Style Tips From Men’s Rights Activists
How to dress to pick up the women you despise.
"Principles 101: Feminism, Manhood, and You" [PDF], a guide to Men's Rights Activism from Manhood101.com, contains tips on everything from restoring your manhood to fighting feminism to . . . brushing your teeth twice daily. (Thanks to a reader for the tip).
Seven golden style tips for the Men's Rights Activist community, after the jump.
1. SPEECH. "Many people make the mistake of not speaking because they have no new information to convey," the guide laments. " They fail to realize that new information is not as stimulating as how you experience things." Let's see how this applies to the realm of picking up women:
Bad pick-up line:
“Hello, how are you?”
Good pick-up line:
“Wow . . . I like how your hair is straight in some places, and then there are these little strands that curl off of it. They remind me of some fashion magazine cover where the hair is perfectly arranged like a little piece of art, but since you’re here in person, I feel like I’m talking to the cover in real life. I want to touch your hair and feel how soft it is. I picture it smelling like coconuts or something sweet. Your hair is making me think dirty thoughts. I want to tug on it and kiss your neck. I have a crush on your hair. It gives me a nice ‘ahhhhhh’ feeling deep inside like when you eat a warm chocolate chip cookie right out of the oven.”
2. BODY TYPE. It's OK if you're short, but DO NOT BE FAT:
First, you must recognize the difference between a disorderly physical appearance and the symptoms of a disorderly life. Being short is not under your control. You were born that way. Being fat, however, is under your control.
Being fat is a result of disorderly eating habits. Although people today claim that discriminating against fat people is wrong, disorderly conditions should be discriminated against, especially when a person has control over their disorder. Smoking, obesity, bad hygeine, decaying teeth and other symptomps of a disorderly life are naturally offensive to others. You should do whatever is necessary to rectify such disorderly conditions.
3. FOOTWEAR: Avoid stylish elevator shoes.
[B]eing short is not unattractive in itself, as are many other perceived shortcomings society arbitrarily invalidates you for possessing. The problem begins when society attaches an undesirable assocation to your height. Because society invalidates you for being short, you believe yourself to be unattractive. This belief causes you to become anti-social and express unattractive social behaviors. . . . . The solution is not to change your physical characteristics, rather you must change the negative associations made with those characteristics.
. . . Stylish elevator shoes, plastic surgery and laser hair removal are not the answer. The solution is twofold; you must develop a functional perspective regarding attraction that emphasizes your ability to create order, and you must break the dysfunctional, negative associations held by women.
4. BODY LANGUAGE. Pretend as if you are human.
When appropriate, use your hands and arms to enhance what you're saying. Drawing with your hands or using gestures to indicate something relevant reinforces what you're attempting to express.
5. DRESS: Men who can properly exercise their authority do not require pants.
Being stylish is unnecessary (not to mention a pointless preoccupation with a dysfunctional social expectation). Having an orderly appearance should be your only focus where clothing is concerned. Properly exercising your authority can accomplish much more than a pair of designer jeans. Being unable to create orderly social interactions is what prevents most men from attracting women. Not lack of fashion sense or good looks.
6. HYGIENE: Although women are more stimulated by power than physical appearance, you still have to brush your teeth, dude.
Studies show that facial symmetry is attractive. If your eyeball was an inch lower, it would break your facial symmetry, causing
disorder to your appearance. This would be a major breach of your natural physical order.Order in any form, whether in nature or in our physical bodies attracts us. This is why an orderly appearance is important. Granted some men were born with deviated septums or crooked teeth, but thankfully, women are more stimulated by the order generated from exercising your male authority.
However, this does not mean you should neglect your physical appearance entirely.
It's important to practice good hygiene because it maintains an orderly physical appearance. Brush your teeth at least twice a day. Shower. Shave if necessary. Comb your hair or cut it cleanly.
7. STARING ETIQUETTE:
Look directly at people instead of staring at them out of your peripheral vision.
Photo via Migraine Chick, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0
12:11 pm
"women are more stimulated by the order generated from exercising your male authority." That has to be the most fucked up thing I've read in several weeks. Male dominance: decreasing entropy one command at a time.
12:16 pm
@whitty, I only WISH that was the most fucked-up thing I've read in several weeks!!
12:28 pm
I searched for "homosexual" and got: Reader has finished searching the document. No matches were found.
I searched for "gay" and got one match under Type of Invalidation, subheading Belittling/Condescending:
This is to regard someone as unimportant or beneath you.
This dysfunctionally arrogant approach neglects to care for the
psychological needs of the recipient of the invalidation.
Ex.
• “Why are you such a loser?”
• “That shirt is gay. You have no style.”
Just... So... Fucked... Up...
12:32 pm
That 'good pick up line' is hilarious...what an excellent introductory line...a dissertation on my hair as if it were its own entity.
12:44 pm
@b-bop...I would run away from that pick up line SOOOOO fast!!
It seriously sounds like he's some psychopath who would behead me and then fondle my hair as he keeps my head impaled on a candlestick on his desk!
12:47 pm
Amanda, I think you're getting mixed up in your use of the term "Men's Rights Activist" (MRA). Manhood101.com is mostly a Pickup Artist (PUA) Web site, although it does have some content that is political in nature.
12:49 pm
That "good pick up line" is creepy as fuck.
Martin, yep, MRAs tend to only acknowledge men who are cisgender and heterosexual.
2:20 pm
It's really better to brush your teeth three times a day. Plaque is very very easy to brush off, but it's sticky, and it hardens more and more over time. Brushing in the morning and at night allows it to build up all day. Even a toothpasteless brushing in the middle of the day, with just a very very soft bristle brush run under tap water, can have powerful effects in preventing costly decay. Soft bristles only: don't overbrush your poor gums (but do brush at an angle, so as to reach the space between teeth and gums!
2:29 pm
@ John Dias
While I sympathize with your desire not to be even casually associated with these types, after looking over their site I'd have to disagree with your assessment. Their stated goals (found in the FAQ) are
1. Expose Feminism
2. Retrain men ("Too many men have been emasculated by Feminism. They don't know how to lead women, socialize with other men, make decisions, meet their needs or stand up to the emasculating "bitch" behavior of dysfunctional women.")
3. Retrain women ("Feminism betrays women by teaching them that adopting male functions and becoming "equal" to men will improve their lives. But it fails to warn them that such a strategy will not only undermine the attractiveness and value of women, but also inhibit men's ability to properly care for women.")
4. Support male culture ("Only healthy, happy men are in a position to properly care for others. But this proves difficult when our Feminist society constantly degrades the value of men, demonizes male sexuality and belittles our masculine role in relationships.")
The pickup strategies are all rooted in their misguided conception that men should wield "natural authority" and women should "submit." If readers happen to disagree, their comments are redirected to a forum charmingly titled "untrained 'bitches.'" If this were just a site frequented by some losers who wanted to get laid more, I wouldn't care. The problem is that they actively teach men to "retrain" women in hopes of furthering their agenda ("dysfunctional" is far and away their favorite descriptor for women).
I'd like to apologize to everyone on this site for reproducing so much of their garbage. For those thinking of using the link, I can only warn you that it gets much, much worse.
3:48 pm
@Brennan,
Thanks for posting this. It's very, very scary, but quite instructive!!
And, I should point out...John Dias's positions are eerily similar to what has been quoted. He might try to distance himself from this, but he fits all of the categories of the MRA you quoted...the following are all copied & pasted from his comments on other threads:
1) Expose Feminism
"It’s the most ideologically polarized political dogma that can be expressed about female sexuality. You might as well call for all women to become lesbians; of course, that wouldn’t fly (straight women are too wrapped up in their own “confused oppression” about just how raped they really are, for that to ever work!)."
and
"I think that you reflect a disquieting tendency in ideological feminism to infantilize women, to imply that they are so oppressed and victimized that they can’t even evaluate the degree of their supposed oppression."
and
"That’s what freedom is all about, and thank goodness it doesn’t depend on convincing the lunatic feminist fringe, as evidenced by many commenters in this very thread."
2) Retrain Men
"Violent behavior, however, is in my opinion more gray, because merely holding a woman down can be described as violent and yet is often part of the dance between sexually consenting partners."
and
[a post objecting to men who don't wear condoms] "is promoting sexism against men because it utilizes shame and mockery to cajole men into complying with a woman’s wishes"
3) Retrain Women
"The Alleged Victim Should Bear Responsibility For Expressing Non-Consent, not the other way around."
and
"There is something coercive in a woman demanding both sex and a condom from a man."
4) Support Male Culture
"most of them were interacting with acquaintances rather than strangers (possibly a boyfriend or a date), and even during the act may have been trying to decide whether they enjoyed it or not. Deciding after the fact that they didn’t want to, or didn’t prefer being held down, still does not necessarily constitute a moral crime."
and
"If the man holds the woman down but she doesn’t say no to him in some way during the entire act — if she doesn’t express her lack of consent — then how is he to know that he’s acting contrary to her wishes?"
and
"If it were truly rape (as I define rape, that is, forcible rape) then there would be scarring and other physical evidence."
--
Scary, isn't it?! Did I mention the above are from ONLY TWO THREADS? ("Dudes Who Won't Wear Condoms" and "Stroll in the Jungle")
3:50 pm
n.b.: on #3 the bolding of that comment was in the original, it wasn't a formatting tag error.
4:15 pm
LeftSidePositive, it is you who are scary, because you want to incarcerate men (but not women) for engaging in consensual sexual relations in which neither side expressly verbalized their consent.
4:19 pm
Reading that pickup line is almost as creepy as the time that a guy told me I had beautiful skin and then just stood there, watching me. Unsolicited physical complements are generally pretty bad, but complementing specific body parts always ups the creep-factor that much more. ICK!
4:28 pm
John Dias, I will answer here once, but I'd like to request that any further commentary be moved to the "Stroll in the Jungle" thread, so that this thread may stay on topic.
I have said over and over again that I believe men AND women should be incarcerated if they had sex with someone WHO DID NOT CONSENT. This is the definition of non-consensual sex. I have never, ever, said that consensual sex should be criminalized--if someone consented, they won't press charges later. It's really quite simple. If you didn't get explicit consent, you have no real way to know it was consensual, and therefore you are liable for incarceration. Trying to say you knew what someone "really wanted" is not a valid legal defense. You don't get to make assumptions about what other people want and use their bodies against their will EVEN if they are too afraid to resist you.
5:38 pm
@LeftSidePositive: I meant it's hilarious for it's creep factor.
@Laureney: I was once told "I was watching you from over there and I was getting aroused so I thought I'd come over"
At least you knew you were being watched! I was so disturbed.
8:01 pm
LeftSidePositive wrote (#14):
Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land; the burden of proof is on the State.
By the way, you've made plenty of caustic statements that attempt to portray me as a defender of rape, including in this very thread. You neglected to mention that the statements that you quoted from me referred to women who specifically clarified to the survey taker that they had NOT been raped. What you quoted from me was speculation about reasons why they would have considered their consensual experience as less than ideal, while not going so far as to describe it as rape. If you call such subtleties scary, then you're lambasting the right of women to describe their own experiences in their own words -- something that feminists routinely deny women who assert that they have not been as victimized as ideologues like you would imply that they have.
8:15 pm
John Dias, I've answered your questions on the relevant thread, since I asked you not to derail this one.
11:37 pm
Certainly. I wouldn't want to derail a thread by undermining someone's character. That would be counter productive.
12:43 am
@john Dias: You claimed this group was not representative of MRAs. I refuted that by quoting what you yourself have said, and demonstrated how closely aligned it was with the philosophy of this group.
How on earth is quoting someone's EXACT WORDS "undermining" their "character"?? You said it; you're responsible for it.
1:26 am
How to pick up a lady:
Stare at her. They like it.
1:39 am
LeftSidePositive, I can print out every comment you ever wrote, cut out individual words and phrases and piece them together in such a way that you would sound like Benito Mussolini. They certainly would be your exact words, but would that be fair? Would such a selective use of quotes tend to undermine your character?
Why am I "scary" because I point out that non-rape victims claim that they are non-rape victims, and yet are unsatisfied with the way a particular encounter progressed even though they don't call it rape? Is it "non-scary" to call everything rape, just in case it might be? Because that seems to me to be your position. You have intentionally -- and falsely -- intoned that I defend rape, and yet the quotes that you cite are merely me speculating on why women might be unsatisfied with a particular encounter while they specifically deny that it was rape. The Koss study of 1988 designated a sample of women as rape victims, even though 3/4 of them disagreed with the conclusion that they had been raped. Your own ideology indicates that non-consent is akin to non-verbalization, and yet somehow you manage to identify a perpetrator even though neither partner in a particular encounter obtains the expressed verbal consent of the other. Incarceration is your prescription to the "problem" -- I suspect that even those 3/4 of self-described non-rape-victims would have provided you the justification to prosecute their partners if you had been a prosecutor.
And you call me scary? After you write such injustice-apologetics, and then purposefully quote me out of context? My vindication is in the thread that you quoted itself.
2:05 am
John, how exactly did anything I posted quote you out of context??
I think you're just afraid of accountability.
"You have intentionally — and falsely — intoned that I defend rape"
No, I have truthfully intoned that you defend rape BECAUSE YOU HAVE.
