know throwing a wet blanket on things doesn't help and I don't yet have a better solution, so I'm not going to argue against AC. Just noting it is far from a panacea.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Which is what I've been saying this whole time.


But isn't part of affirmative consent the ability to withdraw consent at any time? Without impairment, that can be fairly clear cut. Throw alcohol and or drugs into the mix, and that throws a cornerstone of AC right out the window. Previous consent does not imply current consent either. Consenting an hour earlier while sober counting as consent an hour later while drunk and incapable of giving consent would be a hard sell for some people.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> So Rocky just to be clear about my response above and the rest of them I have made about this....I am indeed the same type of feminist that JD and FF are. It may seem like a nice thing to say that you don't consider me in that camp, but to me it is actually a privilege to be in their camp.


Wasn't trying to be nice--just calling it like I see it. 
I've never seen you make blanket statements about men the way they have. If you identify with them, that is of course your choice and I appreciate you being direct about it.


----------



## 269370

samyeagar said:


> But isn't part of affirmative consent the ability to withdraw consent at any time? Without impairment, that can be fairly clear cut. Throw alcohol and or drugs into the mix, and that throws a cornerstone of AC right out the window. Previous consent does not imply current consent either. Consenting an hour earlier while sober counting as consent an hour later while drunk and incapable of giving consent would be a hard sell for some people.


Can somebody explain to me, the idiot, what in the **** is wrong with consent? What makes *affirmative* consent so amazingly special?

"Son, did you get her consent to give her cunnilinctus to her satisfaction?"

"Yes, dad, she had 2 orgasms and was *super* satisfied".

"But did you get *affirmative* consent?"

"What?"

"Get the lawyer on the phone, now!"

Is it because we just learnt a new word, that it will make people somehow pay more attention to something that was around all along? (Now not talking about legislatory consequences).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> AC education is great.
> All other things being equal, having it is better than not having it (although I personally have a hard time believing it is necessary as I personally would never push without the enthusiastic participation of my partner--it baffles me that other men would continue after his partner freezes up or shows a lack of interest).
> 
> The problem as I see it is that it doesn't seem to fix anything from the standpoint of knowing if something was consensual or if it was assault. We've already acknowledged that most assault cases have no witnesses other than the two involved, so it becomes a he said/she said thing, which is impossible to prove either way. AC won't change that one bit. An assaulter will simply say she gave AC when she didn't and a false accuse will simply say she didn't give AC when she did. As far as I can tell, this really solves nothing. (Women already know that false accusation is a crime just as men already know sexual assault is a crime)..
> 
> I know throwing a wet blanket on things doesn't help and I don't yet have a better solution, so I'm not going to argue against AC. Just noting it is far from a panacea.


No one has ever said AC would be a panacea.

Everything you have written above is why we women don’t have any suggestions on how to avoid someone lying. He can say she said yes when she didn’t, and she can say she didn’t say yes when she did.

This is why I don’t understand why there are so many men asking us what men are supposed to do if falsely accused. Get a lawyer, is all I’ve got (and is beyond obvious). Not that that would change the outcome because a judge may still believe the accusations. But maybe with some investigation the lawyer could uncover something like texts written to a friend of the accuser which prove they did consent, such as with the Asia what’s her name case (only in reverse since she actually is guilty of statutory rape).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Wasn't trying to be nice--just calling it like I see it.
> I've never seen you make blanket statements about men the way they have. If you identify with them, that is of course your choice and I appreciate you being direct about it.


Thank you. I still don’t agree that women (at least not FF, WJ or NS) were making blanket statements on this thread but, we already know we disagree on that part. :smile2:


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> No one has ever said AC would be a panacea.
> 
> Everything you have written above is why we women don’t have any suggestions on how to avoid someone lying. He can say she said yes when she didn’t, and she can say she didn’t say yes when she did.
> 
> This is why I don’t understand why there are so many men asking us what men are supposed to do if falsely accused. Get a lawyer, is all I’ve got (and is beyond obvious). Not that that would change the outcome because a judge may still believe the accusations. But maybe with some investigation the lawyer could uncover something like texts written to a friend of the accuser which prove they did consent, such as with the Asia what’s her name case (only in reverse since she actually is guilty of statutory rape).


I don't think anybody is expecting you or anyone else to develop a foolproof remedy against false accusations. We know that's simply not within the realm of possibility and we accept that. The problem is in the willingness to accept a lower threshold for conviction, which is exactly what a few posters here stated outright or at least hinted at before subsequently backpedaling so hard they broke their bikes.


----------



## samyeagar

inmyprime said:


> Can somebody explain to me, the idiot, what in the **** is wrong with consent? What makes *affirmative* consent so amazingly special?
> 
> "Son, did you get her consent to give her cunnilinctus to her satisfaction?"
> 
> "Yes, dad, she had 2 orgasms and was *super* satisfied".
> 
> "But did you get *affirmative* consent?"
> 
> "What?"
> 
> "Get the lawyer on the phone, now!"
> 
> Is it because we just learnt a new word, that it will make people somehow pay more attention to something that was around all along? (Now not talking about legislatory consequences).


I think one of the envisioned benefits of AFFIRMATIVE consent is to help remove ambiguity and more narrowly define what is an acceptable form of consent. Remove some of the guesswork by defining that anything other than affirmative verbal consent does not count as consent should questions arise later down the line.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> But isn't part of affirmative consent the ability to withdraw consent at any time? Without impairment, that can be fairly clear cut. Throw alcohol and or drugs into the mix, and that throws a cornerstone of AC right out the window. Previous consent does not imply current consent either. Consenting an hour earlier while sober counting as consent an hour later while drunk and incapable of giving consent would be a hard sell for some people.


AC (as a best practices education) is not just for clueless college kids. 

Some of us full grown kinky ass adults love adding booze or (some kinds of) drugs to the sexual experience. Therefore there are guidelines for this. 

It is true that anyone can remove consent at any time so there is still a risk of being too intoxicated to honor each other’s consent or lack of it. AC education would be hammering home this point to anyone who is learning it, but since there will always be people who actually want to add booze to their sexual experiences, AC has guidelines for that, too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I don't think anybody is expecting you or anyone else to develop a foolproof remedy against false accusations. We know that's simply not within the realm of possibility and we accept that. The problem is in the willingness to accept a lower threshold for conviction, which is exactly what a few posters here stated outright or at least hinted at before subsequently backpedaling so hard they broke their bikes.


I still do not agree that this is what was meant or said, or that there was any back peddling.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> I still do not agree that this is what was meant or said, or that there was any back peddling.


Maybe it's just my dull, Neanderthal Y chromosome talking, but I don't see how 

_"Beyond a reasonable doubt is right and necessary because you are taking from someone their Constitutional right to liberty. There is no Constitutional right to attendance at a college or university."_

is not advocating for a lower threshold for conviction. This clearly states that "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply in campus accusations. The only alternative proffered has been "a preponderance of the evidence" which is a lower threshold.

Jade has said more than once "I don't want to see innocent men get convicted" but then follows it up with "_*but *_getting kicked out of college isn't as big a deal as getting assaulted. Why throw that "but" in there if not to change the balance between the two ills?


----------



## 269370

samyeagar said:


> I think one of the envisioned benefits of AFFIRMATIVE consent is to help remove ambiguity....


Does it? 

It's a dream. But anything that gets people listening, thinking or talking is maybe worthwhile dream. I give you that.

So does it mean she needs to say the words ("yes") and without it, it's just regular consent? 

I still am confused as to what type of consent I managed to obtain if she bends over, spreads her ass and looks cluelessly at me with a look that may resemble fearful anticipation? 

Have people who have come up with this actually *had *sex, like, ever?


----------



## personofinterest

I am all for affirmative consent as long as we also acknowledge that VERBAL consent is the standard. The minute I start hearing "well, she didn't say no,, but he should have stopped anyway because....." I tune out. Because that isn't affirmative consent. Now obviously, duh, why even mention it, if her non-no is fighting and pushing and kicking - duh. No need to even toss out such a stupid "but what about" question.

I'm talking about those situations we all know we are talking about. She says later she wasn't all that happy about it and really didn't wanna be there, but she never made that clear. And now she expects people to believe she was assaulted.

THOSE are the cases I hear a subset of women STILL vehemently declaring to be rape and assault. And when I say subset of women, I am not talking about TAM. I am talking about things I hear on the news, see at rallies, and read on various websites.

If we are going to live by affirmative consent, then we need to live by it....no vagueries. If she participates without protest on Friday night, she can't go to the police on Monday morning and call it rape.

Just like, if she says no and pushes a man away, and then he keeps going despite her protests, he can't say "but she was wet and she kissed me." Nope, sorry. She said no.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Maybe it's just my dull, Neanderthal Y chromosome talking, but I don't see how
> 
> _"Beyond a reasonable doubt is right and necessary because you are taking from someone their Constitutional right to liberty. There is no Constitutional right to attendance at a college or university."_
> 
> is not advocating for a lower threshold for conviction. This clearly states that "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply in campus accusations. The only alternative proffered has been "a preponderance of the evidence" which is a lower threshold.
> 
> Jade has said more than once "I don't want to see innocent men get convicted" but then follows it up with "_*but *_getting kicked out of college isn't as big a deal as getting assaulted. Why throw that "but" in there if not to change the balance between the two ills?


You can take that up with Jade if you actually want to know her thoughts. I’m not going to speak for her on specific posts (not that you asked me to).

I would suggest if you do actually want to know what she meant, thinks, feels, etc. on this topic, that you first assume you don’t know what she meant, thinks, feels, etc.

Otherwise, if you are simply going to discount anything she may say as “back peddling”, I don’t see how you will ever really know what she meant, thinks, feels. etc.


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I am all for affirmative consent as long as we also acknowledge that VERBAL consent is the standard.


VERBAL consent has always been the goal of AC.


----------



## personofinterest

Faithful Wife said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am all for affirmative consent as long as we also acknowledge that VERBAL consent is the standard.
> 
> 
> 
> VERBAL consent has always been the goal of AC.
Click to expand...

 I must just do a whole lot more reading. Because trust me when I say there are plenty of people and groups out there who don't think verbal is enough. And I am not misunderstanding what I read in these cases.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I am all for affirmative consent as long as we also acknowledge that VERBAL consent is the standard. The minute I start hearing "well, she didn't say no,, but he should have stopped anyway because....." I tune out. Because that isn't affirmative consent. Now obviously, duh, why even mention it, if her non-no is fighting and pushing and kicking - duh. No need to even toss out such a stupid "but what about" question.
> 
> I'm talking about those situations we all know we are talking about. She says later she wasn't all that happy about it and really didn't wanna be there, but she never made that clear. And now she expects people to believe she was assaulted.
> 
> THOSE are the cases I hear a subset of women STILL vehemently declaring to be rape and assault. And when I say subset of women, I am not talking about TAM. I am talking about things I hear on the news, see at rallies, and read on various websites.
> 
> If we are going to live by affirmative consent, then we need to live by it....no vagueries. If she participates without protest on Friday night, she can't go to the police on Monday morning and call it rape.
> 
> Just like, if she says no and pushes a man away, and then he keeps going despite her protests, he can't say "but she was wet and she kissed me." Nope, sorry. She said no.