1) You are on record saying that the only rape you'll accept as "real" is when there is "scarring." This defends every rapist whose method of rape is to terrorize their victims into not fighting back. Indeed, it prevents a majority of rape victims form obtaining justice. THAT'S DEFENDING RAPE.
2) You say a man can hold a woman down and have sex with her even if she doesn't give consent. THAT'S RAPE. You have said repeatedly that you don't want him to be held accountable for those very actions. THAT'S DEFENDING RAPE.
3) You have said that a man doesn't need to get consent from his partner, he just needs to think that she's "enjoying" it. You disgustingly claim that women who did not give consent to a sexual encounter are only seeking justice because they "didn't enjoy it." THAT'S DEFENDING RAPE.
This list is by no means exhaustive, but yes, indeed, it amply shows that you are a rape apologist.
2:10 am
And, as for your pathetic naming preoccupation (very offensive to the women who have shared their stories on this blog and the difficulty that they had coping with their rapes!): if I am conducting a study on tuberculosis in a population, I wouldn't rule someone out just because they called their disease "consumption" or "scrofula" or "Pott's disease" or "wasting disease" or "the white plague." They likely wouldn't know the official name or definition of the disease. My criteria would be, do they fit the official definition of tuberculosis? That is, are they infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis?
Similarly, in discussing rape, many women do not know what the legal definition of rape is. They are forced to have sex against their will, and they are afraid to call it rape, or they think they don't "deserve" to call it rape, or they feel guilty that they were to scared to fight hard enough, etc., etc. That doesn't change the fact that these experiences meet the legal definition of rape, and therefore, are rape.
2:15 am
John, considering I was present for all 400-some posts of that other thread, I can back up LSP that all those quotes were used in context here...or at least that no extra context was necessary in order to grasp the idea of your argument. As for the stuff you're bringing up now, it's all been addressed many times over in the other thread, and I'd like to agree with LSP; don't derail this one. It seems that every thread these days is getting derailed by some verbose man complaining about women in general or about feminism. Let's keep this particular argument to the thread it pertains to.
3:55 am
I was present too, Melissa. You agree with LSP's ideology, bottom line.
3:59 am
As far as derailing, post #10 did that. It's been downhill since then. If you care to comment about the article in question, let it resume now. The issue is not me, nor your misguided views.
Back to the comment that I made. In my opinion, Manhood 101 is a PUA blog primarily, and a political blog secondarily. It is certainly anti-feminist, but by no-means MRA. MRA means that you are an activist, not just an anti-feminist.
4:17 am
So, John Dias, how does the stated ideology of Manhood 101 (specifically that quoted by Brennan) differ from the ideology of a Men's Rights Association? How does it differ from your views as a Men's Rights Activist? (and, no, "I don't like their pickup lines" does NOT count as a differing viewpoint. I'm talking about their guiding ideology.)
HOW, exactly, did the statements I quoted from you inaccurately state your position as a Men's Rights Activist? How do your statements or do they not converge with the stated ideological goals of Manhood 101?
4:30 am
@LeftSidePositive
Excuse me if I am interrupting, but do you deny the notion of "tacit," consent? If so, do you only do so in regard to sex? Shouldn't I check in with my conversation partner to ensure that he/she still wants to have a conversation. If I am playing tennis, should I ask my partner if he/she still wishes to continue playing tennis after every point.
Clearly sex is different, but the question remains, that if we can have tacit consent in many facets of our life; why not sex?
4:37 am
Banyan, read here:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/01/13/rape-analogy-redux-the-stroll-in-the-jungle-theory/
You'll find all you need to know.
And, really...if you're equating starting a conversation with someone to stripping them, getting on top of them, and penetrating their orifices, I somehow don't think you're being intellectually honest here...
4:44 am
Put simply, I have had sexual relationships with women. I am a gentle and respectful guy. I agree that we should ask our partners if they want to have intercourse, but to ask for permission every time, seems a bit awkward. Once again, I am 100% confident that I have never raped a person but I haven't asked for consent every step of the way. You would consider me a rapist?
4:49 am
I gave you the link to the thread where this is on topic. Please copy and paste your response there.
4:50 am
@Banyan: No. But if you're undressing a woman and she lies there completely still, doesn't make a move, maybe even bats your hands away, then ... would it kill you to ask "Do you want to have sex with me?" and act accordingly to her answer? That was actually what the mentioned thread about the "stroll in the jungle"-analogy was all about.
On a side note: My boyfriends always whispers a short "Okay?" sometime before penetration and I don't think how anyone could argue that this is just so so so so so off-putting that you couldn't ever get it up again after having asked such a question.
5:00 am
@Dorothy
Do you want to have this discussion over there?
5:09 am
Ah, sorry for derailing! Actually, no, but my browser doesn't like the 400 plus comment thread.
5:11 am
Args, I meant of course yes, the discussion would be better over there, but I can't open that thread without my browser shutting down completely.
But I hope LeftSidePositive will take over the discussion there :)
5:13 am
So, no you don't want to have this discussion, or just not there.
5:21 am
It's fine if we have the discussion, the problem is I can't open the other thread and I don't want to derail here. So that's why I suggested you talk to LeftSidePositive about it. Or ... well, I mean I posted my opinion in #32 and I'd like to hear what you think about it and maybe that one answer isn't too much derailing.
5:23 am
First I agree that, given the problem of rape, a code word is a good idea. A bit awkward, but necessary. Although I am inclined to believe that if a women didn't want to have sex it would be relatively clear. I also think that in addition to educating men how to ask, we should educate women how to respond.
I am concerned about charging men with rape and thereby drastically reducing the quality of their life because a woman didn't want to have sex but failed to make that clear. I would define clarity as saying no...clearly
5:33 am
Banyan...I was kidding when I first suggested that you read all 448 posts on the other thread, but now I'm not anymore. Read them.
There are some very important stories from survivors on what happened to them and how terrifying and difficult it is to be in that situation. Being assaulted can be a very traumatic experience for anyone--lots of people freeze, dissociate, or can't comprehend in time what's happening (this is especially common when someone is taken advantage of by a trusted friend). Lots of others are very frightened of further violence if they resist. So, it is not remotely acceptable to think that a woman is responsible for how she responds to such an attack.
Really, read the thread and hopefully you'll appreciate what some people have gone through.
9:16 am
Banyan, you answered your own question here:
"Although I am inclined to believe that if a women didn’t want to have sex it would be relatively clear."
Consent does not necessarily take verbal form. That does not mean that it is somehow unclear or that it is possible to "accidentally" rape someone. At some point, there IS the realization that the person you're with clearly does not want to have sex, and there's the decision to not value that person's consent and go ahead and do it anyway. When we talk about the necessity of asking for consent, it's more a way to ward off the rape apologists (which you don't seem to be...I don't think) who insist on saying that you can never TELL if someone wants to have sex with you or not and how are poor defenseless men supposed to KNOW that a woman's not consenting unless she's screaming "no" and attempting to scratch his eyes out? The answer to that stuff is simply...well...if you really have any doubts, then ASK, and there ya go. But I agree with LeftSidePositive...if you find the time, go and read the entire other thread. It's all the 101 you need.
9:46 am
I believe there have been cases where a man has had sex with a woman who has not desired the sex, and not known that she was unwilling. I just believe that those instances must be very rare, and therefore somewhat of a red herring. I would however have a difficult time sending a man or women to jail, unless the alleged victim had made it very clear that they did not consent. By very clear I mean saying no or physically resisting.
Here's an example. I had a relationship with a friend where I would occasionally give him some of my food. It was also kind of agreed upon that he could take a little food here and there without asking. When he started to take more food than what I was comfortable with it was incumbent upon me to tell him that boundaries had been crossed. It was also wrong of him to try and push the boundaries. Yes he knew that I love broccolini and taking that is wasn't all that cool. But I wouldn't claim that he stole my food until I had drawn the boundaries.
What is novel about my theory is that it is conciliatory. Men should seek consent and women should draw boundaries. What is also unique is it spreads the blame. The man is responsible for not seeking consent and the woman is responsible for not providing clear boundaries. You may not see much to be desired in my theory but at least it doesn't completely absolve the man. Oh yeah the stakes are clearly much higher in sex than they are in food. Didn't mean to be crass.
9:55 am
@Banyan:
Your food-agreement was between friends. Between you and a friend I hope you don't live in fear of.
Because sometimes that's the thing that keeps the woman from saying "no".
The average man is muscular, stronger, bigger than the average woman. In some cases that leads to an imbalance: The woman might feel intimidated, she might even fear the man. And in cases like these ... the simple thing of saying "no" gets more difficult than you saying "no" to your friend who steals your food. (By the way, you and your friend already had an agreement - in the date-rape scenario for example the man and the woman don't have a prior sexual agreement.)
10:10 am
But why would a woman assume that just because a man could physically impose himself, that he would? I mean this seems odd. The two are fooling around, one thing leads to the next, she doesn't want him to perform cunnilingus on her, and she decides that it would be dangerous to say no? That's what I don't understand.
I had an agreement that he could eat some of my food, but it was sort of an honor system. He relied on the fact that I would tell him enough is enough, and I relied on him being cautious. I think this is often how sex goes. It's not a contractual relationship; rather it's an empathic dynamic relationship. It lacks some of the clarity of a contractual relationship, but it is spontaneous and trusting.
10:30 am
I am not sure why she would assume that. Maybe he already disregarded it when she faced away from him to escape his kisses, when she took his hands away or whatever. Maybe she even did say something along the lines of "You know, I'm not feeling so good" or "I have to get up early". He disregarded that and used his strength to turn her head around, to re-place his hands on her breasts and so on.
So, maybe, in this situation she really felt that just because he could physically impose himself that he would.
Rape isn't something that happens because someone oversaw a tiny little detail.
When a man is in bed with a woman who, maybe even after kissing him and fooling around a bit, goes completely still, doesn't say a word and feels a bit like a motionless corpse, what would he do? Actually, I think most guys would say "I'd ask her if anything was wrong".
Would you say a guy that doesn't ask her and just sticks his penis in doens't at least contemplate the possibility she might not want this?
10:49 am
O.K. but I think part of the problem is that because guys don't see themselves as rapists, they see their attempts as persistence and not violative. Another part of the problem is that in our culture we inculcate the belief that women are too be chased and so only very firm no's mean no.
Finally I'm not suggesting that the majority of rapes are cat and mouse games gone awry. The guy, I would venture to guess, is very clear about the fact that he has done something heinous. BTW I support verbal consent for intercourse with someone.
10:54 am
Banyan,
I think you're exactly right, a large part of the problem is the culture that encourages the idea that women don't want sex and wont necessarily consent outright. I think part of the problem is that guys don't understand what actual consent looks like, and that women, for there part may not feel comfortable being honest about their desires because it might make them feel slutty. There are really complicated cultural issues here. Have you read Yes means Yes?
11:12 am
@Banyan:
"I believe there have been cases where a man has had sex with a woman who has not desired the sex, and not known that she was unwilling."
Then he raped her. End of discussion. You don't get to "not know" if someone is willing when you start having sex on them. You don't get default access to someone else's body. If you are going to initiate & perform an act on someone else's body, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to know you have consent. (Naturally, this applies to women as well, if she is the one initiating the sex act).
@Melissa:
I agree that the vast majority of the time rapists absolutely know what they're doing. However, there are some guys who are in denial (or just have such an inflated opinion of themselves!) that they persuade themselves that someone (even someone saying no!) "secretly wants it" or whatever. In any case, this is no excuse, and men need to be educated as to what is and is not acceptable, and held accountable for ignoring this. My reply to Simon on the other thread deals with this.
11:20 am
"“I believe there have been cases where a man has had sex with a woman who has not desired the sex, and not known that she was unwilling.”
Then he raped her. End of discussion. You don’t get to “not know” if someone is willing when you start having sex on them. You don’t get default access to someone else’s body."
Nonsense.
You're equating a lack of formal consent to an assault. Again, don't you think that the womans' opinion matters? Or only your own?
A woman may not want to have sex with a man but if she doesn't let him know that and just lets him have at it, how the hell is he responsible for "raping" her? What, it's rape unless she signs a consent-form?
11:34 am
jf1, she has an opinion. She didn't want to have sex. Not my opinion--hers.
Besides, she might "just let[] him have it" because he's holding her down or otherwise threatening her. This is NOT ok.
And, yes, lack of formal consent DOES equal assault. If someone takes your wallet without your explicit consent, it's still theft. If you run into a pedestrian, and they don't yell "swerve!!" enough, it's still reckless driving.
11:41 am
@LeftSidePositive.
What exactly is your definition of consent? In addition what does consent look like in real time?
11:43 am
If you don't know, wait until she says "yes."
11:50 am
How do you know that she has consented? In theory and in real time.
11:53 am
"And, yes, lack of formal consent DOES equal assault."
No, it doesn't. Step out of your little health-care box and actually read up on the assault law. Not to mention the law on theft of private property.
How the hell do you equate stealing someones' wallet with having sex with them without "formal consent"?
11:59 am
"Besides, she might “just let[] him have it” because he’s holding her down or otherwise threatening her. This is NOT ok."