But why not make it even clearer? Why not make a special affirmative affirmative secret special code sign that, everyone is going to abide by, and NOBODY can ever mistake for anything else, just on the off chance that a verbal yes or no may not be so clear?

Say, if you are agreeing to sex, you have to bark twice, twirl once, fart thrice and click your fingers while speaking speaking mandarin: then we can DEFINITELY be sure that there is no misunderstanding.
My God. 
Sorry, I still don’t understand what’s wrong with getting regular consent. Isn’t it perhaps more important to educate people what constitutes consent and what doesn’t? Is t it perhaps not more important to learn how not to get yourself into ****ty situations you may regret later? Isn’t it more important to eat more fibre regularly? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

personofinterest said:


> I must just do a whole lot more reading. Because trust me when I say there are plenty of people and groups out there who don't think verbal is enough. And I am not misunderstanding what I read in these cases.


Those would be people who aren’t educated in actual AC then.

We can’t help what some people do not understand or what they profess to know about AC.

If their opinion is that non verbal or no consent isn’t ok, then they are just stating their own opinion.


----------



## musicftw07

personofinterest said:


> I am all for affirmative consent as long as we also acknowledge that VERBAL consent is the standard. The minute I start hearing "well, she didn't say no,, but he should have stopped anyway because....." I tune out. Because that isn't affirmative consent. Now obviously, duh, why even mention it, if her non-no is fighting and pushing and kicking - duh. No need to even toss out such a stupid "but what about" question.
> 
> I'm talking about those situations we all know we are talking about. She says later she wasn't all that happy about it and really didn't wanna be there, but she never made that clear. And now she expects people to believe she was assaulted.
> 
> THOSE are the cases I hear a subset of women STILL vehemently declaring to be rape and assault. And when I say subset of women, I am not talking about TAM. I am talking about things I hear on the news, see at rallies, and read on various websites.
> 
> If we are going to live by affirmative consent, then we need to live by it....no vagueries. If she participates without protest on Friday night, she can't go to the police on Monday morning and call it rape.
> 
> Just like, if she says no and pushes a man away, and then he keeps going despite her protests, he can't say "but she was wet and she kissed me." Nope, sorry. She said no.


I've been following this thread with great interest, and this sums it up nicely. Both the man and woman have equal responsibility to communicate to each other about what is and is not okay.

Prior posts by women expressed ire by saying "You're placing all the responsibility on women". Speaking as a man, my perception is that in the aggregate (not talking about TAM) women are trying to place all of the responsibility on men while absolving themselves of any in sexual dynamics. The reality is she DOES have responsibilities; to communicate what she is comfortable doing, and to communicate if that changes. If she fails to do any of those things, then it feels like the man is automatically labeled the aggressor when she didn't clearly express her lack of consent. (Men not being mind readers.)

I'm not talking about obvious forced rape here. I'm talking about the supposed gray area that this thread seems to be focused on.

Yes, men need education on consent. Yes, men should get verbal consent. Yes, men have responsibilities to meet when engaging in sex.

But that doesn't absolve women of their responsibilities. They need just as much education about consent; to clearly communicate, to not be ambiguous, and if they are unsure to err on the side of caution and say no. They have to be active participants in the affirmative consent dialogue, which means they too have responsibilities to uphold if they choose to express their sexuality. Just like men.

These are all things that I will eagerly and gladly express to my daughter when she reaches physical maturity. To never be afraid to tell a man no, that she doesn't have to do anything she doesn't want to do, that her comfort level matters, that sex and drugs/alcohol are a potentially dangerous combination, and to clearly express all of that to her partner. I would say the same exact thing if my child were a boy instead.

As a father to a daughter I would enjoy seeing consent education target women just as much as men. My perception is this doesn't happen much, although I could be wrong.


----------



## personofinterest

The problem is that even though many people say they absolutely are clear on what constitutes consent, they actually art, because if a Gray area situation occurs that falls outside of the so called verbal consent rule, the man is still usually assumed to be guilty by default. Yes… he is. At least we need to be honest. So while verbal consent is hailed as the answer, women still have a get out of jail free card if they didn't really mean it or the man didn't figure out their body language well enough. So we need to say what we actually mean and stick to what we say we actually main. There are people who are still not prepared to do that.

And as for not getting into bed situations, that is alredy a dangerous tight rope. According to some groups, implying that getting overly drunk or walking down a dark alley had to am in a rough neighborhood or any other number of things might be a badd idea is absolutely an unequivocal bully victim shaming. Even though it's not actually victim shaming. So you have to be very careful about warning against not so bright behaviors. Because there are people who will nay jerk to the claim that you are blaming the victim if you mention being overly intoxicated or you know being in a gang infested area at 3 o'clock in the morning or other things that just are not a good idea.

In an ideal world, verbal consent is enough. In reality, I am not sure it would be that simple.


----------



## personofinterest

I actually read a "in an article where a woman said that she should be able to walk down any street she wanted Stark naked as drunk as she wanted to be while grabbing men's crotches as they passed by if that's what she chose. I mean, I understand the underlying principle, but as long as we have a subset of people spewing that kind of ridiculous scrap. We aren't going to have a real dialog. And just like as a Christian I call out people who are ridiculous Li mis representing Christianity, if a woman was screaming that kind of krapp mis representing the part of the group I say II dentify with, I would call her out on her idiocy instead of getting mad at everybody else for reacting to her idiocy.


----------



## 269370

Why do people assume that regular consent EXCLUDES verbal consent?

Regular consent does NOT assume you just walk around thinking everything and everyone wants to **** you uncontrollably.

Out of interest, has anyone actually GOOGLED the definition of Affirmative Consent?

http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/policies/affirmative-consent/


“Affirmative consent is a knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity. Consent can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in the sexual activity. Silence or lack of resistance, in and of itself, does not demonstrate consent. The definition of consent does not vary based upon a participant's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

Notice in particular the words “or actions” in it.

But i do think this type of consent is really a huge step forward and is oh so progressive, because it talks about the much needed “gender identity and gender expression” that the old consent did not include and this is so totally new and cool and will definitely solve the world. And if it doesn’t, people just didn’t know how to use it properly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

"Silence or lack of resistance, in and of itself, does not demonstrate consent"

The sentence would scare me to death if I was a man.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I actually read a "in an article where a woman said that she should be able to walk down any street she wanted Stark naked as drunk as she wanted to be while grabbing men's crotches as they passed by if that's what she chose.



As long nobody says ‘hello’ to her, she should be fine:

https://youtu.be/WpvnO0p9KvU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> "Silence or lack of resistance, in and of itself, does not demonstrate consent"
> 
> The sentence would scare me to death if I was a man.




Not really, if you have a brain, as a man. 

I would just extend it to: 

“Silence or lack of resistance, as well as screams for help and vigorous scratching, in and of itself, does not demonstrate consent". Just to make it doubly clear that you are not supposed to rape, in case it wasn’t obvious.

But if you think about it, this sentence totally contradicts the whole being all ‘verbal’ about it.

See, if I was in a situation where I asked a girl: “is it ok if I had sex with you now?” And she said ‘yes’ but I completely disregarded everything else, including her shaking, crying or trying to get away, I am not sure I would feel that good about myself... But hey, i got her to say ‘yes’ so mission accomplished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> "Silence or lack of resistance, in and of itself, does not demonstrate consent"
> 
> The sentence would scare me to death if I was a man.



The point is, Affirmative Consent is NOT all about ‘verbal consent’. And it’s weird that people who argue for it so vehemently and why it’s so amazing don’t even know what the basic definition is. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## musicftw07

inmyprime said:


> As long nobody says ‘hello’ to her, she should be fine:
> 
> https://youtu.be/WpvnO0p9KvU
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No it wouldn't. It would be sexual assault. And the man would be within his legal right to press charges.


----------



## 269370

musicftw07 said:


> No it wouldn't. It would be sexual assault. And the man would be within his legal right to press charges.




Oh yeah. You are right. I forgot. Must go and write on the wall 10 times:
“getting my crotch grabbed by women is not supposed to be a good thing”
Dammit. I hate it when women are not supposed to assault me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## musicftw07

inmyprime said:


> Oh yeah. You are right. I forgot. Must go and write on the wall 10 times:
> “getting my crotch grabbed by women is not supposed to be a good thing”
> Dammit. I hate it when women are not supposed to assault me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


While I understand the sentiment, I'm all for equality between the sexes even more.

(This is my grand scheme to make it so everybody can go around grabbing all the crotches they want! Shhhh, don't tell anybody, it's our secret!)


----------



## 269370

musicftw07 said:


> While I understand the sentiment, I'm all for equality between the sexes even more.
> 
> 
> 
> (This is my grand scheme to make it so everybody can go around grabbing all the crotches they want! Shhhh, don't tell anybody, it's our secret!)



I also believe in equality and think women are more equal than men  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

Speaking As A Moderator:

Look, folks. I have had my fair share of dust-ups with females on this board over some of the more extremist views of feminism. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean my methods of doing so were right, even if I believe my views to be right.

A 30-second Google search can find an idiot behind any cause. Let's not grab that idiot and try to illustrate it as the norm when it is clearly the outlier. 

And if you lack the ability to ask the norm/outlier question of yourself sensibly, then ask yourself if you actually know somebody in real life who is like that.

The sensationalizing and rhetoric stops now. It is impossible to have honest, respectful dialogue with either of them injected into the conversation. 





Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Holdingontoit

musicftw07 said:


> These are all things that I will eagerly and gladly express to my daughter when she reaches physical maturity. To never be afraid to tell a man no, that she doesn't have to do anything she doesn't want to do, that her comfort level matters, that sex and drugs/alcohol are a potentially dangerous combination, and to clearly express all of that to her partner. I would say the same exact thing if my child were a boy instead.


when my daughter went away to college, I told her the following:

If you are at a party, a few things to keep in mind:

 do not leave alone - leave with a girlfriend or buddy or call the campus "walk you home" service
 do not leave with some guy from class you just met that day - you don't know him well enough to know he is safe
 do not go upstairs to a boys room unless you intend to have sex - once you are alone in a room it is no longer up to you whether sex occurs (it should be, but in practice it isn't)
 life is not fair, you should be able to go anywhere and do anything and say "no" at the last minute - but in the real world if you go certain places and do certain things you may find that your freedom to say no has as a practicle matter been taken away from you 
 being able to file a police report and complain afterward does not necessarily make the original pain and humiliation go away

In a perfect world she would have more freedom to engage in carefree behavior and not suffer consequences. In our world she needs to realize that some people are evil and some people are morons and she can only control her own behavior. Note that I did not say she shouldn't go to parties or she shouldn't get drunk or go upstairs alone with a boy or have sex. I only said not to do the first 3 and then think she has the absolute power to quickly and easily and risklessly prevent the fourth from happening.


----------



## personofinterest

Holdingontoit said:


> when my daughter went away to college, I told her the following:
> 
> If you are at a party, a few things to keep in mind:
> 
> do not leave alone - leave with a girlfriend or buddy or call the campus "walk you home" service
> do not leave with some guy from class you just met that day - you don't know him well enough to know he is safe
> do not go upstairs to a boys room unless you intend to have sex - once you are alone in a room it is no longer up to you whether sex occurs (it should be, but in practice it isn't)
> life is not fair, you should be able to go anywhere and do anything and say "no" at the last minute - but in the real world if you go certain places and do certain things you may find that your freedom to say no has as a practicle matter been taken away from you
> being able to file a police report and complain afterward does not necessarily make the original pain and humiliation go away
> 
> In a perfect world she would have more freedom to engage in carefree behavior and not suffer consequences. In our world she needs to realize that some people are evil and some people are morons and she can only control her own behavior. Note that I did not say she shouldn't go to parties or she shouldn't get drunk or go upstairs alone with a boy or have sex. I only said not to do the first 3 and then think she has the absolute power to quickly and easily and risklessly prevent the fourth from happening.


While unfortunate in parts, this is EXCELLENT and PRUDENT advice to give your daughter. I would add:

Don't give away YOUR power to say NO by assuming it is the man's job to "get" consent.


Last night I was rehearsing with the band I sing with. We do a variety of genres from a variety of decades. When we rehearsed "Fire" by the Pointer Sisters, I couldn't help but chuckle. I wonder when someone is gonna throw a bottle at my head for singing that lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> Speaking As A Moderator:
> 
> Look, folks. I have had my fair share of dust-ups with females on this board over some of the more extremist views of feminism. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean my methods of doing so were right, even if I believe my views to be right.
> 
> A 30-second Google search can find an idiot behind any cause. Let's not grab that idiot and try to illustrate it as the norm when it is clearly the outlier.
> 
> And if you lack the ability to ask the norm/outlier question of yourself sensibly, then ask yourself if you actually know somebody in real life who is like that.
> 
> The sensationalizing and rhetoric stops now. It is impossible to have honest, respectful dialogue with either of them injected into the conversation.


Thanks....


----------



## personofinterest

I'd like to apologize for using pejorative terms and caricatures in several of my posts and to apologize personally for any offense or hurt I caused. It is important to me to make sure I acknowledge when my words and attitude hurt someone else.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks....


Just ftr, it was you who insisted on aligning yourself with the extremists, not any of us. I did my best to agree that you are not an extremist, but rather a thoughtful contributor.


----------



## uhtred

People often seem confused by the difference between taking precautions, and being responsible / at-fault if you don't take precautions. 

If I walk at night in a bad part of town, and am robbed, I didn't take precautions, but that doesn't mean that it is my *fault* that I was robbed. There may also have been a very good reason I was walking in that area at that time - and it is absolutely my right to do so.

Women do not *have* to take actions to stay away from situations where sexual assault might happen, but it would be of some benefit to them to consider doing so. They should not *need* to take precautions, and in all cases the attacker is 100% responsible. 







personofinterest said:


> snip
> 
> And as for not getting into bed situations, that is alredy a dangerous tight rope. According to some groups, implying that getting overly drunk or walking down a dark alley had to am in a rough neighborhood or any other number of things might be a badd idea is absolutely an unequivocal bully victim shaming. Even though it's not actually victim shaming. So you have to be very careful about warning against not so bright behaviors. Because there are people who will nay jerk to the claim that you are blaming the victim if you mention being overly intoxicated or you know being in a gang infested area at 3 o'clock in the morning or other things that just are not a good idea.
> 
> In an ideal world, verbal consent is enough. In reality, I am not sure it would be that simple.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Just ftr, it was you who insisted on aligning yourself with the extremists, not any of us. I did my best to agree that you are not an extremist, but rather a thoughtful contributor.



Hmmmm...I’m not sure where this comes from...my saying “thanks” to FSJ didn’t have anything to do with me being called or considered an extremist. It doesn’t bother me to be considered an extremist by people on this thread about this topic. What some are calling extremist is to me just normal persons thinking. 

I do consider myself a thoughtful contributor whether others think I’m an extremist or not. Thank you for seeing me as thoughtful though, I appreciate that and back atcha. 

My thanks to FSJ was simply because he is trying to get the tribe back into stability.


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> Speaking As A Moderator:
> 
> Look, folks. I have had my fair share of dust-ups with females on this board over some of the more extremist views of feminism. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean my methods of doing so were right, even if I believe my views to be right.



Just to clarify what you are saying: are there any “correct” methods to address issues that are directly rooted in extremist feminism? Or are you saying that those issues are not to be addressed on TAM full stop? 

In every day life, if someone makes a remark to do with any particular extremist view, whether it is criticism or something funny, people either laugh, discuss or disregard it. Only someone who actually aligns and identifies themselves with those extremist views would take offence. Which is what seems to have happened but I’m open minded and happy to be corrected. I’m just trying to understand where TAM stands on this issues to try and minimise future misunderstandings.

Thanks.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Holdingontoit

uhtred said:


> If I walk at night in a bad part of town, and am robbed, I didn't take precautions, but that doesn't mean that it is my *fault* that I was robbed. There may also have been a very good reason I was walking in that area at that time - and it is absolutely my right to do so.


That is correct. But not exactly what we are discussing here.

The analogous question is whether and to what extent you have to express your opposition to the robber before you let them rob you? Do you have to say "no, I do not want to give you my wallet" before you hand it over? Do you have to fight to prevent them from taking your wallet? Or do you just take a look and see that they are bigger and likely rougher and tougher than you and hand over the wallet "voluntarily"? If you hand over the wallet without a fight, does that mean you weren't robbed? That the transaction was voluntary? THAT is what is at stake here.

And that is why I tell my kids that if they don't want to get robbed, they should stay away from the bad part of town.


----------



## Holdingontoit

Here is another distinction from robbery that makes this issue complicated for feminists. In a robbery, if we have evidence that the accused ended up with your wallet, that is evidence that they committed a crime. After all, it is assumed you would not voluntarily hand your wallet over to an unrelated stranger. So the question of whether the transfer was voluntary rarely comes up.

But if we start from the same assumption as regards rape (if we have any evidence that sex occurred, then we assume it was involuntary), then we are in murky waters for feminists. Now we are questioning gender equality and norms and implicating whether women desire sex and enjoy sex as much as men do. Now we are risk slipping into the view that sex is something that males "take" from females rather than something that couples share and find mutually and equally enjoyable. But if we start from a view of strict equality, very difficult to find in favor of the female victim in a "he said, she said" scenario. it is only by "putting one's thumb on the scale" and accepting that women generally do NOT want sex as much as men do that we are tempted to believe the woman when she said it was involuntary in the absence of evidence one way or the other besides the 2 people's testimony.

I think that is why there is some pushback among feminists for lowering the standard of proof required to convict someone of rape. Lowering the standard implies there are different attitudes toward sex between the genders. Feminists have been fighting against that view for decades.


----------



## personofinterest

Holdingontoit said:


> Here is another distinction from robbery that makes this issue complicated for feminists. In a robbery, if we have evidence that the accused ended up with your wallet, that is evidence that they committed a crime. After all, it is assumed you would not voluntarily hand your wallet over to an unrelated stranger. So the question of whether the transfer was voluntary rarely comes up.
> 
> But if we start from the same assumption as regards rape (if we have any evidence that sex occurred, then we assume it was involuntary), then we are in murky waters for feminists. Now we are questioning gender equality and norms and implicating whether women desire sex and enjoy sex as much as men do. Now we are risk slipping into the view that sex is something that males "take" from females rather than something that couples share and find mutually and equally enjoyable. But if we start from a view of strict equality, very difficult to find in favor of the female victim in a "he said, she said" scenario. it is only by "putting one's thumb on the scale" and accepting that women generally do NOT want sex as much as men do that we are tempted to believe the woman when she said it was involuntary in the absence of evidence one way or the other besides the 2 people's testimony.
> 
> *I think that is why there is some pushback among feminists for lowering the standard of proof required to convict someone of rape. Lowering the standard implies there are different attitudes toward sex between the genders. Feminists have been fighting against that view for decades.*


It's definitely hard to navigate. Add to that that there are people who actually believe the opposite of the bolded. They believe the standard of evidence SHOULD be lowered. It is not worded that way, but encouraging the default position to always be that the woman is to be believed does exactly that. I'm not speaking of any particular person, just pointing out that in order to TRULY be on equal footing, neither gender would have the "believably advantage" so to speak.

I don't want to give the power over my body to another person. When the law states that men are responsible for "getting" consent, what we are really doing is giving more of women's power away. I feel more empowered having the power to say no than waiting for a man to ask yes. But that is just me. I don't want to go into a situation assuming it;s the man's job to get the yes. That puts me in the passive role in a way.

Ideally, this would be a team effort. Men would be educated in the importance of knowing they have consent, and women would be educated in how to say no. Remove one or the other, and one gender has less power. Equality means equality...which also means equal responsibility.

If I were still dating, and I found myself in a situation where I never said no and he never asked yes.....sans some sort of clear protest on my part, no one is guilty of assault. Now, I might wake up the next morning and be ashamed or grossed out that I had sex with Bob....but he didn't assault me.

It won't be the cases where Bob clearly ignored the no or cases where Suzy clearly said yes that will ever be a real problem. It will always be those "nobody really said anything and it happened" cases. And while they might be embarrassing and regrettable....I'm not sure they are typically assault. And that is where the disagreement can lie.


----------



## farsidejunky

TAM stands neither for nor against feminism. There is not a "standard party line" here. Each moderator is an individual, with their own beliefs and views. We are not Borg.

You are more than welcome to espouse your views if done in a respectful manner. 

As a moderator, we weigh in when respect wanes. This is normally in an attempt to prevent escalation which inevitably leads to bans.