...and you assume that he's holding her down against her will? Or just "holding her down", period?
So if he's lying on top of her, that's a threat? And how exactly did this happen, he just forced her down on the bed and jumped on top of her? And she just passively let him do this...yet still wants to say that it was unwanted, and what happened afterwards was "rape"?
Look, intelligent people do not have sex against their will, lying there passively. If she didn't really want it, she would have let him know in no uncertain terms. Certainly she could have just gotten up and walked out of the room. You suck all the meaning out of "I don't want to have sex with you" by saying that she would just let him do it without comment or any negative reaction...
And for chrissakes if she felt threatened and intimidated by the guy and too scared to say "no" then why doesn't she just file charges and stop all this nonsense whining on the Internet? You want to know why you got "raped"? Because you were too stupid to say "no" then, and you are still to stupid to say anything about it NOW, in any effective manner.
Either stop writing about this right fucking now and file charges against the guy or stop bitching. Seriously.
12:15 pm
...ok a guy walking down the street gropes a woman. Is that "sexual assault" because she didn't consent to it first? Yes or no? You might think that it is (you might have no doubt about it) but is that true, legally?
Simply contacting a person without their consent is not an assault. If I touch you or you touch me it is not by definition "assault" much less sexual assault even if there is contact on an over sex organ. Even if you believe that it is, this sort of thing is so common that it cannot be criminalized.
Is it "rape" if a man puts his penis inside a woman when she didn't say "yes" first? Likewise, for the same reason, so many people have sex without formal consent that you cannot simply criminalize the act of sex with unclear consent. We have court decisions that clarify these uncertainties. You can write any law that you want, if the law attempts to regulate a "common act" than the law is unconstitutional on its face.
Now you can still call it "sexual assault". You're entirely free to do this due to your 1st amendment rights. But if you were to say specifically that "Bill sexually-assaulted Jane by touching her breasts on the subway or by having intercourse with her without her explicit consent" then you would be open to a slander charge because he could easily disprove that it was not "sexual assault" for him to do that.
If you however said, "Bill touched Janes' breasts on the subway and/or had intercourse with her without her explicit consent" (both of which are factual) then Bill would have no slander claim against you.
What does make it ASSAULT is that it is seriously-annoying or intrusive contact (i.e., not the kind of contact that happens on a regular basis). Likewise rape (unwanted intercourse, forcible sodomy or sodomy where the victim could not possibly have consented to the act). But again, it would have to be well outside the range of common behavior, the victim would have to make it clear that she did NOT want to be touched by the accused and it would have to be a clear violation of her person (not just another guy fucking another girl). What would technically stand in court is that it would be called "harassment", but again, only if she was seriously annoyed and alarmed by the act (which we presume would be followed by some outrage, not her calmly getting up and walking away and then not reporting the guy to the police). But the whole thing is very much a gray legal area and the main thing is that it would come down to a court decision in a felony case and a judges' decision in a misdemeanor case.
And this is the problem that many victims have to deal with when they want to make a claim against someone and they know that the legal process will take it out of their hands. So they resort to whining in the press, making slanderous accusations and wringing their hands for public sympathy. This does them a disservice just as much as anything else. You really ought to know for sure what you are doing when you end up alone with someone, and if you don't want to have sex with them, then make that damm clear and hope that they have enough sense not to force the issue. Whining about it afterwards is crying about spilled milk. Unless you have an actual case.
If you think that you have a case, this is not the place to be talking about it. Go call a prosecutor and talk it out with them.
12:17 pm
I swear you "health-care professionals" seem to think that you can sit in your cubicles in your white gowns and write up a whole new set of constitutional "rights" for women, a whole new set of laws. And somehow make them stick.
Luckily we have courts to deal with you.
12:20 pm
Banyan, you ASK her.
Really, it's not that complicated.
12:22 pm
jf1, these aren't "new" constitutional rights, and they don't just apply to women. The right to bodily integrity is fundamental to liberty.
12:28 pm
another distinction that I have to point out is that if a guy is walking down the street and gropes a girl that he doesn't even know, the presumption is that she wouldn't want him to do that and certainly *that* would not be common behavior (at least in the US).
Easily a judge and/or jury could criminalize it on that basis.
A man and a woman in bed lying on top of each other, it's hardly as clear that she wouldn't want him to have sex with her especially if he isn't some strange guy who dragged her into the room and forced her to lie on the bed and remove her clothes and enter her.
Of course, even if they knew each other, and if he did do that then there would be no doubt that it was rape.
But if the sheer fact that he's 6'2" and 250 pounds and she's a willowy 5'3" and 98 pounds is enough for her to feel "threatened" to the point of going along with it "passively"? Then she's got a real issue in court. Some people might agree with her that he was too big and imposing for her to credibly fight for fear of angering him and making it even worse. Some would still say, "honey if you don't fight back, if you don't even say no, what do you expect him to think?"
There's a exceptionally thin line between "she wants it but doesn't want to admit it" and "she doesn't want it but is too afraid to say it". Right in between is "she doesn't mind if I get some but she isn't going to say anything either way". Tell me who do you think should get the benefit of the doubt here? You really think that a court is going to put a rapist label on a decent guy for this? Especially if she's still too unsure of things to even charge the guy later?
So she's left to whinge about it on the Internet, which is hardy surprising at all.
And this is why our society does not let people point their fingers at other and say that they are guilty of a crime. Unless they have been convicted by a judge or jury.
12:36 pm
Well in any case I doubt that it's my opinion that matters, in the long run what matters is hers, the guys', and a judge and a jury.
1:33 pm
jf1, you have no right whatsoever to have sex with someone if you think she "wants it but doesn't want to admit it."
That's bullshit.
If she doesn't say she wants it, she doesn't get any. I suspect she'll learn to be more vocal about her needs in that case...anyway, it's HER CHOICE.
You have no right whatsoever to get off on someone's body without their consent. No matter what multivariate meta-analysis you've done to figure out what they "probably" want. If you do, you are by definition NOT a "decent guy."
1:41 pm
"If she doesn’t say she wants it, she doesn’t get any."
Keep on saying that, sistah.
I hope that that thought keeps you warm and comfortable at night.
1:46 pm
...the bottom line is that if a woman doesn't say "no" before, during or even after, if she doesn't even give the guy even one credible sign that she doesn't want to have sex with him, she has nothing to complain about. Obviously she liked some part of it.
She's perfectly free to file a complaint. I she doesn't even want to do *that*, any ideas that she was raped are all in your head.
1:59 pm
look seriously I wrote this up but for some reason my browser barfed and didn't post it so I'll ask you (more succinctly) again.
Have you ever asked a man to make love to you?
Has a man ever asked you for permission to make love to you before he did?
How many times have you had sex when either of these two things happened, much less both?
I can tell you right now, I have NEVER had sex with a woman where either I "asked for permission" first or she asked me to. That simply has never happened in my experience and I sure don't expect it to happen in the experience of others.
Now you can go online and pull the DC Code or whatever it is that you want and look up the legal definition of rape, and if it says "rape: to penetrate without the victim saying 'ok' first" I'll eat my shorts. Beyond that it happens all the time (certainly in my experience) and on that basis alone I'd say that it's a common enough thing that it wouldn't be called a criminal act.
A judge and jury would have to say that it was a crime, in any case. You can say all you want that a guy has raped a woman but short of having a criminal conviction to back you up, I'm pretty sure that you would just open yourself up to a slander suit.
If a woman truly feels that a man physically intimidated her into compliance with his mere presence, how is that really any different from saying that she consented to his making love to her because of that same physical presence? As long as he wasn't overly aggressive or threatening to her, she wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Especially if she didn't raise a hint of objection.
Beyond that sure you can claim that anything that you want is threatening if you feel that it made you do something that you wouldn't do otherwise. But to say that you felt threatened and that someone actually threatened you, if we can't maintain a distinction between those two things then women would have the power to say that men assault and rape simply by having sex with them. One is a transitive act, the other is intransitive. If a man cannot even walk down the street without threatening a woman, then how the hell are we supposed to peacefully coexist? At some point the woman simply has to step up and complain. Without even *that* she would be free to blame him for anything that they do together, in fact anything that she does, she can say that she did it because she felt threatened by, if not him, then any other man. Any combination of men. The fact that men exist in general. We simply cannot tolerate such nonsense and self-victimization in our society.
2:03 pm
So yes (following up on something that someone said in another thread) women have to walk a fine line between dating men and getting raped by a man, and that's the same for everything in a womans' life.
Just like men have to walk that line too. We cannot just go around forcing ourselves on women even if we wanted to, and surely there are plenty of women out there who make men want to do that. We have to actually "negotiate" with them, for sex and affection. That's how life is. And every day of our lives we run the risk of being accused, arrested and incarcerated (and possibly raped in prison) as a result. All to make women happy.
2:07 pm
...and just like there are women out there who would never date a criminal (or a man who might have an STD, or who would get them pregnant and abandon them) there are women out there who love criminals, even go into prison, have sex with them and marry them. Without even the excuse that they were already dating them first. Even if when the woman is not there, that guy is busy getting his rocks off with other dudes in the compound.
And there are women out there who happily date men who are ex-convicts and either already have HIV or HPV from prison or will get it soon in some inner-city park or nightclub. They LIKE feeling intimidated by men. They like risky sex. There are all kinds out there.
And there's a phone-number for every prosecutor in the country.
2:09 pm
So you have to understand that there are plenty of women out there who want to have sex with a powerful man but who don't want that man to know that "overtly". Women are perfectly capable of communicating their true desires to men in ways that men understand, not all men are animals capable of communicating only in grunts and whistles. Don't read too much into what a woman says about her sex with a man. You weren't there. You aren't him. You're probably not getting the whole story.
2:11 pm
...and the big problem also is that there are a lot of women out there who want their man to take it. Not have to have it given to them. They don't want to date some PC wussy who is going to need permission first to want to get in their panties much less to actually do something inside them.
2:15 pm
So anyway the big problem is that women occasionally find themselves in a situation where they have let the guy get all the way to home plate but don't want to let him slide across. So to speak.
Of course by then he's got some momentum built-up and then things can get a little hairy. But if he slides home anyway and she really didn't want it, she's perfectly free to go down to her local police station and file rape charges on him.
And if she does not do that then he will never get convicted. No matter what you think. Unless of course she gets killed in the process and in that case the local prosecutor will take care of that charge for her. It will be hard for the man to argue that it was consensual sex but he felt it necessary to kill her afterwards. But he can still do that.
2:17 pm
To your personal questions:
Have you ever asked a man to make love to you?
Yes. Frequently. And he's always said yes.
Has a man ever asked you for permission to make love to you before he did?
Yes. Every single time, no exceptions. Sometimes I said yes, sometimes I said no.
How many times have you had sex when either of these two things happened, much less both?
Either--every time. Both, probably around 75% of the time.
Logic FAIL:
"If a woman truly feels that a man physically intimidated her into compliance with his mere presence, how is that really any different from saying that she consented to his making love to her because of that same physical presence?"
Because people do not exist in default states of consent. Any more than having a wallet is giving permission to steal it. Any more than it's legal to shoplift merchandise from a store if they don't see you or object at the time. Each individual person controls their own body and gets to make their own decisions about it.
Furthermore, sex is ALWAYS a transitive act--there's another person involved, after all! You cannot have "sex" without involving another person (I guess, public indecency you could do intransitively).
2:18 pm
...but if she lies there and passively lets him spread her legs, enter, and have his way with her, then it's a public vote at that point whether it's rape or not, and legally that question will always be out of her hands.
It DAMM sure is not in the hands of some health-care practicioner.
And it cannot legally be rape if he's never accused of it in a court of law.
2:22 pm
"Because people do not exist in default states of consent. Any more than having a wallet is giving permission to steal it."
Then you need to get on findlaw and read up on "IMPLIED CONSENT".
2:27 pm
here:
implied consent n. consent when surrounding circumstances exist which would lead a reasonable person to believe that this consent had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered. Examples: a) a "contract" based on the fact that one person has been doing a particular thing and the other person expects him/her to continue; b) the defense in "date rape" cases in which there is a claim of assumed consent due to absence of protest or a belief that "no" really meant "yes," "maybe" or "later." (See: implied)
Of course if she says no and he says "oh I thought that she was just pretending to be proper" that would still be an "implied consent" defense (of one type) and a jury would still be free to accept it or reject it.
It's just kinda hard for a woman to sell a case where she's lying there under a guy that she's romantically-involved with (read that as you will) and doesn't want to have sex with him.
And I have no fucking idea what's wrong with the guys that you date. I have never heard of anything like guys actually *asking* to have sex with a woman. Unless they were talking about picking them up in a bar or something.
2:31 pm
jf1, all of your justifications and misperceptions about women are straight out of the mindset of the "undetected rapist." That is, a man who has negative thoughts about women and specifically endeavors to have sex with them without consent:
http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/files/RAPE_FACT_SHEET.pdf
As for implied consent, I see you don't know anything more about law than you do about public health (I'm soooooo surprised!). Implied consent applies to drunk driving arrests as a condition of driving, as driving is legally construed as a privilege, not a right (and you have to certify that you're aware of this before you get a drivers' license); and in emergency medicine, when a person is unable to respond or give consent and is in URGENT need of medical attention. Even if a conscious person is choking and can't speak, paramedics MUST identify themselves and obtain permission (via nod or gesture) before they can do the Heimlich.