Nothing more, nothing less.



inmyprime said:


> Just to clarify what you are saying: are there any “correct” methods to address issues that are directly rooted in extremist feminism? Or are you saying that those issues are not to be addressed on TAM full stop?
> 
> In every day life, if someone makes a remark to do with any particular extremist view, whether it is criticism or something funny, people either laugh, discuss or disregard it. Only someone who actually aligns and identifies themselves with those extremist views would take offence. Which is what seems to have happened but I’m open minded and happy to be corrected. I’m just trying to understand where TAM stands on this issues to try and minimise future misunderstandings.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by FrenchFry
> "You highly over estimate the sympathy of men."
> Piling on by WildJade
> "And underestimate the sympathy of women."
> 
> Is it any wonder people might interpret things a certain way with attitudes like that?
> 
> And, oh btw, these posts preceded any "feminist bashing."



Please, let me take a moment to clarify the context here. @Buddy400 made a blanket claim that virtually all men care about sexual assault and the virtually no women care about false accusations.

@FrenchFry responded that he was likely overestimating the sympathy of men. Why would she say this? I can't speak for her, but I imagine it has something to do with the rates of sexual assault. If virtually all men were sympathetic on this topic, we wouldn't even have this problem.

Then you accuse me of piling on when I point out that actually women do have quite a bit of sympathy for false accusations. Why, pray tell, is this "piling on"? Did you not see the expressions of sympathy coming from women on this thread? Why is it okay for Buddy to make disparaging comments about women, but it's "piling on" for me to suggest that in fact women do have sympathy?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> Please, let me take a moment to clarify the context here. @Buddy400 made a blanket claim that virtually all men care about sexual assault and the virtually no women care about false accusations.
> 
> @FrenchFry responded that he was likely overestimating the sympathy of men. Why would she say this? I can't speak for her, but I imagine it has something to do with the rates of sexual assault. If virtually all men were sympathetic on this topic, we wouldn't even have this problem.
> 
> Then you accuse me of piling on when I point out that actually women do have quite a bit of sympathy for false accusations. Why, pray tell, is this "piling on"? Did you not see the expressions of sympathy coming from women on this thread? Why is it okay for Buddy to make disparaging comments about women, but it's "piling on" for me to suggest that in fact women do have sympathy?


I do appreciate that clarification of context. That does make some sense so I relent on the heinousness of the blanket statements. 

I do think virtually all men abhor sexual assault. Those who do it or condone it are a tiny minority. The damage they do is all out of proportion with their numbers, so they seem more prevalent than they are. 

But as far as the "sympathy of women" goes, I'm still skeptical. You are a perfect example. Despite your protestations of not being okay with false accusations, you preceded them with multiple exhortations of being kicked out of college not being a big deal ("they can always go to another college" which is false). This is classic minimizing, which never has a positive purpose behind it.


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Wild Jade has repeatedly said that because being kicked out of college is less traumatic (after all, you can just go to another college--oh, wait, even that is a false minimization because you cant get into another college with a sexual assault expulsion on your record) than sexual assault, that the threshold for action against the accused should be much lower. Again, how can you (she) say that sexual assault is so heinous on one hand, but that carrying the stigma of expulsion for sexual assault is no biggie?


What I said was this: It is less traumatic to be treated unjustly (that is kicked out of college for a false accusation) than it is to be raped and then have to leave college because you are being treated unjustly. This was in direct response to another poster who said it was exactly the same thing.

I also have pointed out time and time again that universities are NOT in the business of pressing criminal charges, nor do they mark your permanent record. The decisions made there are a very different thing I even recounted examples where students have been kicked out and then found themselves in even better institutions afterwards. 

Let me clarify: This is not to discount the hardship faced by those who might have a black mark on their transcript. It is to put the conversation into perspective. Yes, it is still very, very wrong to kick someone out of college for no reason. 

It's interesting to me that you see college as a right. The reality is that up until very recently only the most privileged members of society were able to attend. Personally, I would never advocate going back to those bad old days, but at the same time don't think college is a right. In order to attend you have to first be accepted, second ensure that your performance is sufficiently high, and third, follow all of the rules.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> What I said was this: It is less traumatic to be treated unjustly (that is kicked out of college for a false accusation) than it is to be raped and then have to leave college because you are being treated unjustly. This was in direct response to another poster who said it was exactly the same thing.
> 
> I also have pointed out time and time again that universities are NOT in the business of pressing criminal charges, nor do they mark your permanent record. The decisions made there are a very different thing I even recounted examples where students have been kicked out and then found themselves in even better institutions afterwards.
> 
> Let me clarify: *This is not to discount the hardship faced by those who might have a black mark on their transcript. * It is to put the conversation into perspective. Yes, it is still very, very wrong to kick someone out of college for no reason.
> 
> It's interesting to me that you see college as a right. The reality is that up until very recently only the most privileged members of society were able to attend. Personally, I would never advocate going back to those bad old days, but at the same time don't think college is a right. In order to attend you have to first be accepted, second ensure that your performance is sufficiently high, and third, follow all of the rules.


First, let'st get one thing straight... I've never said college is a "right." But not facing a lower level of due process before being removed from same is indeed a right. 

Regarding the bold, it certainly seem like it is discounting it. The thing is, that black mark can follow the individual every day of their lives. It can manifest in very tangible ways, not just as a bad memory, or a negative emotional experience, but as a real, tangible, non-mental but genuinely material roadblock and a unrenouncable stigma. Brushing that off as, hey some of these guys get into other schools, is minimizing.


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> TAM stands neither for nor against feminism. There is not a "standard party line" here. Each moderator is an individual, with their own beliefs and views. We are not Borg.
> 
> You are more than welcome to espouse your views if done in a respectful manner.
> 
> As a moderator, we weigh in when respect wanes. This is normally in an attempt to prevent escalation which inevitably leads to bans.
> 
> Nothing more, nothing less.


Sorry, but you changed 'extremist feminism' in my post to 'feminism'. Which was not part of my question.

Do I take it that you are also referring to 'radical feminism' with this statement?


----------



## farsidejunky

This is fair as I did not distinguish between the two. 

So this would be the refined statement: the message board is neither for nor against any political ideology until there is a violation of the posted rules.



inmyprime said:


> Sorry, but you changed 'extremist feminism' in my post to 'feminism'. Which was not part of my question.
> 
> Do I take it that you are also referring to 'radical feminism' with this statement?


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Nobody has ever addressed the question what is so wrong with just regular consent? If a woman is unable to say 'no', why is it any better to expect her to be able to say 'yes'?


Honestly, I'm fine with consent, and see "affirmative" as mostly a question of emphasis. The issue, though is that before affirmative consent was "no means no". And while useful, it isn't enough because it didn't address all sorts of the grey zone areas, and didn't even get into consent -- the positive side of the coin.



inmyprime said:


> "(3) The hype around universities being run by pink-hatted screech-tards out to railroad young men is just that -- hype. And there is no evidence to support it."
> 
> So is the hype surrounding the rape culture. What's the difference?


The stats on actual sexual assault and rape are appalling, and there's no other word for it. Add to that the universities had a vested interest in rug-sweeping and pretending it didn't exist. Something had to change. 



inmyprime said:


> So I guess you haven't read any of the links or articles regarding what 'yes means yes' and lack of due process means. I will cut and paste the relevant bits for you then.


I have read everything you have posted and have addressed most of it. Obviously you don't agree with my arguments or point of view, but what keeps getting glossed over in these things is that we aren't talking about criminal trials here. And most people, even when they are found guilty aren't kicked out of school. 



inmyprime said:


> "(5) Universities are not in the business of conducting criminal trials. And the sorts of decisions they make are very different than the sorts of decisions that courts, trials, and juries make."
> 
> Ok...so are you saying they should get involved in sexual assault cases and have a say in the outcome of the student's future or should they not?


I'm saying they have to be involved in these things because they are happening on premises with students who are often minors. They have no choice but to be involved. They turn the criminal aspects over to the police, but still have to deal with the campus-specific issues.



inmyprime said:


> "(6)"Preponderance of evidence" does not mean that the lowest possible bar will be used or that there will be a sudden onslaught of people kicked out of university for no reason. (Remembering that universities have been kicking people out for various reasons for centuries without anyone saying a single word about it.)"
> 
> Really? Don't you think maybe it's because they haven't been throwing out so many innocent student before, *that's* why nobody made a fuss?


They aren't throwing out "so many" innocent students. Yes, you can find a high profile example or two in the media, but this is not the norm. Colleges are desperate to retain enrolment these days, and they are extremely risk adverse on top of that. 

Oh, and they are capable of being fair minded, and will actually find a false accusation to be false and punish the accuser. They will see the grey zone and realize where both were at fault. And so on. 



inmyprime said:


> "(7) Slinging around stats like 1 in 3 when you can't even commit to what the 1 in 3 even means or stands for is just random fire-fuelling for no good reason, and makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational discussion."
> 
> What figure are YOU comfortable with, for campuses? (with a source please)


What are we counting? So far, you've given me about 3 different things that this is a "stat" for. Tell me which one, and I'll share my take.


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> First, let'st get one thing straight... I've never said college is a "right." But not facing a lower level of due process before being removed from same is indeed a right.
> 
> Regarding the bold, it certainly seem like it is discounting it. The thing is, that black mark can follow the individual every day of their lives. It can manifest in very tangible ways, not just as a bad memory, or a negative emotional experience, but as a real, tangible, non-mental but genuinely material roadblock and a unrenouncable stigma. Brushing that off as, hey some of these guys get into other schools, is minimizing.


What do you think is the due process for expulsion in every other situation where a student is kicked out of school? 

As for the black mark on the transcript: We'll just have to agree to disagree. There are many, many examples of students getting kicked out for one reason or another, and it might hold them back a year ... which admittedly sucks, but is hardly the hardship that you are making it out to be.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> What do you think is the due process for expulsion in every other situation where a student is kicked out of school?
> 
> As for the black mark on the transcript: We'll just have to agree to disagree. There are many, many examples of students getting kicked out for one reason or another, and it might hold them back a year ... which admittedly sucks, but is hardly the hardship that you are making it out to be.


Oh, just a year. Again no biggie. 

And tell me, what top quality schools are welcoming dudes with the sexual assault scarlet letter on their resume?


----------



## wild jade

inmyprime said:


> Same link again. Last two paragraphs in particular. The 'guilty until proven innocent' methodology on campuses, with no proper due process, is not really up for debate anymore. *They don't even have to accept evidence to prove your innocence.* Why do you feel it is 'just a rhetoric'?
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...rtable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
> <snip>
> He was found not responsible for sexual misconduct. But he was found responsible for using R.M.’s name in the email asking for assistance and for sending her the Facebook friend request.
> 
> The university listed Bonsu’s offense as “failure to comply with the direction of university officials.” His punishment: suspension until May 31, 2016—by which time R.M. was expected to graduate—and a permanent ban from living on campus. He was also required to get counseling to address his “decision-making.”
> 
> Bonsu decided never to return to UMass. He applied to universities in other states, but was not accepted. He spent a year studying music at a community college, unable to pursue his engineering degree. Eventually he was accepted into the engineering program at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County, for the fall semester of 2016, a year and a half after he had left UMass. He is on track to finally graduate from college in the fall of 2018. UMass denied Bonsu’s allegations against it and otherwise declined to comment. Last September, his lawsuit against the university was settled for undisclosed terms.


Admittedly, the way this institution handled this sounds like a total **** show. Where I work, students are encouraged to bring in representation and their evidence is absolutely considered.

I will point out, though, that this student was found not responsible on the charge. So although he was treated terribly, he wasn't even found guilty. And he wasn't required to leave the university, he chose to. 

Again, I'm not trying to defend the university's actions on this, and I'm sure they deserved the lawsuit and the settlement they had to cough up.


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Oh, just a year. Again no biggie.
> 
> And tell me, what top quality schools are welcoming dudes with the sexual assault scarlet letter on their resume?


Not sure why you are so bent on twisting my words around. I know you don't believe it's possible, but for example, the dudes falsely accused in the Duke Lacrosse case ended up with like 20 million dollars each, and all went on to other schools and fine careers.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> Not sure why you are so bent on twisting my words around. I know you don't believe it's possible, but for example, the dudes falsely accused in the Duke Lacrosse case ended up with like 20 million dollars each, and all went on to other schools and fine careers.


What's twisting?You keep saying it's not a big deal. Why? Why is it so important to you to keep pushing that point if not part of some agenda?

Duke Lacrosse was a very high profile case. Not everyone has that benefit. 

I would never say a woman who was assaulted and wins a settlement against her assailant was better off. Geez, if I did, you'd be first in line with the pitchfork.


----------



## personofinterest

I am looking for jobs because my position now is a contract position. I just had transcripts sent from my Alma mater to a potential employer. My transcripts included grades. Being falsely accused of sexual assault doesn't show up on a transcript. It may show up in a disciplinary record. It's the Facebook and Instagram and local news and national news and gossip mill that makes it almost impossible to recover from an accusation. Expulsion from a school is not a mark on a transcript. Expulsion from my school is typically the end of an academic career, especially at that school. I'm just clarifying because transcripts are irrelevant when it comes to sexual assault charges. My transcript is what tells me what grade I made it my statistics class.


----------



## 269370

farsidejunky said:


> So this would be the refined statement: the message board is neither for nor against any political ideology until there is a violation of the posted rules.


Thanks for the clarification. Would it be ok for someone to discuss the benefits of fundamentalist Islam or Naziism, as long as it was done in a civil manner? 

I presume the line must be drawn somewhere. (Sorry, I can ask this on another thread if this is better).


----------



## personofinterest

Sailing I felt the need to clarify the transcript term because if one refers to a life changing accusation as a black mark on a transcript, either they do not understand what an official transcript actually does and does not contain, or it is a minimization of how serious any accusation can actually be.


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> What's twisting?You keep saying it's not a big deal. Why? Why is it so important to you to keep pushing that point if not part of some agenda?
> 
> Duke Lacrosse was a very high profile case. Not everyone has that benefit.
> 
> I would never say a woman who was assaulted and wins a settlement against her assailant was better off. Geez, if I did, you'd be first in line with the pitchfork.


I'm not saying "it's no big deal". I'm trying to put it into some sort of perspective. The reality is that false accusations happen only rarely, falsely accused people being found guilty happens even more rarely, and when it does, those people have recourse -- which turns out can be quite lucrative. 

This does not make it any less terrible of a thing to go through. But it isn't the devastating tragedy that you seem to be insisting that it is.


----------



## wild jade

personofinterest said:


> Sailing I felt the need to clarify the transcript term because if one refers to a life changing accusation as a black mark on a transcript, either they do not understand what an official transcript actually does and does not contain, or it is a minimization of how serious any accusation can actually be.


Oh, I quite understand what these contain. And I've watched students take those black marked transcripts and walk into another institution without even batting an eye.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> I'm not saying "it's no big deal". I'm trying to put it into some sort of perspective. The reality is that false accusations happen only rarely, falsely accused people being found guilty happens even more rarely, and when it does, those people have recourse -- which turns out can be quite lucrative.
> 
> This does not make it any less terrible of a thing to go through. But it isn't the devastating tragedy that you seem to be insisting that it is.


Case by case. 

And lets say it is not as big a deal as it appears in some cases. What is your point in pointing that out so vehemently? If you're so adamant about that, you must think it has some bearing on decision making and policy. Or is it just a random rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the core discussion?


----------



## personofinterest

wild jade said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sailing I felt the need to clarify the transcript term because if one refers to a life changing accusation as a black mark on a transcript, either they do not understand what an official transcript actually does and does not contain, or it is a minimization of how serious any accusation can actually be.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I quite understand what these contain. And I've watched students take those black marked transcripts and walk into another institution without even batting an eye.
Click to expand...

 So as long as they can get into another college, they really shouldn't whine about false accusations, right? Because Hey, having your character assassinated is just a little mark, right?


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Case by case.
> 
> And lets say it is not as big a deal as it appears in some cases. What is your point in pointing that out so vehemently? If you're so adamant about that, you must think it has some bearing on decision making and policy. Or is it just a random rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the core discussion?


I'm just trying to put it into perspective. So much of this discussion has been about how affirmative consent is an unmitigated disaster because it's out to ruin young men's lives, making them all guilty until proven innocent, railroading them out of university, destroying their lives. etcetera and so on.

I'm only offering the counterpoint. And I would've said it only once, and left it at that, except that my point was twisted into how I don't care about young men's lives, think they're all guilty until proven innocent, don't care if they are railroaded out of university. etcetera and so on.


----------



## wild jade

personofinterest said:


> So as long as they can get into another college, they really shouldn't whine about false accusations, right? Because Hey, having your character assassinated is just a little mark, right?


Ugh. Okay. You win. I give up.

False accusations are the only problem worth considering in this entire universe and we should stop all charges, criminal or otherwise, as there's a chance that the accusation might be false. Indeed, there's innocent people on death row which proves that even "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't even a strict enough standard. Instead, absolutely everyone should be off the hook for absolutely everything, as that would be way better than just one person having endure the trauma of being falsely accused.


----------



## Mr. Nail

There is a growing progressive movement to deny individual rights for the good of the whole community. This is just another such issue. The personal right of Due process being tossed out in favor of expediency and sending a message.

The real question here is, Is this really resulting in a safer community? 
Will this result in more cooperation with law enforcement, greater trust between the governed and the governors? What we have here is a heavily under reported, under prosecuted, under resolved, crime and without building the trust it won't improve. 

The follow up question is, Does denying individual freedoms ever result in a safer Community?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> I'm just trying to put it into perspective. So much of this discussion has been about how affirmative consent is an unmitigated disaster because it's out to ruin young men's lives, making them all guilty until proven innocent, railroading them out of university, destroying their lives. etcetera and so on.
> 
> I'm only offering the counterpoint. And I would've said it only once, and left it at that, except that my point was twisted into how I don't care about young men's lives, think they're all guilty until proven innocent, don't care if they are railroaded out of university. etcetera and so on.


But if the concern is that people are unreasonably panicking about fears of false accusation, the proper response is to demonstrate how those fears are unfounded. When you go beyond that to minimize the consequences, rather than focusing on the propensity for false conviction, you send a message, whether you admit it or not, that the don't care about the consequences. 

ftr, I don't think AC would be a disaster. I don't really see that it gives a woman more leverage to levy a false accusation than in a pre-AC world. Anything that was "he said/she said" before will still be so in the AC world. Nor does it protect women any more as he can always say she said yes. It may not be believed, but that's no different than him saying "she wanted it" in the past. Both sides, guilty or innocent, will still say what they think will help get the outcome they want. 

So this whole line of discussion seems even to me and my participation to be a rather tangential waste of time.

What I do think is a concern is that Unis are lowering the standard for applying the black mark. And this was taking place before any attempts to implement AC, so again, even that is tangential to a discussion of consent.


----------



## personofinterest

Because I have already pretty much sealed my fate haha, I'll just go for broke. At 12I was raped, and at 14 and 15I was repeatedly molested. Both these events were highly traumatic. As a middle aged woman I have 2 successful grown children and a career that I enjoy. I do occasion only get triggered by discussions of child abuse or sexual assault, but I have mostly recovered. My teacher friend who was accused by a student who later retracted her statement and suffer consequences for lying… his wife left him and he cannot support himself because he will never teach again. There is some perspective.


----------



## EllisRedding

personofinterest said:


> So as long as they can get into another college, they really shouldn't whine about false accusations, right? Because Hey, having your character assassinated is just a little mark, right?


Plus, it can go beyond college. If I am interviewing someone and I see that they switched colleges, that is something I would definitely ask about. Of course they could very well lie, but bringing up that you were kicked out of school for being a sexual assailant is not going to do you any favors here.

As well, and this goes along with comments made regarding, the idea being pushed that the default position is to always believe the woman is toxic. For better or worse, we have moved in the direction where social media to an extent drives society. All it takes is for someone to throw a false accusation out there on FB, IG, etc... and fast enough all the SJWs appear, throwing around hashtags. They will chase you offline, find where you live, contact your employer, etc... Evidence schmevidence, it is like the Wild Wild West out there, mob mentality an all ... I think we are a point now where false accusations can do a lot more damage than in the past, and should not just be brushed off as the lesser of two evils.


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> What I do think is a concern is that Unis are lowering the standard for applying the black mark. And this was taking place before any attempts to implement AC, so again, even that is tangential to a discussion of consent.


Universities have never been held to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard -- because they are not, never have been, and never will be involved in criminal cases. 

Nothing is being lowered. The effect of Title IX is simply that they can no longer pretend that the issue doesn't exist because their funding is tied to addressing it head on.


----------



## personofinterest

EllisRedding said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as they can get into another college, they really shouldn't whine about false accusations, right? Because Hey, having your character assassinated is just a little mark, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Plus, it can go beyond college. If I am interviewing someone and I see that they switched colleges, that is something I would definitely ask about. Of course they could very well lie, but bringing up that you were kicked out of school for being a sexual assailant is not going to do you any favors here.
> 
> As well, and this goes along with comments made regarding, the idea being pushed that the default position is to always believe the woman is toxic. For better or worse, we have moved in the direction where social media to an extent drives society. All it takes is for someone to throw a false accusation out there on FB, IG, etc... and fast enough all the SJWs appear, throwing around hashtags. They will chase you offline, find where you live, contact your employer, etc... Evidence schmevidence, it is like the Wild Wild West out there, mob mentality an all ... I think we are a point now where false accusations can do a lot more damage than in the past, and should not just be brushed off as the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

Exactly


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> Universities have never been held to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard -- because they are not, never have been, and never will be involved in criminal cases.
> 
> Nothing is being lowered. The effect of Title IX is simply that they can no longer pretend that the issue doesn't exist because their funding is tied to addressing it head on.