2:35 pm
...besides you're assuming that the wallet is actually stolen. You're making a prima-facie accusation of rape based on sheer penetration. Remember there's a difference between not having (implicit or explicit) consent to take something, and taking it against their will.
The issue with a wallet (like any valuable property) is that people generally do not ant some stranger to come up and take their valuables (and run off with them and spend the money or sell or exchange them). In that case it is clear. Just as it would be for a strange man to walk up to a woman and have intercourse with her, the presumption would be that she would not want that to happen.
But suppose she does want that to happen. And she makes it "implicitly known" that she wants it to happen. then it's all a matter of "signs". Or she demonstrates a lack of concern for her body, and leaves it to be taken by some man, or any man in the public. Then it's not rape, it's abandonment and repossession :)
In any case it's not rape, legally, until she files an official claim of rape.
.................
"How many times have you had sex when either of these two things happened, much less both?
Either–every time. Both, probably around 75% of the time."
Oh so you have actually had a situation where you not only have asked your lover to have sex with you but he has asked you again after you asked him? In fact this is standard practice with you?
Can you get it through your thick skull that some women don't want to have anything like this? And they seek-out guys who will take them without asking first?
2:41 pm
Yes some women prefer the organic and natural progression of sex, or as LSP would call it, RAPE!
2:43 pm
....honestly I feel sorry for both you and the men that you subject to this sort of nonsense.
2:46 pm
"jf1, all of your justifications and misperceptions about women are straight out of the mindset of the “undetected rapist.” "
Ooh another label from a "health-care practicioner" :)
Well, I've never been accused of raping any woman, not even of sexual assault. So I guess that you'll just have to take your link and choke on it :)
Maybe you can ask your boyfriend to agree with you ;)
2:53 pm
...see, this is another manifestation of your basic problem: the need to tell people what they think, what they're doing, what they should think and what they should do.
What their life is and who they are, as well as what is going to happen to them, and what has happened to them.
You're basically a control-freak in a white-coat.
You probably also ask your boyfriends to spank you but that's an aside.
It's funny, you say that I am an "undetected rapist" is that much different from assuming that I'm a rapist? :) I think that we have someone here who is already on that track...isn't that the person that you were talking to when I joined this thread? I think so :)
Here's the deal.
You may think that I or any other man has raped a woman. That doesn't mean that WE believe that we have raped a woman, or are raping women. Likewise that doesn't mean that our *girlfriends* think that we are raping them (or about to rape them).
Now you can sit down in your cubicle and write regulations and laws that say that you think that that's what we men are doing. Knock yourselves out. As long as legally your opinions are irrelevant as long as someone isn't accusing me of a crime that you've written up and/or dragging me into court to try me on that accusation? It's not an issue for me.
Can you handle that? I hope so. Because you have a bigger problem than me, by far. You have to deal with the fat that sooner or later you're going to have a moment with your boyfriend where he's going to say, "...you know what? I'm sick and fucking tired of having to ask you for some pussy. Bend the fuck over the bed and drop your pants."
And between now and then surely you're going to imagine him doing just that.
And then the day is going to come where you are going to wish that he would do it.
2:56 pm
Let's take LSP's argument a bit further. If women are not in a constant steady of readiness to have sex and therefore require clear verbal consent, then the following also follows: if women are not in a constant state of readiness to be asked about sex, then we also need to have verbal consent for asking to have sex with women. AYAYA
2:58 pm
assuming that he doesn't already tie you up at your request, and then ask to make love to you when you're completely immobile ;)
But seriously I swear to God the one time a woman asked me to make love to her, I turned her down and walked out, and I have never, ever asked a woman for sex. That's not my style.
3:03 pm
"jf1, all of your justifications and misperceptions about women are straight out of the mindset of the “undetected rapist.” That is, a man who has negative thoughts about women and specifically endeavors to have sex with them without consent:
http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/files/RAPE_FACT_SHEET.pdf"
That's more of your nonsense. Actually I generally respect the women that I have sex with. I don't have sex with them if I don't respect them. In fact even women that I've had sex with who I knew that I wouldn't really want to date, I ate least respected them as women.
That doesn't mean that I respect all dumb-ass women, like you. Ask me to have sex with you and see what happens.
3:06 pm
I can tell you right now, I know women who I wouldn't date who are smarter than you. Your problem is that you're book smart but street-dumb. You seriously think that the more that you write, the more that you read, the smarter that you are, and if all you women get together and write and read each others' writings, the world will be a better place. You've already demonstrated that the only men that you respect, the only men who are valid "men" in your opinion, are those that agree with you and who do what you "ask". There's simply no room for disagreement with women like you, once you've said or written something, that's how it has to be.
Yet you want freedom of choice from men. With men.
You're a complete fucking hypocrite on top of being stupid and illogical as well.
3:09 pm
Banyan, I guess you've never heard about sexual harassment, then have you?
Yes, there are definitely times & places where it's inappropriate to ask a woman for sex. Do you know what it's like to walk down the street and have total strangers yell at you that they want to fuck you? I don't think you do...it's NOT pleasant at all.
But, to answer your question, talking to someone is not the same as touching them (or penetrating them!). Our legal system makes this very, very clear.
3:10 pm
...well ok in the interests of honesty I can say that I have actually "asked" two women for sex but only because I was out of other ideas :)
and I really really wanted to get into their pants, too...bad :)
but that was a long time ago and both "lessons" stuck, really. The first time was bad enough, the second was the last time.
Anyway I leave you free to write your version of the world as you think that it should be. It'll be fun to think of you being forced to wake up and smell the coffee...often. Like banging your head on your headboard and suddenly realizing that your head is smashed up against it and wondering how you got so carried away.
3:16 pm
jf1, here is the information on the attitudes of undetected rapists from the paper, and it's pretty clear how well it correlates to your statements:
Sexually aggressive behavior is typically part of a belief system that views women as sexual objects to be conquered, coerced and used for self-gratification. Undetected rapists are much more likely to hold stereotyped beliefs about the “proper” roles for women and men in society, and to rigidly adhere to those beliefs. They adhere to “rape myths” that both justify their aggressive acts and foster them. Their adherence to rape myths and rigid stereotypes frequently allows them to distort their perceptions of their victims’ behavior. For example, because they tell themselves that “women say no to sex even when they really want it,” they can disregard their victims’ obvious signs of terror and resistance."
and
"Undetected rapists have repeatedly been found to harbor chronic, underlying feelings of anger and hostility toward women. They typically feel easily slighted by women, and carry grudges against them. This underlying hostility is easily evoked and colors their distorted perceptions of women as “teasers” who either “secretly” want to be coerced into sex, or else “deserve” it. These men have also consistently been shown to have strong needs to dominate and to be in control of women, and to be particularly fearful of being controlled by women."
Notice how similar it is to your she-wants-it fantasies, and the abuse you hurl at me because I am an educated woman who's not afraid to prove you wrong.
3:18 pm
"Yes, there are definitely times & places where it’s inappropriate to ask a woman for sex."
DUH
if we're going to talk about what is and what isn't "INAPPROPRIATE" we'll never leave! You chicks will be babbling on about that forever!
It's bad enough to worry about what is and what is not legal. "INAPPROPRIATENESS" is an entirely artificial construct of weak women and the men who are tied to their pussies by their weak wills. Screw "inappropriateness!" If we lived by that "code" we would never do anything fun!
We'd spend all our time driving 55MPH in the center lane with our hands on the 9 and 5 position. We'd all wear the same type of clothes, drive the same types of cars, get married and have kids at the same age, send them to the same schools...the list goes on and on and on. "Appropriateness" is all about control. Controlling you, controlling me, controlling everyone around you. People who masturbate about control love "appropriateness".
And I can see how you would be all over that.
Why don't you put your books down for a while, take off your white coat and live a little? It's really not as bad as you think that it will be. Trust me.
3:20 pm
"Notice how similar it is to your she-wants-it fantasies, and the abuse you hurl at me because I am an educated woman who’s not afraid to prove you wrong."
...you mean, you're not afraid to try? :)
No, you're eager to try ;)
Your way isn't working, so surely you'll try it mine. I've already busted your shit out over in the "condom" forum. I think that you enjoyed that process. I don't see why you aren't ready to stretch your wings a little bit. Maybe you ought to go out and get a few more guys to whistle at you ;)
You might even like it :)
3:23 pm
jf1, here is the information on the attitudes of undetected rapists from the paper, and it’s pretty clear how well it correlates to your statements:
Sexually aggressive behavior is typically part of a belief system that views women as sexual objects to be conquered, coerced and used for self-gratification. "
I think that you're starting to get hot for me or something. No matter how many times I tell you that that's not me, you still keep coming back and saying that it is.
I am absolutely not the type of guy who views women as sex-objects. But then, I guess that you know me based on a couple of days posting on this site, right ;)
So whatever I say you will form your own opinions and stick to them even if they are wrong...that's entirely consistent with what I've seen from you so far LOL
3:25 pm
oh one last thing then I have to end this nonsense for the day, at least for a while.
You say that my "she wants it" posts are fantasies. So when you ask for it, what's that? Your fantasy?
How much of a fantasy is it if you have done it "75% of the time" LOL
Lady seriously I could spend all day poking holes and making jokes based on your posts. I really have to do something more useful with my time than play with you. I don't get paid to write nonsense on the Internet like you do.
3:29 pm
...seriously some women don't want a guy who needs to be told what to do to make them happy. And no guy is going to make a woman completely happy with everything that he does, every time he does it.
Aren't you smart enough to know this?
Haven't you read this in a paper somewhere, with supporting statistics and data, on a reputable site? LOL
3:32 pm
and I don't want my woman to be a "sex object" I just don't want it to be a problem if I want to make love to her. Either medically or physically. It's that simple. I prefer women who are intelligent, personable, and easy-going in bed. Not very complicated, and no "objectification" at all.
I hope that doesn't blow your brains out of your ears.
3:36 pm
And as far as you being an "educated woman", I've dated plenty of women with Ph.D's JD's and MBAs where *all* they wanted to do was eat, sleep, work, fuck and go hang out with their friends. Never a problem having sex with them and absolutely no issues with "asking" them first. Couldn't give them enough cock.
Hell if all I wanted was sex I wouldn't have broken up with any of them.
I don't know what kind of world you live in, really. But please don't imagine that you know mine.
3:38 pm
@LSP You're making a legal and a moral argument. Let's look at the moral argument. Women aren't in a constant state of readiness to have sex so you have to ask them first. O.K. So for any person, if that person is not in a constant state of readiness for x, then you must ask them for x.
Now to instantiate the general principle. Jessica is not in a constant state of readiness to be asked about having sex so I must ask her if I can ask her about having sex. But Jessica is not in a constant state of readiness to be asked about being asked about having sex so I must ask her if I can ask her about asking about sex. Reductio ad absurdum.
3:41 pm
"Notice how similar it is to your she-wants-it fantasies, and the abuse you hurl at me because I am an educated woman who’s not afraid to prove you wrong."
I hurl abuse at you because you're a conceited idiot who's never met a logical fallacy that she didn't embrace and try to have kids with. You think that I think that this is about you demonstrating your lack of fear? It's all about you demonstrating how much power words have when women wield them.
And me demonstrating how much power you think that you have, that you don't really have. If you haven't gotten that messge by now then you'll never get it.
3:43 pm
...no matter how much you women talk, and God knows that you can talk all day long, and talk shit all day and all night, you still have to deal with men and when you deal with men you deal with men on our terms as long as we don't let you and your little "cunnys" twist our heads around.
Talk all the shit you want. Eventually you'll have to play by our rules.
3:50 pm
I get that not everybody in every situation sees the need to ask their partner. But isn't there normally something that indicates that the partner is willing? Even verbally? I can't remember that I ever had sex where no word was spoken between the first kiss that led to the sex and the penetration itself. Especially not the first time I had sex with that person.
Another thing: As I already said, I don't think everybody in every situation *has* to have the verbal consent. (See couples for example.)
What me puzzles, though, is this "OMG I never want to ask! Never ever! I am so opposed to asking that I would fight for my right to not asking to my grave!"-attitude. Why is that? Why leads the request of a woman that, maybe, next time you have sex you could squeeze in a short, whispered "Alright?" to that much uproar? That this one word is just omg tooo much trouble and the menz are oppressed?
3:58 pm
Dorothy, all I can say is that "may I make love to you?" is *so* bland and unimaginative and I guess that I'm not so bland and unimaginative that I've ever had to ask.
There are so many ways for intelligent people to consent to sex. It's just never been an issue for me with women who I've actually had sex with. It's only been an issue with women who would not have sex with me. And even then, their lack of consent has never been in doubt. I guess that's what intelligence and good communication, not to mention "compatibility" are all about.
4:01 pm
"But isn’t there normally something that indicates that the partner is willing?"
Of course. We all have our "signs".
We all talk during, before and after sex.
I don't see how there can be any real misunderstanding about the issue. But if there is, then clearly the courts are there to clear it up.
4:01 pm
Banyan, like I mentioned...equating talking to someone and having sex with someone are two TOTALLY different things.
There is no law whatsoever against a total stranger coming up to you and TALKING.
No, if someone doesn't appear to be in a state of readiness to be talked to about sex, YOU LEAVE THEM ALONE. Why is that hard to understand? Common sense should do it--I imagine your not one of those people who catcalls women on the street (and I don't really know the legal status of that).
If you think someone is receptive, and they're not, just apologize and change the subject.
No one is claiming that asking someone about sex is a crime, or indeed necessarily a moral transgression. (This does change somewhat if you are in the workplace, if that person is a minor, if you are being overly graphic in your content, or you pursue someone persistently to ask them.)
It's very simple--in most jurisdictions, you can freely ring someone's doorbell to ASK to be admitted to their house, unless they have a sign out that says "No Soliciting." But, you do NOT need a sign that says "No Burglarizing" in order to make it illegal for someone to enter your house without consent.
4:03 pm
If it's the first time I will ask. If it's not a part of our sexual routine I will ask. I object to asking for foreplay and I have been shamed multiple times for asking for a kiss or other things. The women that shamed me expected more confidence out of me. Asking to move from base to base, aside from third to home, is not just cumbersome... it sucks. The women I've been with recognize that. The uproar comes from a certain populism that finds it annoying that some women can define the sexual practice, despite the protests of the many. And despite the fact that if we asked our lovers for permission from base to base, the world would be a significantly less pleasurable place.
4:10 pm
Every time I've ever had sex, explicit verbal consent has been asked and received. Every time. When I have been tied up and helpless, my man has asked for consent. When he has been tied up and helpless, I have asked for consent. If consent is refused for any activity, that activity does not proceed.
Why is this idea so difficult for you, jf1?
4:13 pm
@Banyan: So, then you agree with us. I mean ... you do what we said we want a man to do.
Our discussion actually stemmed from the question of some men "How can I avoid being accused of rape by a woman I had sex with?" to which we responded that explicit verbal consent (I don't think we mentioned foreplay, it was only the act itself) would be a good start. Then ... uproar. How we dare to suggest that?
Just for the record: I don't think it's "unsexy" to ask. I like it if a man really wants to know how I'm doing. I feel safe and loved then. But that's just my personal opinion and I know that not everyone thinks that.
jf1: Comment #96 and you really want to tell us you're not a misogynist?
4:14 pm
@LSP I am deriving a general principle from the claim that a lack of constant readiness in sex requires the other to request sex. You could of course argue that a lack of constant readiness in x does not always require a person to ask for consent, but then you would be forced to argue why sex is unique. This would be relatively straightforward, but I still think my point is a bit of a challenge to your argument. Maybe not.
4:18 pm
@Dorothy
It makes a lot more sense to ask how a woman is doing, then to ask for permission for a sex act. It's more subtle.
4:26 pm
@Banyan: That's all we ever wanted ;-)
I mean, of course you're not going to ask "May I put my penis into your vagina now?" (unless clinical sex talk is your kink, which is okay too, but probably not for most people).
And I think it gets the same thing across. We're talking about a scenario where a woman is uncomfortable and doesn't feel secure enough to say "no". So, you asking her if she's okay is to the same purpose.
4:43 pm
Banyan, I'm sorry...but you think you're being clever? You just look really juvenile and ridiculous.
"but then you would be forced to argue why sex is unique."
Let's see...
1) SOMEONE'S PENIS IS THRUST INTO YOUR ORIFICES. Is that not unique??? Is it hard for you to comprehend that this might be a big deal??? If I shoved a crowbar up your ass would you think, "oh, whatever..."???
2) It might really, really hurt. Do you think it's okay to punch someone in the face? To run over them with your car?
3) She could get pregnant. She could be held responsible for the care and welfare of another human being, or have to undergo a surgical procedure to remove that potential from her, possibly facing scorn, harassment, and violence as a result. She might not morally approve of that procedure, or feel guilty for considering it or obtaining it. Do you think abortions are easy to get? Roughly 87% of counties do not have a provider.
4) She could get a sexually transmitted disease, which may not be curable. She could suffer long-term pain, medical complications, lifelong infertility, and even premature death as a result of what you do to her.
5) Sexual expression is a vital part of human bonding and carries significant emotional weight. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of the "self," and is extremely important for people to direct this most intimate and sensitive part of their lives according to their own autonomous values.
6) Hymen rupture. In many cultures and for many people, the physical marker of "virginity," that a woman often bleeds during her first intercourse (not always true or medically accurate, btw), is considered vitally important, and woman can suffer serious abuse if they're not found to be virgins.
7) Social standing and reputation. Many women are judged by their peer group for how they behave sexually, and women may face considerable condemnation and scorn for what she has done or what was done to her.
8) Recto-vaginal fistulae. Some rape victims are so damaged that the tissue between the vagina and rectum can tear or be eroded away, so women suffer pain, sepsis, and feces leaking out of their vagina until they can surgically get it corrected.
This list is by no means comprehensive...
So, you think you've presented "a bit of a challenge to my argument"??
No, you just made yourself look unbelievably obtuse.
5:01 pm
I already admitted that sex was unique, (i.e. saying that defending such a position was relatively straightforward.) So I apologize for you making the straightforward and reasonable defense of the uniqueness of sex.
My point is that if a lack of constant readiness to do something is a reason to ask someone's permission to do the said thing, then the same rules must also apply to more benign things like talking about sex. It certainly applies to moving from base to base. This argument actually stems not from my childishness but more the old days of my philosophy education trying to make a priori arguments.
5:09 pm
Hm. I'm not big in philosophy. If you're in class and you forgot your pen, you ask your neighbour if you could borrow one of his pens. You'd ask, you'd not just grab one, because you don't make assumptions about his constant readiness to lend his pens to forgetful classmates. That's something that happens every day and I don't think anybody would argue here about consent, lack of consent etc. Would you now want to argue that if you'd have to ask for borrowing the pen then you'd also have to ask for asking for borrowing and so on?
I think, now I know why I never really liked philosophy - for a down-to-earth person that sounds a bit hypothetical and abstruse.
5:13 pm
@Banyan:
"It makes a lot more sense to ask how a woman is doing, then to ask for permission for a sex act. It’s more subtle."
Why do you have this strange preoccupation with subtlety? Why is subtlety more important for you than human rights??
Look, if you're in a well-established relationship, and you and your partner are both clear about what is and is not acceptable behavior between the two of you, fine. Talk about your fantasies and how you dream about the other person acting in a sexual encounter. But it has to be clear. Not explicit--but clear. If "Snuffaluffagus" is your code word, hey, who am I to judge??
BUT, if you don't know the other person, how is she supposed to know that "are you okay?" in your world means, "may I have my way with you now?" People are different, and they can't read your mind (AND you can't read theirs), so be upfront and honest.
Moreover, asking by no means requires that you be timid about it. You can ask in a confident, rakish way, or you can be kind of dirty or titillating about it, or you can see if you tease her if she'll ask you...get creative & good luck.
5:16 pm
#102: Because I'm not talking about BDSM and safewords, perhaps?
Or maybe I am, I don't know...I'd have to ask the ladies here, what I'm talking about, surely they will know better than I know.
as well, what I am, better than I know...
You all can play mind games, word games all day long. You're not fooling anyone but yourselves. If a man needs to know whether a woman wants to have sex with him, in my opinion it's his duty, his responsibility on many levels, to ascertain that before they actually have sex. Nothing in this says that he needs to ask her for permission. Just don't leave her feeling that she's just been raped. Just don't make her feel that she is *getting* raped. Don't even make her feel that she's about to be raped. End of story. And if you can't work your way through that with confidence, you don't deserve to have sex with her, you shouldn't have sex with her and indeed it would be quite smart to not even try. Because then you don't have to worry about her accusing you of trying to rape her.
My whole opinion is that even before you end up someplace alone where you *could* have sex, even before you put your hands on her, you should be pretty damm confident that she wants to have sex with you. And between alpha and beta she has plenty of time to say "no", as long as the man takes his time and doesn't jet from one extreme to the other. And if she doesn't say no, doesn't complain, doesn't squirm, kick, bite or scream for help, then she's happy with the way things are going. That's my honest opinion.
Especially if she's told you before she drops off to sleep that she likes to get fucked while she's sleeping. She likes to wake up with a cock inside her. She likes to have sex outside on a park bench at night. Intelligent women are perfectly comfotable relaying their sexual interests both verbally and nonverbally, directly and overty, and any guy who is dating a woman who won't do that will just have to test her enough to be sure that she's happy letting him take the wheel and drive. Just don't take things to "top gear" the first time out and you're probably going to do well with her.
And if not then she needs to have her head examined to get back "in the car" with him, so to speak, and let him drive them to a place where she doesn't want to go. Not to mention do things that she doesn't want to do. Geez it's not hard to say "stop" when a man has is penis right outside of you.
So you want to say that if you're in that situation and you don't say "go" or "you may pass" that it's rape? My simple response is that you should take a poll and see how well that would hold up in court. You might run into more than a few men, not to mention women, who think that if the woman spreads her legs and reaches back behind her and grabs the mans' cock and puts it in her pussy, that that would be ok too. Even if she doesn't say "ok you can fuck me". Or some other variation on that theme. Your opinion is sheer nonsense.
5:18 pm
Yeah, because we aren't deriving our conclusion from a case by case examination of situations. We're deriving our conclusion from the rule; if a person is not in a constant state of readiness we must ask them if there ready.
5:20 pm
Seriously both of you women all of you whoever think that this is all so "necessary" for the sex to not be rape, need to take a few exercises in "nonverbal communication".
Why don't you try having sex with your partners and NOT "asking" them, not "explicitly giving them permission"? It might open your eyes a little. Use your fucking brains for more than to drive your mouths.
5:23 pm
I don't think the exact words matter when you ask. You can ask "Can I fuck you now?" in a menacing way and nothing's won there. Then you can ask "Are you okay?" and maybe stop for a moment, show her you care, show that her opinions matters and then she maybe feels confident enough to say that no, actually, she would not like to have sex right now.
(I agree, of course, that when you after the second kiss ask if she's okay and then never stop again until your orgasm, that's not the way to go either.)
5:28 pm
"if a person is not in a constant state of readiness we must ask them if there ready."
That's completely in the eye of the beholder. Besides, a woman can always say that she only said yes because she felt threatened.
See the problem is that this bullshit just doesn't stick and stay. Women want to have it one way if they're happy, the other way if they're not, but neither way really works because it takes TWO PEOPLE to have sex. And both people have to be happy for it to be good sex. So they can't just have it their way when they want it. Eventually at some point they either have to respect the guys' opinion or just abuse him and dismiss him afterwards, just exploit him. No guy in his right fucking mind is going to say that he raped a woman no matter how he ends up inside her. And no matter what a man does a woman can always argue that she was forced to put out. She can say anything that she wants.
The only thing that really matters is if she does not say that she was raped. But the criteria differs with every woman you ask, indeed it can change depending on the very act of sex taking place. Listening to these two nutheads ramble on about "verbal consent" is a waste of time.
Like I said before you place too much stock in book learning. It doesn't apply at the individual level unless both people agree to use that as their standard of communication. I can just see it now, if by some act of Satan you and I ended up in the same bed together, you would be waiting for me to ask you for permission and I would already be deep inside you, what would you do then, scream out that I'm raping you?
Oh what fun that would be. Then we both would be arguing to the cops and a judge and in front of a jury and you'd have to explain just how you let me get inside you if you really didn't want to have sex with me. And you can pull out your book argument and see how that flies with a court. Just how well do you think that would work?
Thank God that you and I would never fucking make it to bed together, really. I don't think that there's enough alcohol in the world to make me want to sleep with a woman like you.
5:30 pm
I'm obsessed with arguments, clarity, distinctions, intellectual honesty, for reasons unknown, and I would agree that it's not always helpful. I do know that people who don't care about those things are much more likely to be bigots. I take great pride in the fact that I have a "intellectual conscience," and this will always be my north star. It is important to note that fascists were probably just social activists without an intellectual conscience. Skeptics are annoying but kool-aid drinkers are dangerous and really icky to me. Additionally I'm loathe to admit that this forum is the forefront of the human rights movement, although it is a helpful sight. Finally social activists don't impress me as much as the volunteer changing bed pans. I think these sights often become more about indignation and intellectualism. In short I don't really see intellectuality and social activism as a sign of a good heart.
5:32 pm
"I can just see it now, if by some act of Satan you and I ended up in the same bed together, you would be waiting for me to ask you for permission and I would already be deep inside you, what would you do then, scream out that I’m raping you?"
Your whole argument is blown to smithereens by the sheer fact that you would have plenty of time to say "stop" before I actually entered you. You'd have to be a complete idiot to argue that you had been raped if that happened.
And trust me if I ever got the feeling that you *might* accuse me of rape if I *did* have sex with you? You and I are heading in different directions at high speed.
5:34 pm
Honestly you're facing 5 to 20 years in a state pen?
Why would you even deal with a woman who might accuse you of raping her if you have sex with her?
It's like that whole STD thing. Why would you have sex with a woman who might have an STD? Are you just plain fucking stupid? Why not just take a gun out and shoot yourself in the face?