I get your point. Technically that is true.

But consider the case referenced earlier where the Uni didn't even admit critical evidence. They didn't even follow their own policy, like they would have had it been a plagiarism case. So they did lower their own standard.

It's also worth noting that Unis didn't have to have a criminal level of proof because they weren't addressing criminal acts. There is no public law or Title Anything against academic dishonesty. But sexual assault is a criminal act, whether it's perpetrated on a college campus or not. So the Uni is venturing into criminal territory, and should treat cases with the gravity that implies.


----------



## 269370

wild jade said:


> Universities have never been held to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard -- because they are not, never have been, and never will be involved in criminal cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is being lowered. The effect of Title IX is simply that they can no longer pretend that the issue doesn't exist because their funding is tied to addressing it head on.



I presume if the student is innocent, he can sue the university for damages. I think this has been happening already so presumably it will become too expensive for universities to just brush this issue off or be so heavy handed about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Please, let me take a moment to clarify the context here. @Buddy400 made a blanket claim that virtually all men care about sexual assault and the virtually no women care about false accusations.
> 
> @FrenchFry responded that he was likely overestimating the sympathy of men. Why would she say this? I can't speak for her, but I imagine it has something to do with the rates of sexual assault. If virtually all men were sympathetic on this topic, we wouldn't even have this problem.
> 
> Then you accuse me of piling on when I point out that actually women do have quite a bit of sympathy for false accusations. Why, pray tell, is this "piling on"? Did you not see the expressions of sympathy coming from women on this thread? Why is it okay for Buddy to make disparaging comments about women, but it's "piling on" for me to suggest that in fact women do have sympathy?


I said (back on 8/11, took forever to find it):

"The difference is that I and the overwhelming majority of men are sympathetic to sexual assault against women (and 99.8% of us would kill a ****ing rapist if we had the chance).

Men say that they're concerned about false accusations, *women just blow off their concerns*"

You're correct, I did make a blanket statement about women. I should have said "some women here".

That's clearly wrong. At a minimum, @personofinterest, my wife and my progressive daughter don't do this (and, I'm sure most women don't).

My apologies.

I also don't think I had a problem with your qualifier that I would be underestimating the sympathies of women (if I'd meant what I typed). If it turns out I did, I'll come back and apologize again.


----------



## uhtred

I think there are a bunch of intertwining threads here. 

As far as consent, there is some lack of clarity in robbery as well. I remember once exploring a normally closed archaeological site in 3rd world country. The site "guard" led us into an isolate area where several of his friends were waiting, one of them with a gun. Then he asked if we would like to give them a "gift". We agreed that $10 was a good gift and we left. Were we robbed? 

Similarly someone can feel an implicit threat to have sex when no threatening words have been said, and this can be a very confusing grey area. In that case even active consent may not fix it - if he asks "do you want to have sex", the frightened person might say yes out of fear that if they refuse something worse will happen. 






Holdingontoit said:


> That is correct. But not exactly what we are discussing here.
> 
> The analogous question is whether and to what extent you have to express your opposition to the robber before you let them rob you? Do you have to say "no, I do not want to give you my wallet" before you hand it over? Do you have to fight to prevent them from taking your wallet? Or do you just take a look and see that they are bigger and likely rougher and tougher than you and hand over the wallet "voluntarily"? If you hand over the wallet without a fight, does that mean you weren't robbed? That the transaction was voluntary? THAT is what is at stake here.
> 
> And that is why I tell my kids that if they don't want to get robbed, they should stay away from the bad part of town.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> Because I have already pretty much sealed my fate haha, I'll just go for broke. At 12I was raped, and at 14 and 15I was repeatedly molested. Both these events were highly traumatic. As a middle aged woman I have 2 successful grown children and a career that I enjoy. I do occasion only get triggered by discussions of child abuse or sexual assault, but I have mostly recovered. My teacher friend who was accused by a student who later retracted her statement and suffer consequences for lying… his wife left him and he cannot support himself because he will never teach again. There is some perspective.


That is ridiculous what happened to him. I am a CSA survivor, or whatever you want to call it, and if someone falsely accused me, I would do everything in my power to destroy them ruthlessly because being accused of something that vile falsely is nearly as vile as the crime itself.

I believe a similar sentence should be handed down to false accusers as what would be administered to actual sex offenders.


----------



## samyeagar

ConanHub said:


> That is ridiculous what happened to him. I am a CSA survivor, or whatever you want to call it, and if someone falsely accused me, I would do everything in my power to destroy them ruthlessly because being accused of something that vile falsely is nearly as vile as the crime itself.
> 
> I believe a similar sentence should be handed down to false accusers as what would be administered to actual sex offenders.


Yet historically, false accusers have rarely been prosecuted because of the concern of essentially victim shaming by proxy...without concern for who the real victim is in a false accusation case.


----------



## personofinterest

ConanHub said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have already pretty much sealed my fate haha, I'll just go for broke. At 12I was raped, and at 14 and 15I was repeatedly molested. Both these events were highly traumatic. As a middle aged woman I have 2 successful grown children and a career that I enjoy. I do occasion only get triggered by discussions of child abuse or sexual assault, but I have mostly recovered. My teacher friend who was accused by a student who later retracted her statement and suffer consequences for lying… his wife left him and he cannot support himself because he will never teach again. There is some perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous what happened to him. I am a CSA survivor, or whatever you want to call it, and if someone falsely accused me, I would do everything in my power to destroy them ruthlessly because being accused of something that vile falsely is nearly as vile as the crime itself.
> 
> I believe a similar sentence should be handed down to false accusers as what would be administered to actual sex offenders.
Click to expand...

Yep. You falsely accuse, you serve what would have been the sentence....WITH wide media coverage. You also are on the hook for any financial repercussions.

As a real victim, I am insulted by the idea that someone would LIE about going through what I went through...and I am just as disgusted by someone who doesnt have the character to ACKNOWLEDGE that it IS a big deal.


----------



## Holdingontoit

The goal of AC is not to make it easier for a woman to bring false accusations, but it IS designed to increase the risk that an accusation, if made, will be sustained. That is not a flaw, that is a feature. The point of AC is to reduce the number of instances where women are pressured into having sex they do not desire. It says to the man "to be able to defend yourself against an accusation of rape, you are going to have to testify that the woman gave AC - not that she failed to object, but that she gave AC". The whole idea is that men, out of fear of being falsely accused, will not do as much of the push, push, push in the face of silence as they used to, out of fear that they will later be accused of rape.

Given the number of rapes, sexual assaults, sexual harassment etc., society is saying we want men to bear more of the risk from a lack of clarity than they do today. So yes, there will inevitably be more false accusations. But that is intended to be the price of dramatically lowering the number of rapes and assaults. Different people will reach different conclusions as to whether the benefit is worth the cost. I am guessing that this will in part depend on each person's views as to whether the new rule will actually reduce the number of rapes and assaults.


----------



## personofinterest

Holdingontoit said:


> The goal of AC is not to make it easier for a woman to bring false accusations, but it IS designed to increase the risk that an accusation, if made, will be sustained. That is not a flaw, that is a feature. The point of AC is to reduce the number of instances where women are pressured into having sex they do not desire. It says to the man "to be able to defend yourself against an accusation of rape, you are going to have to testify that the woman gave AC - not that she failed to object, but that she gave AC". The whole idea is that men, out of fear of being falsely accused, will not do as much of the push, push, push in the face of silence as they used to, out of fear that they will later be accused of rape.
> 
> Given the number of rapes, sexual assaults, sexual harassment etc., society is saying we want men to bear more of the risk from a lack of clarity than they do today. So yes, there will inevitably be more false accusations. But that is intended to be the price of dramatically lowering the number of rapes and assaults. Different people will reach different conclusions as to whether the benefit is worth the cost. I am guessing that this will in part depend on each person's views as to whether the new rule will actually reduce the number of rapes and assaults.


I understand that. I mean, does ANYBODY actually think the GOAL of AC is to increase false accusations? Let's get real.

What you are really saying is that it is unfortunate collateral damage. And that is unacceptable, no matter how rare. Just like rape and assault are unacceptable, no matter how rare.

The problem is that whether they want to admit it or not, there ARE people out there who think it is acceptable collateral damage, or that as long as the falsely charged is eventually exonerated, no harm no foul.

It's about intentional blindness and plain old stubbornness, with a side dose of agenda driven crap. And if one has character, one needs to knock it off and care about ALL the variables.

Even one woman being raped is one too many. And even one person's life and livelihood being forever (YES FOREVER) altered by a false accusation IS one too many.

If I could get even one new voice to actually express agreement with that, I'd be a lot less annoyed  No buts, no qualifications, no hand waving dismissal of its importance or deflection.

Just say: it is WRONG for a man to be falsely accused, and it MATTERS.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Holdingontoit said:


> The goal of AC is not to make it easier for a woman to bring false accusations, but it IS designed to increase the risk that an accusation, if made, will be sustained. That is not a flaw, that is a feature. The point of AC is to reduce the number of instances where women are pressured into having sex they do not desire. It says to the man "to be able to defend yourself against an accusation of rape, you are going to have to testify that the woman gave AC - not that she failed to object, but that she gave AC". The whole idea is that men, out of fear of being falsely accused, will not do as much of the push, push, push in the face of silence as they used to, out of fear that they will later be accused of rape.
> 
> *Given the number of rapes, sexual assaults, sexual harassment etc., society is saying we want men to bear more of the risk from a lack of clarity than they do today.  So yes, there will inevitably be more false accusations.  *But that is intended to be the price of dramatically lowering the number of rapes and assaults. Different people will reach different conclusions as to whether the benefit is worth the cost. I am guessing that this will in part depend on each person's views as to whether the new rule will actually reduce the number of rapes and assaults.


So yes, you are affirming the negative. Now let's talk about the so-called offsetting positive that supposedly justifies the collateral damage.

Does anyone honestly think that a rapist trying to avoid an assault conviction wouldn't testify that he got AC. All this does is change the guilty person's testimony form "she didn't say no" to "she said yes." These are not honorable men we're talking about here. Do we not think they will continue to lie to escape punishment? In the end, it's still he said/she said. So I'm not sure how this makes women any safer.


----------



## personofinterest

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> So yes, you are affirming the negative. Now let's talk about the so-called offsetting positive that supposedly justifies the collateral damage.
> 
> Does anyone honestly think that a rapist trying to avoid an assault conviction wouldn't testify that he got AC. All this does is change the guilty person's testimony form "she didn't say no" to "she said yes." These are not honorable men we're talking about here. Do we not think they will continue to lie to escape punishment? In the end, it's still he said/she said. So I'm not sure how this makes women any safer.


It is the illusion of safety. And it puts the onus back on the man to GET consent. Even though sex is "not supposed to be something men get" and women are to be empowered with equal footing. That the same groups pushing* extreme versions* of AC are the same ones pushing for women to be MORE empowered do not get this speaks volumes.

AGAIN, I think being certain you have consent is important. It's just good practice. So is knowing that you can say no. BOTH in tandem. I'm not about to sit back on my laurels and trust another person to make sure my autonomy is intact.

And before I hear it, NO I am not saying "so let's just do nothing."

Lord, it's like negotiating with my students back when I was in elementary school trying to anticipate their every possible "but" sometimes....


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

personofinterest said:


> It is the illusion of safety. And it puts the onus back on the man to GET consent. Even though sex is "not supposed to be something men get" and women are to be empowered with equal footing. That the same groups pushing* extreme versions* of AC are the same ones pushing for women to be MORE empowered do not get this speaks volumes.
> 
> AGAIN, I think being certain you have consent is important. It's just good practice. So is knowing that you can say no. BOTH in tandem. I'm not about to sit back on my laurels and trust another person to make sure my autonomy is intact.
> 
> And before I hear it, NO I am not saying "so let's just do nothing."
> 
> Lord, it's like negotiating with my students back when I was in elementary school trying to anticipate their every possible "but" sometimes....


I had a similar thought about the whole alcohol thing. Isn't a bit insulting to say that a woman who's had a few drinks is no longer in control of her faculties, but a guy is? If both have a few drinks, why would we say that it's only the woman who is no longer competent? And for those women who like to combine alcohol and sex in the same evening, are we saying they can't? 

To me, this sounds like those who ostensibly look to empower women are refusing to grant women credit for being able to make their own decisions. Curious.


----------



## personofinterest

I call in conditional equality. I am equal when it benefits me, I demand X when that benefits me.

That is the difference between actual feminism and.....something else.

None of the early feminists EVER desired "more" or "special" treatment, nor did they desire to accomplish it by "lessening" men. All they ever wanted was equal OPPORTUNITY and rights and respect. For example: The wanted to right to vote for a candidate; they didn't demand that their candidate win - that's an analogy by the way.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Holdingontoit said:


> The goal of AC is not to make it easier for a woman to bring false accusations, but it IS designed to increase the risk that an accusation, if made, will be sustained. That is not a flaw, that is a feature. The point of AC is to reduce the number of instances where women are pressured into having sex they do not desire. It says to the man "to be able to defend yourself against an accusation of rape, you are going to have to testify that the woman gave AC - not that she failed to object, but that she gave AC". The whole idea is that men, out of fear of being falsely accused, will not do as much of the push, push, push in the face of silence as they used to, out of fear that they will later be accused of rape.
> 
> Given the number of rapes, sexual assaults, sexual harassment etc., society is saying we want men to bear more of the risk from a lack of clarity than they do today. So yes, there will inevitably be more false accusations. But that is intended to be the price of dramatically lowering the number of rapes and assaults. Different people will reach different conclusions as to whether the benefit is worth the cost. I am guessing that this will in part depend on each person's views as to whether the new rule will actually reduce the number of rapes and assaults.


But isn't acknowledging inevitably there will be more false accusations going into such a program reason to better hash out the program including ways of not having increased false accusations?

Just from a tech standpoint a known bug in a beta is eliminated before going into production.


----------



## samyeagar

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> But isn't acknowledging inevitably there will be more false accusations going into such a program reason to better hash out the program including ways of not having increased false accusations?
> 
> Just from a tech standpoint a known bug in a beta is eliminated before going into production.


A known bug in beta is evaluated for severity, and weighed against the importance of product delivery. If it is deemed more important to get the product to production, then the bug goes with it, to be fixed later...unless it hangs around long enough to be promoted to feature.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Maybe, and this may be full of pitfalls too but for some reason I'm working on this problem. Pls forgive if in trying to simplify I'm ignoring nuances....

How about, during passionate make out when physical positive signs MAY be present...the M or the W simply says "do you want to?"

If the other says yes, to this short, not mood killing question, then all is well.

Thoughts?

Certainly both sexes can be taught to both ask and answer in a pre-trained class.

Too simple, I know, but may work because it's simple.

In a perfect world I know, but still?


----------



## personofinterest

samyeagar said:


> A known bug in beta is evaluated for severity, and *weighed against the importance of product delivery. * *If it is deemed more important to get the product to production, then the bug goes with it*, to be fixed later...unless it hangs around long enough to be promoted to feature.


This. And you know, I know that happens. I'm a realist. I just want people to be honest enough to ADMIT it.

If you think it's an acceptable risk, have the guts to OWN it.

Think about it - I am a repeat assault survivor. The fact that* I *am almost the only woman acknowledging this without a "but" says an awful lot. It's actually a bit of an indictment.


----------



## Holdingontoit

> How about, during passionate make out when physical positive signs MAY be present...the M or the W simply says "do you want to?"
> 
> If the other says yes, to this short, not mood killing question, then all is well.


Not mood killing to you. Might well be mood killing to others. That is part of the problem. Some women don't enjoy it when guys are constantly asking "can I undo this button?" How about the next button? How about undoing this bra hook? What about the next one?



Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> But isn't acknowledging inevitably there will be more false accusations going into such a program reason to better hash out the program including ways of not having increased false accusations?
> 
> Just from a tech standpoint a known bug in a beta is eliminated before going into production.


No, because there is no way to eliminate the problem in "he said, she said" situations. There is not enough evidence available to determine what really happened. So the rule determines the outcome. If you say "absence definitive evidence, the man gets off because innocent until proven guilty" then more men will get away with assault. If you say "absence definitive evidence, the man gets convicted because he could not prove the woman gave affirmative consent" then there will be more convictions without definitive proof of wrongdoing. No way to eliminate the bug, unless you want every person to wear a body camera and leave it on during all romantic encounters so we can later determine whether AC was obtained by both participants.

That said, I think educating people about the importance of communication and consent is a good thing. I think vigorous discussion of what women should do when men get pushy is a good thing. In recent years we have more anti-bullying education in schools. We have kids do run throughs of what victims and by-standers should do when they observe or experience bullying. I think having run throughs of boys being pushy and asking kids what they think about both people's behavior would be good. In particular, it would help if boys were given specific examples of behavior and told "when a girl does this, that means you should stop pushing and let her leave". Then again, can you imagine the reaction from the "no sex ed in schools" crowd when we propose play-acting what girls should do when a boy tries to cop a feel?


----------



## personofinterest

Holdingontoit said:


> No, because there is no way to eliminate the problem in "he said, she said" situations. There is not enough evidence available to determine what really happened. So the rule determines the outcome. If you say "absence definitive evidence, the man gets off because innocent until proven guilty" then more men will get away with assault. If you say "absence definitive evidence, the man gets convicted because he could not prove the woman gave affirmative consent" then there will be more convictions without definitive proof of wrongdoing. No way to eliminate the bug, unless you want every person to wear a body camera and leave it on during all romantic encounters so we can later determine whether AC was obtained by both participants.


I guess my question is why is one of those acceptable and the other isn't?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

samyeagar said:


> A known bug in beta is evaluated for severity, and weighed against the importance of product delivery. If it is deemed more important to get the product to production, then the bug goes with it, to be fixed later...unless it hangs around long enough to be promoted to feature.


Which is why Microsoft as prime example, there are many more, create tons of Users affected negatively.

When its reported the bug was known but the program was pushed to meet a date there are huge number of Users that now rebel en masse and vocally against the ENTIRE program, good and bad now rebelled against and much, much more suspicious of future updates. Many, many leave the product, period.

And some such bugs create subsequent problems from security breaches, data loss, and many labor units lost.

In this analogy it would be lives negatively affected, and lives/reputations destroyed, maybe never to be repaired. M and W. 

And lives are much more valuable, not to be put in jeopardy when a known program problem exists that could've been mitigated pre-roll out. 

Such a bug included policy would be a lawyers dream. 
If it was known there would be a 2% increase in false accusations that's 20 per thousand, and I don't have the reported rape at cases per month or year, but there obvious shear numbers would be terrible in such a circumstance.

I certainly don't have the answers but the first rule may be best as first do no harm.


----------



## personofinterest

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Which is why Microsoft as prime example, there are many more, create tons of Users affected negatively.
> 
> When its reported the bug was known but the program was pushed to meet a date there are huge number of Users that now rebel en masse and vocally against the ENTIRE program, good and bad now rebelled against and much, much more suspicious of future updates. Many, many leave the product, period.
> 
> And some such bugs create subsequent problems from security breaches, data loss, and many labor units lost.
> 
> In this analogy it would be lives negatively affected, and lives/reputations destroyed, maybe never to be repaired. M and W.
> 
> And lives are much more valuable, not to be put in jeopardy when a known program problem exists that could've been mitigated pre-roll out.
> 
> Such a bug included policy would be a lawyers dream.
> If it was known there would be a 2% increase in false accusations that's 20 per thousand, and I don't have the reported rape at cases per month or year, but there obvious shear numbers would be terrible in such a circumstance.
> 
> I certainly don't have the answers but the first rule may be best as first do no harm.


Window 8 and then 8.1 are prime examples. The difference in that is, once I installed Windows 10, all was fine.

Once a man's face has been on the news, Twitter, Facebook, etc. etc.....blah blah blah.

Well, only someone choosing to be stubborn and obtuse would say "as long as he's cleared who cares...and maybe he can sue!"

Let's get honest.


----------



## Holdingontoit

personofinterest said:


> I guess my question is why is one of those acceptable and the other isn't?


Neither is acceptable. One or the other is inevitable (absent mandatory body cams). So we have to choose among "evils".

Tends to make the "answer" empirical rather than theoretical. Which problem do we have more of these days? Tilt the rule to discourage that. If we get vastly more of the other problem, we can tilt the rule the other way. Idea is to get to a decent equilibrium. So men and women are both bearing some of the cost of risky behavior. Best we can do absent body cams.

I do think educating boys to recognize signs of non-consent and to back off would be helpful. For society to say clearly "we don't want you to keep pushing after she does this, and backing off doesn't make you a wimpy loser, it means you have self-control and a sense of moral decency". At least, until we get to the point that women are complaining they don't enjoy spending time with wimpy losers and clamor for more male aggression even at the risk of more assaults. When you ladies feel that way, let us know.