5:37 pm
...drunk, horny, young and stupid, especially naive, I can see how there may be some confusion there. Once you've had sex with a woman more than a few times, you should at least have SOME clue of what's going on when she wants it vs when she doesn't. You don't get a good vibe from it, don't do it, it's that simple. One piece of ass is in no way shape or form worth a prison sentence, especially with all the other hot, willing and eager pussy out there. Screw all the stuck-up stupid bitches.
5:40 pm
******************
seriously if you're with a woman who you feel might accuse you of sexual assault if you lay hands on her or who might accuse you of rape if you have sex with her?
Don't pass go, don't collect $200.
Pick up your piece and RUN.
Don't even bother. It just ain't worth it.
No matter what you do or say, if she makes a credible case and gets a sympathetic ear she's going to win that argument. Don't even take the chance. Enough guys get accused of sexual assault and rape who don't even KNOW their accuser. If she actually knows you and you've had your hands on her and she's ready to run to the cops and scream rape? You don't have a chance.
5:42 pm
@Banyan:
"My point is that if a lack of constant readiness to do something is a reason to ask someone’s permission to do the said thing, then the same rules must also apply to more benign things like talking about sex."
In a moral sense, yes...before you talk about sex, you really should make a good-faith effort to know if that's what she wants or might be interested in. You wouldn't go up to a happily-married friend of yours and ask her to have sex with you, would you? Or a woman you've only been speaking to for two minutes?
But, and here's the logical flaw in your argument...not all "somethings" are the same. Our society pretty clearly establishes that people can initiate communication with each other in most cases (as long as you're not being aggressive, persistent, stalking, etc., etc.), but cannot violate someone's personal space, property, or autonomy (and, if the communication is rebuffed, that should be respected). Again, you can ring a doorbell, but not enter a house.
However, even in verbal encounters, there is an etiquette...a friend who calls you might ask, "Do you have a minute?" before asking you for something else. I'm sure at one point or another you've asked someone, "Do you mind if I ask you a personal question?" if you were concerned about their family, their health, whatever. The person who stops you on the street will often ask, "May I have a moment of your time?" (and, if you resolutely walk by without looking at them, they will probably know not to ask even that). This is not legally (or even morally) binding, of course, because we accept that you can initiate communication, but this etiquette does show the basic respect of asking for someone's consent/approval in stages.
5:43 pm
ergo
if you feel like you need to ask?
It's a mistake. Pick up your shit and go
run
now
quickly....
if she gives you the impression that you *should* ask? Sooner or later you're going to ask, you'll think that she said "yes" when she actually meant no and she'll say that you raped her after you get done. Don't even fuck with it. Save your energy for the women out there who will happily have sex with you without anywhere near that complication.
5:44 pm
...there is no way in hell that one piece of ass, one nut is worth 20 years in jail with a bunch of dudes trying to get into your butt. No way. Why even begin to take that chance.
5:46 pm
jf1,
"Especially if she’s told you before she drops off to sleep that she likes to get fucked while she’s sleeping. She likes to wake up with a cock inside her. She likes to have sex outside on a park bench at night."
If she HAS TOLD YOU that, then she has given consent by any possible definition. That's really, really clear. Why is that even an issue?!
5:53 pm
For chrissakes what are you going to do when you go to bed with some psycho crazy bitch who said yes and then turns around and says that she didn't, afterwards?
How do you know that she isn't setting you up just to get back at guys, for some rape that she actually went through a while back? Why even take part in that? It's all going to come down to her credibility vs yours. And what are you going to do, take notes? Record her saying "yes, you can have sex with me, this day October 31st, 2010 at 9pm with how many thrusts are required for you to reach orgasm"?
You do realize that the moment that you buy into that shit that if she changes her mind mid-stream that you would be raping her by your own admission? She could blackmail the fuck out of you afterwards.
No you can't look at what she's saying now in isolation. You have to look at what she's going to say afterwards, tomorrow, next week, even after you dump her. You have to think to the *future* not just the present, that's the whole key. when it comes to money, kids, her living in your house, you living in her house, you two out with your friends, what happens at the Christmas party, all of that. It's never just about the "present". It's always just the first moment of the future. And the future is what you need to worry about because if she's going to try to fuck you back it's going to happen after you get done fucking her. Not "during".
5:57 pm
...this is what I'm saying...pussy is a dangerous substance, much like Kryptonite for Superman. It affects their brains just like heavy radiation would affect yours.
You get close to it, your task is to think *clearly* not just let a whiff of skank knock you off your game like catnip. You're going to have enough trouble with that.
Think of it as a man-trap. If it doesn't seem right, if there's any hint of danger, *run*. Run away and come back to fuck another girl another day. You're going to have enough trouble with the good ones, don't waste your time with the bad ones.
5:59 pm
"If she HAS TOLD YOU that, then she has given consent by any possible definition. That’s really, really clear. Why is that even an issue?!"
...whatevah...not like I'm going to argue with you about it.
6:02 pm
Hell like your credibility on this issue hasn't evaporated the moment that you said "yes". How many times does he need to ask you before he knows that he can have sex with you?
You don't get it yet? No matter what you will always want to maintain control. When you feel that your control has been usurped, when you feel that your independence has been stripped away, you'll start bitching and saying all kinds of crazy shit to get it back. The hell if I'm going to argue with you about whether it was ok for me to have sex with another woman.
6:04 pm
I'm not talking about BDSM and safewords either. That's a completely different issue.
What I am saying is this: my man's penis and my vulva do not interact without both parties verbally expressing their consent.
You always need to ask, because maybe my script isn't your script. Maybe I'm enthusiastically kissing you because I'm really enjoying the kissing, but I don't want to have sex. Unambiguous communication avoids the problem of mixed signals. I'm going to have much better sex if I know consent is going to be sought, because then I'm free to react how I feel, and not worry about whether my body language matches up to your expectations.
Of course you need to ask. You always need to ask. Look at it this way: even if she never brings charges, do you want to rape someone because you misread her reactions? Do you want to risk doing that? Are you willing to wonder ever after if she actually wanted that?
I mean, I wouldn't be content to get myself off on someone else's body while they lay back and thought of England. I don't want passive endurance. I want enthusiasm. I want a "hell yes!".
6:05 pm
"jf1, here is the information on the attitudes of undetected rapists from the paper, and it’s pretty clear how well it correlates to your statements:"
what
evah
I've indulged your need to cause trouble for men long enough. End of discussion.
6:07 pm
"Unambiguous communication avoids the problem of mixed signals."
There are no mixed signals when you have good communication with someone, and if you don't have good communication with them then you shouldn't have sex with them. In fact you're likely to come away unhappy.
This is basic logic. I can see that being a problem for you to the point where you need to give verbal permission to your man to have intercourse. Honestly neither one of you should be fucking the other, really.
If you can't have sex without the threat of a rape-charge hanging over your head, why the fuck are you two having sex in the first place?
6:10 pm
no matter how many times you say yes, you can always turn around and say that you said no, or "stop" after he started, and that he has sex with you anyway, against your will
this is so fucking simple you'd have to be an idiot to not see that.
You don't want to put out, get out. Any question about it? You're gone. Any doubt about whether this is going to be a problem, today, tomorrow, next week, next year? You're gone. End of issue.
6:10 pm
There's no rape-charge hanging over anyone's head. We talk because we like to be clear and don't wish to risk hurting each other.
6:11 pm
You are frightening.
6:11 pm
I should know by now that nothing jf1 posts is ever actually a real question...just a springboard for him to go all loony with his delusions about human relationships!
Really, Banyan, Froth, Dorothy and I are having a very interesting discussion. Is it too much to ask that it not be interrupted by the rantings and ravings of an overtly dishonest and aggressive poster??
6:13 pm
LeftSidePositive: I interpret the following statement from the OP to mean that real men wear skirts. Do you concur?
"Men who can properly exercise their authority do not require pants."
6:15 pm
"You always need to ask, because maybe my script isn’t your script. "
yes and your "script" can change at any time, any day, any month any year. If you feel that I need to ask permission? Get out.
"Of course you need to ask. You always need to ask."
No I don't. I need to ascertain whether you are sane or not. And if I feel that you might accuse me of rape? You need to hit the fucking road. Of course I could be wrong and I might have to deal with that later but I'd be better off to not deal with it right from the start! How the fuck could I ever know that I could trust you to be honest about what you said?
" Look at it this way: even if she never brings charges, do you want to rape someone because you misread her reactions?"
There will be no issue of my "raping someone" for any reason because I will not have sex with someone who I feel would accuse me of raping her if I have sex with her. Period.
6:21 pm
"You are frightening."
I'm not surprised that you say that. Self-insertion into victimhood seems to be quite easy for someone like you, and statements like that are enablers for your victimhood.
I'm sure that you can conjure up fear from anything that you read, so what would stop you from doing that here if it benefitted you by enabling your victimhood to reach full force? this is what I'm saying, a man can't have a truly honest, open and intelligent and logical discussion with a woman like you, because women like you will always get emotional and react instinctively, not intelligently and logically. You have no need for that because it doesn't serve your purpose. Your purpose is to promote a feminist agenda that empowers women. Whether it makes sense in the abstract or not, whether it's fair or not, and most of all, whether it's logical and rational or not. In fact to you it will be "logical and rational" simply if it empowers women!
It doesn't matter what I do or say, you will attempt to twist it to your advantage. Why would a man ever think anything differently about asking you to have sex?!? The day comes when you want to think that you boyfriend raped you? You will claim that he forced his way on you even after you said no. The moment that he has to admit that he regularly asks you for permission for each and every sex act, all you hae to do is make it look like you said no when he thought that you said yes, and plain and simple he's screwed himself by even playing your game by your rules. You own his ass.
6:27 pm
It's clear to see. The womans' need to pin down the rules by which rape is determined so that she decides when she is raped and not the man allow her to set the rules in her favor. A fool plays along with her rules in her game at her choice of time and place. A wise man throws out that entire bullshit rulebook and gives the woman a simple choice. We play by my rules or not at all. You are not the one facing a jail sentence if we have sex. We have sex when *I* am ready to, when *I* say so, and you agree to this, or you put on your shoes, pick up your bag and walk out the door and go find another man. Plain and simple.
And if you happen to be saying this in her house then you just leave if she doesn't agree. You *ALWAYS* set the rules. God knows that it's easy enough for a woman to find another dick. Never play the sex game at a disadvantage on purpose.
6:29 pm
I already own his ass. It's a very fine ass.
I am astonished, jf1. How well you have understood me! How perfectly you have characterised my personal characteristics, my agenda, my attitudes towards men and the world - and all from only four comments on the Internet! You are a wonder and a jewel, capable of superhuman feats of extrapolation. From eleven paragraphs you have deduced the entire person.
6:29 pm
"There’s no rape-charge hanging over anyone’s head. We talk because we like to be clear and don’t wish to risk hurting each other."
There is as long as he has to ask for permission to have sex with you. If he knows what he's doing he won't hurt you. Especially if he's cautious to start, you're "clear", and make it clear that you aren't enjoying it if it starts to hurt. Which you will do anyway.
Your argument is swiss-cheese.
6:30 pm
"You are a wonder and a jewel, capable of superhuman feats of extrapolation. From eleven paragraphs you have deduced the entire person."
LOL I hear that this sort of thing happens here often :)
amazing what can happen when you give a person a chance to speak their mind freely...instead of speaking for them, isn't it?
6:31 pm
@Froth,
That's Amanda's statement, not the MRA's...but, I was thinking she meant no lower-extremity covering at all!
To be fair, though...I think the MRA meant not *stylish* pants, but yes, it is fun to think to what levels one can extrapolate the claim that designer jeans aren't necessary.
Although, I guess au natural wouldn't fit their sense of "order."
6:33 pm
"Really, Banyan, Froth, Dorothy and I are having a very interesting discussion. Is it too much to ask that it not be interrupted by the rantings and ravings of an overtly dishonest and aggressive poster??"
LOL you can talk about this to your hearts' content.
In fact, I think that you will :)
Especially if in the process you can denigrate me even more :) obviously you enjoy that...
If you think that I'm lying to you, t hen it's clear that you are busy already attempting to dismiss what I say out of hand.
6:36 pm
@Banyan,
I just thought of a situation that really perfectly describes what you're wondering about as far as asking for consent:
In one of my anthropology courses, we were talking about various subcultures, and in our study materials was quoted a gentleman who wrote into an advice column. The letter was from some time in the early '80s, when it became fashionable to incorporate dominatrix motifs in mainstream fashion. The gentleman, who was a fetish enthusiast, found this very frustrating because he could no longer tell who was actually interested in his fetish (this was before Craigslist!). He wrote:
"I'll go to a club and I'll see a girl with a chain, or a hot, kinky outfit. I'd ask her 'Are you into this sort of thing?' And she'd say 'what?' And so I'd say 'What you're wearing represents a culture that is special to a lot of people, and I was wondering, are you interested in that?' She'd just give me this blank look...to them it's just a fashion statement."
Apart from the fact that I do find this guy's conundrum pretty funny...notice that he is behaving in a very respectful way and not making assumptions about consent. He knows that someone really ought to give some measure of consent or interest before he talks to them about his fetish, so he is sure to ask in such a way that a person who would not give consent isn't exposed to a lot of details they don't want to know about.