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> I think there are a bunch of intertwining threads here.
> 
> As far as consent, there is some lack of clarity in robbery as well. I remember once exploring a normally closed archaeological site in 3rd world country. The site "guard" led us into an isolate area where several of his friends were waiting, one of them with a gun. Then he asked if we would like to give them a "gift". We agreed that $10 was a good gift and we left. Were we robbed?
> 
> Similarly someone can feel an implicit threat to have sex when no threatening words have been said, and this can be a very confusing grey area. In that case even active consent may not fix it - if he asks "do you want to have sex", the frightened person might say yes out of fear that if they refuse something worse will happen.


I think this is why we have the "affirmative" along with the consent.

The point is that consent be voluntary and enthusiastic. Definitely not coerced.


----------



## personofinterest

Holdingontoit said:


> Neither is acceptable. One or the other is inevitable (absent mandatory body cams). So we have to choose among "evils".
> 
> Tends to make the "answer" empirical rather than theoretical. Which problem do we have more of these days? Tilt the rule to discourage that. If we get vastly more of the other problem, we can tilt the rule the other way. Idea is to get to a decent equilibrium. So men and women are both bearing some of the cost of risky behavior. Best we can do absent body cams.
> 
> I do think educating boys to recognize signs of non-consent and to back off would be helpful. *For society to say clearly "we don't want you to keep pushing after she does this, and backing off doesn't make you a wimpy loser, it means you have self-control and a sense of moral decency".* At least, until we get to the point that women are complaining they don't enjoy spending time with wimpy losers and clamor for more male aggression even at the risk of more assaults. When you ladies feel that way, let us know.


I like this, but we'll have to get the men around my age group to shift their paradigms and not be so worried that they "might" have been too pushy in 1989.

Sex is not a car lot. No means no the first time. If you or the woman "miss a lay," too bad.


----------



## wild jade

Holdingontoit said:


> The goal of AC is not to make it easier for a woman to bring false accusations, but it IS designed to increase the risk that an accusation, if made, will be sustained. That is not a flaw, that is a feature. The point of AC is to reduce the number of instances where women are pressured into having sex they do not desire. It says to the man "to be able to defend yourself against an accusation of rape, you are going to have to testify that the woman gave AC - not that she failed to object, but that she gave AC". The whole idea is that men, out of fear of being falsely accused, will not do as much of the push, push, push in the face of silence as they used to, out of fear that they will later be accused of rape.


Affirmative consent is also gender neutral. We tend to assume that it's directed only at men because it is more common statistically to see the man as accused/perpetrator and the woman as accuser/victim. But this isn't the only dynamic, and affirmative consent is aimed at all of them.

It is up to both men and women to ensure their partner's consent, whether that partner is man or woman (or other).


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

And even Windows 10 was pushed out before there were working DLLs not written for non-MS software to work with Win 10 and registry lines as well, both driver related that kept most Users who early adopted from being able to use their previously working ancillary software and even certain printers.

Everyone scrambled to get platform supplemental software updates to work with Win 10 but the first months were a nightmare. Personally commercially observed by me, and industry peers.

Win 10 also had more updates per week than most OSs, but hung with it and now it's a great product.
But many many stayed with 7 Pro, avoided 8, and waited a full year after MS stopped handing out free Win 10 updates and got serious about it commercially...when all the free updates revealed what needed to be addressed.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

wild jade said:


> Affirmative consent is also gender neutral. We tend to assume that it's directed only at men because it is more common statistically to see the man as accused/perpetrator and the woman as accuser/victim. But this isn't the only dynamic, and affirmative consent is aimed at all of them.
> 
> It is up to both men and women to ensure their partner's consent, whether that partner is man or woman (or other).


I appreciate the neutrality here. And I have been on the receiving end of unwanted, and in some cases, very pushy sexual behavior. 

But the thing is, I was always perfectly capable of saying no. I didn't need anybody to ask me to say yes. Interestingly so were any of the women who gave me the Heisman at some point.


----------



## uhtred

In in favor of active consent (I'm avoiding specific keywords), but its not clear that solves the problem of someone perceiving a threat in a situation. I "happily" gave money to the guys with guns, I didn't act reluctant, there was no threat. I decided I'd rather part with $10 than find out what would happen if I didn't happily agree. 

A woman might pretend to consent if she felt afraid of the consequences of not doing so. (in other words, it might not be obvious whether or not the consent was "voluntary"). 



wild jade said:


> I think this is why we have the "affirmative" along with the consent.
> 
> The point is that consent be voluntary and enthusiastic. Definitely not coerced.


----------



## uhtred

While I think it is just to punish false accusers, it may not be overall beneficial. Many times false accusations are recanted - sometimes after the unjustly accused person has served substantial jail time. If we had strong punishments for false accusations, people might not recant them. 

Tricky situation. I don't know a good way to handle it that doesn't introduce some terrible problem. 




personofinterest said:


> Yep. You falsely accuse, you serve what would have been the sentence....WITH wide media coverage. You also are on the hook for any financial repercussions.
> 
> As a real victim, I am insulted by the idea that someone would LIE about going through what I went through...and I am just as disgusted by someone who doesnt have the character to ACKNOWLEDGE that it IS a big deal.


----------



## Holdingontoit

wild jade said:


> Affirmative consent is also gender neutral. We tend to assume that it's directed only at men because it is more common statistically to see the man as accused/perpetrator and the woman as accuser/victim. But this isn't the only dynamic, and affirmative consent is aimed at all of them.
> 
> It is up to both men and women to ensure their partner's consent, whether that partner is man or woman (or other).


Yes, the rule is gender neutral. But as you say, the practical impact is not the same. In part, that is because men tend not to have the same level of fear for their personal safety if they are very emphatic about saying "no, sorry, there is no way I am having sex with you tonight." You don't have to rely so much on your partner waiting until you grant affirmative consent before they proceed if you have no hesitation about saying "no, get away from me". It is precisely because women are more likely than men to fear the consequences of directly rejecting a partner's advances that we need to demand affirmative consent at each stage of sexual behavior. This is clearly designed to protect the physically weaker individual in each pairing. And that is typically (but not always), the female.

I am not suggesting that the rule should be made gender biased. Gender neutral is clearly the way to go. But nit picking when I describe the rule as intending to protect women from male advances is precisely that - nit picking. Yes, it also protects men against unwanted advances by predatory females. But that is not the epidemic the rule is intended to curb. And pretending otherwise does not strength the argument in favor of the rule. I believe the rule is worthwhile even though it benefits women more than it benefits men. When you try to argue it is neutral, you undercut the argument in favor of the rule - because you appear willing to bend the truth to make the rule seem better than it is. The rule does not need truth-bending. It should stand up to scrutiny not only as it is written but also as it is likely to work in the real world.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I understand that. I mean, does ANYBODY actually think the GOAL of AC is to increase false accusations? Let's get real.



It’s not the ‘goal’ but it’s the natural and unintended consequence. Just like with any stupid laws that don’t work in practice.
In any case, it’s doubtful it will stick around. It is already too expensive for colleges due to so many lawsuits.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Just say: it is WRONG for a man to be falsely accused, and it MATTERS.



As a fellow feminist, I wholeheartedly agree with you. And I’m not waving any hands! *♂



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> I call in conditional equality. I am equal when it benefits me, I demand X when that benefits me.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the difference between actual feminism and.....something else.
> 
> 
> 
> None of the early feminists EVER desired "more" or "special" treatment, nor did they desire to accomplish it by "lessening" men. All they ever wanted was equal OPPORTUNITY and rights and respect. For example: The wanted to right to vote for a candidate; they didn't demand that their candidate win - that's an analogy by the way.



Yes, that’s about right. They don’t usually stop whining and complaining how unfair the world is, until people give in m. I’m not sure it’s just to do with that segment; it’s the whole of extreme left that seems to have gone a bit cuckoo: everyone is entitled to have ‘feelings’ now and they all must be valid and respected, even if they are as far detached from reality as my ass from my face (not at this particular moment, but in general ).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade

Holdingontoit said:


> Yes, the rule is gender neutral. But as you say, the practical impact is not the same. In part, that is because men tend not to have the same level of fear for their personal safety if they are very emphatic about saying "no, sorry, there is no way I am having sex with you tonight." You don't have to rely so much on your partner waiting until you grant affirmative consent before they proceed if you have no hesitation about saying "no, get away from me". It is precisely because women are more likely than men to fear the consequences of directly rejecting a partner's advances that we need to demand affirmative consent at each stage of sexual behavior. This is clearly designed to protect the physically weaker individual in each pairing. And that is typically (but not always), the female.
> 
> I am not suggesting that the rule should be made gender biased. Gender neutral is clearly the way to go. But nit picking when I describe the rule as intending to protect women from male advances is precisely that - nit picking. Yes, it also protects men against unwanted advances by predatory females. But that is not the epidemic the rule is intended to curb. And pretending otherwise does not strength the argument in favor of the rule. I believe the rule is worthwhile even though it benefits women more than it benefits men. When you try to argue it is neutral, you undercut the argument in favor of the rule - because you appear willing to bend the truth to make the rule seem better than it is. The rule does not need truth-bending. It should stand up to scrutiny not only as it is written but also as it is likely to work in the real world.


I didn't mean to nit-pick your post. I chose to respond to it because I agreed with most of what you were saying, and still do. I was just adding an addendum. 

Why? Because so many seem to think that that affirmative consent is about women trying to have it both ways, and that the law unfairly targets men, making them responsible for "getting" consent, and reduces women's autonomy in the matter. Those are the issues I disagree with, and my mistake for thinking that responding to you might be one way to inject that point .... 

And honestly, sexual assault is a very real problem that many men face. It isn't usually perpetrated by women .... but it is there .. and it's more common than many care to admit. You're right that it wasn't those sexual assaults that affirmative consent was written for, but isn't it a happy thing that it may help there too?


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> In in favor of active consent (I'm avoiding specific keywords), but its not clear that solves the problem of someone perceiving a threat in a situation. I "happily" gave money to the guys with guns, I didn't act reluctant, there was no threat. I decided I'd rather part with $10 than find out what would happen if I didn't happily agree.
> 
> A woman might pretend to consent if she felt afraid of the consequences of not doing so. (in other words, it might not be obvious whether or not the consent was "voluntary").


Yes absolutely. That's why we talk about intent.


----------



## wild jade

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I appreciate the neutrality here. And I have been on the receiving end of unwanted, and in some cases, very pushy sexual behavior.
> 
> But the thing is, I was always perfectly capable of saying no. I didn't need anybody to ask me to say yes. Interestingly so were any of the women who gave me the Heisman at some point.


Indeed. I've little doubt that you are both respectful and respected. 

I'd just caution from extrapolating too much from your own personal experience to think that might work in every situation.


----------