So, to answer your question, it's not always necessary to ask if you can ask, but there are some situations where respectful people do just that.
6:37 pm
...if you really feel that there is no rape-charge possible arising out of your having sex with your partner, then why would he ever need to ask you if he can actually have sex with you.
The only other reason is if he's so bad in terms of timing or technique that it would be a disaster unless you tell him that you are ready for him. Or you want him to wait until you have reached optimal "readiness", which certainly will be long after *he* is ready. So he's ready, you're not quite ready, but if he starts you can't let him know that you're not quite ready or that you want him to wait without making things such that he has to ask permission to enter you?
That's all about control.
And people who are all about control have to exercise that control at some point, or it's like a rope hanging limp, useless. Sooner or later you'll snap that rope. You have to or you won't feel that you're in control.
6:39 pm
That's a shame. I was really hoping they were recommending that men on the pull should not wear trousers.
The obsession with order seems very strange to me. Although I think the strangest thing is the belief that women cannot consider the viewpoints of other people, given that women are so widely considered to be the better caregivers for children.
6:42 pm
...does he also have to "ask permission" to put his finger inside you?
"ask permission" to eat your pussy? To rub his cock on the ips of your pussy? To massage your body in other ways and places? To stick his finger up your ass or his cock in your mouth? What about just taking your clothes off? Even for a kiss?
And this is after how many times of having sex with you?
So regardless of all the other times that you've had sex and done all this and said yes and even when you end up in these same old positions and these same old things are about to happen, he still does not know that he can do any of this much less all of it to you without you accusing him of rape if he doesn't ask first. Gee what fun.
No, that's not a "threat" hanging over his head". That's a *catastrophe* hanging over his head. An ongoing, never ending, never leaving catastrophe.
If it were me, that catastrophe would be heading out the door right ahead of you.
6:46 pm
"Although I think the strangest thing is the belief that women cannot consider the viewpoints of other people, given that women are so widely considered to be the better caregivers for children."
Yes, the two are so highly contradictory LOL
6:50 pm
Your questions perfectly illustrate my point that your script is not my script.
There is very little chance of my man raping me. There is no chance of my making a false accusation against him. We communicate to ensure that both of us are enthusiatic about whatever activities we are about to engage in.
And one more thing. He doesn't 'ask permission' and neither do I. We establish mutual enthusiasm. You do realise that women enjoy sex, right? You do understand that penis in my vagina feels fucking amazing?
6:54 pm
"And one more thing. He doesn’t ‘ask permission’ and neither do I. We establish mutual enthusiasm. You do realise that women enjoy sex, right? You do understand that penis in my vagina feels fucking amazing?"
Oh sure, I've heard that some women enjoy that ;)
I don't know about "fucking amazing" but I'll take your word on it. But only when you want it, right?
The question is whether you lay down conditions in any way for him to enter you. As in, "if you do not do this, then you do not get the pussy".
7:01 pm
"I don’t know about “fucking amazing” but I’ll take your word on it. But only when you want it, right?"
Does sex feel good to you when you don't want it?
7:03 pm
come on, "don't want it, don't mind, and want it" are relative terms. And it's easy to move from one state to another.
so answer my question, please. You might as well, or we'll just have to answer it for you :)
7:06 pm
No, sex does not feel good when I do not want sex, in the same way thar chocolate cake is not good when I do not want chocolate cake.
Things are not pleasurable if you don't want them. It's very simple.
7:06 pm
...besides if it doesn't feel good for you when you don't want it, then it doesn't matter if it feels good when you do want it.
All that matters is whether you want it or not. Which gets us back to square one. We presume that you would not call it rape simply because it doesn't feel good. If that's what this is all about then things are worse than I thought.
7:08 pm
#154 I disagree with you and I think that you are avoiding the question in #151 as well.
let's leave the personal happiness out of this for now. Just answer the question of would you say that your boyfriend is raping you if certain conditions are not met before he enters you?
7:11 pm
...and as well, it would not be attempted-rape if he tried to enter you before those conditions were met?
Even if you had not made those preconditions clear to him?
7:13 pm
You are not making sense.
If I do not want sex, I do not consent to sex. It is the presence or absence of consent that differentiates between sex and rape. While consent exists for an activity, that activity may take place, and when it does not, it must not. This is as much a requirement on me as on him.
Here's an example: I had sex with my man. Some time after he had placed his penis inside me, but before either of us orgasmed, I asked him to stop. He stopped.
No rape was committed. Ta-da!
7:16 pm
...so assuming that there is a dividing line between "attempting to have sex with you when you don't want to" and not "attempting to have sex with you when you don't want to" (not even to mention "you have not given consent to the act of sex")
and realizing that this dividing line is determined by you (and possibly the courts) and as long as you two are together when these two possibilities intersect, a police officer would be bound to arrest him before he would commit the crime of attempted rape even before this point, yes? At any time in which it is possible that he could be attempting to rape you: he could be trying to have sex with you before you are ready (not to mention give consent)?
Do you agree or not?
7:24 pm
Oh how I wish I didn't have to wear pants. Stupid society.
7:25 pm
I'm truly sorry if jf1 is hurting people on this forum, but from my slightly twisted point of view he is actually really funny. I mean isn't he incredibly unique? He is very prolific. His arguments aren't complete garbage but they don't really show any curiosity or empathy, they just float around, endlessly promoting the same ideas of dislike for feminists and the dogged refusal to make any compromises. I don't know exactly why this is funny, but his posts do make me laugh.
7:26 pm
in #158 you are proving my point. You believe that you can define the limit between rape and "not-rape" based on your desire to have sex.
You may or may not want to have sex, you may or may not give him "consent". The two are different items that you are tying together in your brain, based on your opinion that sex "when you are not ready" wouldn't be pleasurable and therefore you wouldn't want to have sex when you are not ready, so there is implicit lack of consent in the fact that you are not ready for it.
So what matters to you most of all is that you are not ready for it. If he tries to have sex with you when you are not ready (note that the issue of stated consent has not yet occured) then he is attempting to rape you, by your own convoluted definition.
If he is actually inside you and he stops because you say "stop" that still means that he is inside you, simply stopping doesn't mean that he isn't raping you according to the legal definition. He's still in your body. Even if he immediately withdraws, but then he would still be in a position to *attempt* to rape you.
It would be a simple question of intent to commit the crime (I believe that they call it "mens rea"). The physical requirements ("actus reus") are met. But certainly at that point he would be open to criminal charges for both "attempted rape" and "actual rape". Solely up to you to charge him at that point. His cock is caught in the trap. Either in or just outside of your pussy, when you don't want to have sex with him.
The rational way to avoid this "dicklema" as I have said in other threads is to ensure that the woman actually a) understands and b) agrees to the understanding that her mere presence anywhere near the mans' cock, especially in a situation that facilitates their sexual activity, is an agreement to have sex. Beforehand. So that is a nonissue.
7:27 pm
I can't decipher your proposition. Could you restate it more clearly, please?
7:28 pm
...the main thing is that no smart man would get involved or stay involved with a woman who might accuse him of rape, just as no smart woman would get involved or stay involved with a man who might rape her.
Between the two of them he is fine as long as he doesn't abuse his "access" and she is fine as long as she doesn't pose a threat. A threat from either hanging over the other nullifies the agreement and disassociates the relationship. That is, if they are smart.
7:35 pm
...the problem as posed earlier is that even when a man is simply kissing a woman, even if they both have their clothes on, she can still accuse him of attempted rape if he wants to have sex with her and he's trying to, but she doesn't want to have sex with him, ignoring the question of consent for the moment.
The supposed "victim" in this case is trying to draw the line at *rape* when she should have drawn it at "attempted rape". If she wasn't going to accuse him of that, then logically there was no basis for him to even worry about rape. Unless she honestly thought that he was just going to "make out" with her and had no intentions of having sex with her, so she was cool with it. Unfortunately it didn't take much to cross the line from "no intentions" to "actually trying". Even so, even granting her that much, the crime, if there was one was committed the moment that he reached for her panties and opened his zipper, long before he actually entered her.
In fact the clear path is from stalking to sexual assault to attempted rape to rape. She let him pass all the way from one end to another without complaint. And then aftewards wants to hit a legal "home run".
7:38 pm
...that's exactly the kind of thing that men avoid by not even dealing with women in close quarters who don't want to have sex with them.
7:40 pm
When I am ruler of the world, there is going to be a new law: do not be more stupid than you can help.
I suspect jf1 will fall foul of it.
Rape is nonconsensual sexual intercourse. If I choose to consent to intercourse, then sex and not rape has occured.
To quote myself, comment #158 on this thread: "It is the presence or absence of consent that differentiates between sex and rape."
I may choose to consent to a particular activity regardless of my state of desire. However, because I am a rational person who prefers not to engage in undesired activities, I usually decline consent if I do not feel desire.
My state of arousal has no bearing on my state of consent. You are reading something into my words that is not there. My choice to consent is normally based on my desire; my state of consent, irrespective of my arousal, is the difference between sex and rape.
Importantly, so is his. It is more likely that he will decline to have sex than that I will. And I don't put my vagina around his penis if he declines to consent to that activity.
7:55 pm
You can't define "consent" in some nice, neat closed package.
7:57 pm
If normal healthy people can have normal healthy sex without verbal consent, then verbal consent is not necessary. Pointing out that many rapes occur when verbal consent is absent doesn't negate that point. Pointing out that to err on the side of caution one should seek verbal consent doesn't work either. Pointing out that seeking verbal consent makes sex awesome doesn't do that either. Pointing out that men don't seek verbal consent and then rape women fails as well. Pointing out that verbal consent is the safest way to ensure that you aren't raping a woman doesn't work as well.
7:58 pm
Why not? It's a very simple series of yes/no questions. It's not difficult or complicated.
Tell me, why are you so set against the idea of a women asking for your consent? You stated above that you had once been asked for sex and had walked out. Do you believe that women should never ask for sex?
8:01 pm
"Why not? It’s a very simple series of yes/no questions. It’s not difficult or complicated."
It's not difficult or complicated for *you* because you know what you think "consent" is and you are deciding who decides. IE you.
You act as if only your opinion on this matters. The point is that you and your boyfriend agree, so far you are having consensual sex. The issue is what happens when you DO NOT agree.
How then is the question of rape, attempted-rape or sexual assault determined?
You can say that it is based on "consent" all you like. That still leaves open the question of what is and what is not "consent".
8:04 pm
in even the simplest case you can say yes, you can lie there or you can say no.
Note that there are variations on all of these.
Consent could be determined by any combination of factors from these 3 sets. All in the eye of the beholder. Even then the question would still remain of whether he intended to rape you or not.
8:04 pm
Pay attention. If he doesn't consent, no sex occurs. Both persons have to consent.
I am aware that I cannot read his state of consent with absolute accuracy, and so I ask him. He says yes or he says no. Simple.
8:05 pm
If he just lies there, that's a "no".
8:05 pm
"If normal healthy people can have normal healthy sex without verbal consent, then verbal consent is not necessary."
....no, clearly in the opinion of these two women, if "clear verbal consent" is not given, then it is rape by definition.
So they will happily tell a man that they are a rapist if they have ever had sex with a woman without it.
8:06 pm
"If he just lies there, that’s a “no”."
And that's an understanding reached through time between the two of you. It could easily be seen as a yes with two different people.
Or even a "maybe, why don't you give it a try and see what happens".
8:10 pm
both of those will show up eventually i hope ;)
8:10 pm
I do not find this statement:
"Actually I generally respect the women that I have sex with. I don’t have sex with them if I don’t respect them. In fact even women that I’ve had sex with who I knew that I wouldn’t really want to date, I ate least respected them as women."
to be consistent with this:
"pussy is a dangerous substance, much like Kryptonite for Superman. It affects their brains just like heavy radiation would affect yours.
You get close to it, your task is to think *clearly* not just let a whiff of skank knock you off your game like catnip. You’re going to have enough trouble with that. "
or this:
"One piece of ass is in no way shape or form worth a prison sentence, especially with all the other hot, willing and eager pussy out there. Screw all the stuck-up stupid bitches."
8:11 pm
wow, so have they put a filter on the posts here? No posts with the word "fuck" in them?
Anyway i said in two posts (neither have shown up yet) that this doesn't include the woman lying there with bedroom eyes playing with her pussy...I wonder if those two will ever show up
8:12 pm
re #178, those are entirely consistent. You just aren't logical enough to understand that, apparently.
If I have to spell it out for you then the meaning is lost on you, obviously.
8:14 pm
"And that’s an understanding reached through time between the two of you. It could easily be seen as a yes with two different people."
Yes, I suppose it could. For us lack of response would be a sign of something terribly wrong and I would worry he'd fainted or something.
Unambiguous communication is the point. The easiest way to be unambiguous is to use words, but that is not the only way. You can use little coloured flags if you like.
I think, with a person you are not extremely familiar with, lack of response should be read as a "no" because body language takes time to learn. You might miss out on sex your partner was willing to have, but that is less important than that you might rape them if they weren't.
Of course, "I don't know yet, keep kissing me and we'll see" is a perfectly acceptable response to the question "Shall we have sex?". You just have to accept it's a "maybe" and not a "yes", and ask again later. Or wait for them to ask you, if you prefer.
8:15 pm
...all women have a pussy, that doesn't mean that all women are stupid skanks. I tend not to fuck stupid skanks, so respecting the women that I have sex with is not a problem.
In fact, usually, that's why we have sex.
How is that hard to understand?
Tell me that you're not one of them...
8:18 pm
"Of course, “I don’t know yet, keep kissing me and we’ll see” is a perfectly acceptable response to the question “Shall we have sex?”. You just have to accept it’s a “maybe” and not a “yes”, and ask again later. Or wait for them to ask you, if you prefer."
Indeed, there's a vast range of possible questions and responses between "can I?" and "yes/no".
You can't ignore the rest and define consent just based on those two alone. That is, if you're a rational being. It's like focusing on two grains of sand on the beach.
8:18 pm
Banyan,
I think you find jf1 funny because you don't have to deal with the aftermath of these kinds of attitudes. When he goes around saying that a woman in certain situations is "asking for it," it's profoundly damaging to those who have survived those experiences. Let alone statements like "No intelligent woman would get involved or stay involved with a man who might rape her," which I'm sure is really useful advice for women who love & trust someone, only to find that he's a monster who will victimize them.
It's one thing if people like this are being genuine, and you can have an open debate with them, but when someone is being willfully obtuse and inflammatory it is not in any way useful.
Assertions that a woman "agrees to the understanding that her mere presence anywhere near the mans’ cock, especially in a situation that facilitates their sexual activity, is an agreement to have sex" ARE NOT FUNNY when you're the one who is expected to modify your behavior EVERY DAY to avoid being victimized by men like this who will then declare she "asked for it." Similarly, when he and people like him ridicule how women respond to being groped, it discourages women from coming forward.
Furthermore, these attitudes he's spewing out about condoms are EXTREMELY dangerous: "Condoms don't effectively protect against STDs," "any woman who insists on condom use is a skank," "condoms promote promiscuity," and "a relationship can't be real if a condom is used." In clinic, I see people DYING as a result of these attitudes. It is not something I can sit by and think is funny.
8:21 pm
Likewise with the question of whether "consent" can be given and then retracted after intercourse has begun. You say that it can.
Well certainly I grant you that in your bedroom you can say that. In a court of law your opinion is just evidence to be considered like all other brought before the court.
Technically what will happen is that all evidence will be viewed "in the light most favorable to the prosecution", and then the jury will be left to consider the issue of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". You just need to lose one juror out of 12 to lose the case.
8:22 pm
Sorry, LeftSidePositive. I didn't think. I'll stop feeding the troll.
8:23 pm
Ya little flags work for some, but the vast majority of couples with whom I've had any knowledge of, simply let things flow naturally and then use words or explicit symbols to communicate the desire to not engage in certain acts. This works well for them.
8:24 pm
one very plausible scenario is that you say "stop" and he says "honey I can't, I'm about to come, ahhh, shittt..."
and who would really expect him to stop in that situation.
possession is 9/10ths of the law LOL
You've given it up, he's got you, it's too late to say "no" now.
8:26 pm
@Banyan 169:
"Pointing out that men don’t seek verbal consent and then rape women fails as well. Pointing out that verbal consent is the safest way to ensure that you aren’t raping a woman doesn’t work as well."
WHY don't either of these work???
Don't you feel a basic obligation to your fellow human beings to try to prevent women from being raped? Don't you think it is your absolute, non-negotiable obligation to be ABSOLUTELY SURE you aren't raping someone???
How do you justify the idea that you may use someone's body and NOT ensure you're not raping someone?
Please explain how this is morally defensible...
8:27 pm
LSP,
I'm pointedly not repsonding to your bait. We've had this discussion before, it's played-out.
If you want to run around and copy what I say in other forums and cut and paste it here and elsewhere, feel free. Won't change the facts. You're just as wrong here as you were there.
8:27 pm
@Froth...no worries. He makes himself very difficult to ignore!
8:29 pm
"WHY don’t either of these work???"
because rape is rape and "not rape" is not rape, dummy.
8:30 pm
...do I have to tell you yet again
for the 500th time?
You don't decide what is rape and what is not rape. You get, at best, to have an opinion on what is rape and what isn't.
You keep geting the two confused. Time and time and time again.
8:31 pm
LeftSidePositive: thanks.
8:34 pm
(ok, Froth, I'm feeding the troll...I can't help it!)
"You don’t decide what is rape and what is not rape. You get, at best, to have an opinion on what is rape and what isn’t."
YES I FUCKING DO GET TO DECIDE!!!!
IT'S MY BODY, AND I--AND ONLY I--GET TO DECIDE WHAT GOES IN IT!!!
So fuck off, you fucking miserable hateful disgusting turd with your fucking stupid verbal masturbatory shit!!
8:35 pm
yes well Banyan you see, in spite of all this, one in every 4 women will claim to have been raped at some point...this doesn't include the claims of sexual-assault, domestic-violence, harassment that all these women claim to suffer.
Women are basically an unhappy group of people and you know they are not used to not getting their way. So they band together and find strength in numbers, and of course, in denying sex to men who do not bend to their will and repeat the party line.
The problem is that all this does is set them up to be their bitches in return. Women don't want men in panties. They want men who have the balls to actually be men. Ultimately they undermine all their complaints by preferring to have sex with these "animals", as they call them. They don't really want to live their lives as "progressive women". In the end they just wanted to be treated like sluts. Except they don't want anyone to know that except the guy doing it, so they can deny what happened all along. Unless of course they lose all sense of self-restraint and actually act like sluts openly.
It comes around full circle when they demand that their "hookup" of the evening use a condom. Just like any whore would.
8:36 pm
Nicely done, LSP. Couldn't have said it better myself.
8:40 pm
if they weren't such sluts then they wouldn't need to use a condom and they wouldn't have to worry about being taken seriously when they claim to have been raped.
which unfortunately will really happen to some women, even due to circumstances completely beyond their control. Because some men actually are animals.
Well we all are really, but still, some are worse than others. And some are really bad.
But there are some really bad women out there too.
8:42 pm
"YES I FUCKING DO GET TO DECIDE!!!!
IT’S MY BODY, AND I–AND ONLY I–GET TO DECIDE WHAT GOES IN IT!!!"
No, you don't. If you did, this would be a non-issue. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
You are now being completely delusional.
8:43 pm
There's something about this site, though, that feels like a circus. The fact that people would be naive enough to not see the sexual depravity of jf1, and therefore the meaninglessness of his posts, is the very symptom that makes it difficult to take the indignation at his posts as seriously as I should. The fact that we could be physically helping another human being right now, undercuts any attempts to claim moral righteousness. The fact that there is such subjectivity in this field undermines attempts at drawing firm conclusions. The fact that people think they're gonna win hearts and minds, here of all places, is just kind of silly. Just give up on changing people, condition yourself to not respond emotionally to trolls or people that express viewpoints with which you disagree. I just see a lot of psychological warfare and almost a fetish for pain. I mean if it hurt to enter sites like this why would you keep coming back? Whats the incentive? Why feed a troll? John Dias and jf1, and almost every guy on this sight is an immovable object? Why engage? Honestly, with all respect, and I mean this seriously, what is wrong with you? What draws you here?
8:44 pm
...well actually there are some whores that won't insist on condom-use, so I was wrong there.
8:48 pm
dude, if I'm so wrong, then you and everyone else can freely dismiss what I say and walk away.
If I'm just trolling, if I'm just here to get a rise out of people, likewise. Like any slasher film, that trick only plays for so long.
The reason that these people, especially these women, are really upset at my posts is that not only do I say what they don't want to hear, don't want to face, but I can prove it too, logically and rationally. And they realize the reality of it every day.
Otherwise they would, and they could, just ignore me and move on.
But they can't, because they know that wherever they go, this reality is there to face them. Waiting for them. Only in a 100% female environment can they avoid it, and no woman wants to live like that.
8:49 pm
Dude jf1 as another human being please stop. Just stop. Please... Stop. You know what you're doing is wrong so stop. Please. It's really mean.
8:50 pm
men cannot make women into their personal slaves.
women cannot make men into their personal slaves either.
there's a degree of give and take, some flux, shift, change, in the battle lines, but in the end, we have to deal with women on their terms sometimes...and sometimes they have to deal with us on our terms. That's just how it is.
8:50 pm
Banyan, it really is important to take seriously...while someone like jf1 might be turning into a parody of himself, these attitudes really exist. Someone like John Dias pretends he's a nice reasonable guy until you actually make him defend his views (and then you learn a lot about what attitudes people have!). Please understand that these viewpoints, as horrible and trollish as they are, really do affect women and it is important to understand them so the next time we see one of our friends make a rape joke, or defend someone who "misread a situation," or disparage equal rights for women, we know what we're up against.
8:52 pm
Do you really not see the possibility that your hurting people and not at all helping people. Come on bro.
8:52 pm
"Why engage?"
Partly, when jf1 spreads dis-information, I am compelled to rebut it, lest someone think that his statements of opinion in regards to sexual mores are in any way related to facts.
And partly, because he smears so much of himself all over the comment sections that it is difficult to continue *any* discussion he is involved in without acknowledging him in some way. I once measured him spending 5 total feet of text talking to himself. It is hard to keep any discussion he is involved in coherent if you just "write around" his posts.
And partly to see if I can out-troll him.
8:53 pm
This, I have to admit, is hilarious:
"I can prove it too, logically and rationally."
OH MY GOD, WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON???
How many more are there living in your head, besides Mary, Joe, Jim, and Jeff?
8:56 pm
Precisely:
"And partly, because he smears so much of himself all over the comment sections that it is difficult to continue *any* discussion he is involved in without acknowledging him in some way. I once measured him spending 5 total feet of text talking to himself. It is hard to keep any discussion he is involved in coherent if you just “write around” his posts."
Case in point, Banyan, we had a really interesting discussion going about the requirements and meaning of consent on this thread...where did it go???
8:59 pm
"Case in point, Banyan, we had a really interesting discussion going about the requirements and meaning of consent on this thread…where did it go???"
It went off into the ether like the rest of your bullshit theories.
Look, I have no sympathy for women. I don't try to abuse them but men have to live in a world that is partially dictated by women and their nonsensical opinions. I'm not the problem here. If anything, you women are. You don't like my posts? Go down to your local district court and sit in on some of the assault and DV cases and listen to what the other members of your gender say about the men that they used to sleep with every night. You'd think that they would never have had anything to do with these guys, from the way that they talk about them.
Every man in this country is just one accusation away from being in that courtroom. Or worse.
9:00 pm
Changing the topic (and kinda sorta getting back to the original thread), can I just say I love this post??
"It’s really better to brush your teeth three times a day. Plaque is very very easy to brush off, but it’s sticky, and it hardens more and more over time. Brushing in the morning and at night allows it to build up all day. Even a toothpasteless brushing in the middle of the day, with just a very very soft bristle brush run under tap water, can have powerful effects in preventing costly decay. Soft bristles only: don’t overbrush your poor gums (but do brush at an angle, so as to reach the space between teeth and gums!" --Drew
The sincerity, the concern, the total missing of the point...does anyone else find this strangely beautiful?
9:02 pm
@K It is unreasonable to attempt to stop disinformation where disinformation is almost as common as information. There is no way to determine left middle and center in this forum. There is far to much chaos and illogical here to claim that this is a church of ideas. I recommend for myself and others, working in a soup kitchen.
9:03 pm
"Please understand that these viewpoints, as horrible and trollish as they are, really do affect women and it is important to understand them so the next time we see one of our friends make a rape joke, or defend someone who “misread a situation,” or disparage equal rights for women, we know what we’re up against."
...let me guess, a "potential rapist" with a wicked sense of humor?
9:06 pm
look, we understand that men, and what they do, "really affect women", we truly do.
That's the whole basis of the legal opinion that men are a threat to women simply for existing...
of course, that makes women a threat to men in return, simply for existing...as well, as feeling the need to "do something" about men...to "change their behavior"...
You can't win with this argument either. Now you're stalking men on the Internet just so you can keep track of what they say.
9:10 pm
...if you cannot accept men as they are, and you feel the need to force them to change, then you are a threat to them. You are just as much of a problem to men as any man would be who harasses you into changing to suit him.
Except that you do it by writing laws and public policy to suit your whims, and of course, engaging in PC activities.
9:13 pm
Drew's a darling in that comment. So very earnest. Bless him.
And I'm sorry, but have to agree with Banyan. Some things about jf1 are deeply amusing. Like trying to change my mind by threatening not to have sex with me. That's funny.
9:20 pm
...I would never do that...you must be projecting some issues that you have with your boyfriend onto me.
9:31 pm
anyway you guys all go over to Facebook (or Myspace or Twitter or whatever) and continue this discussion there. I have to go watch "House". Cheers :)
9:37 pm
Froth, have you noticed how insanely common that is for MRAs?? (At least the ones who post here...)
Both Rob and John Dias thought that was the ultimate retort, too...
I cannot understand for the life of me why they would think that their lack of interest in sleeping with us would inspire anything other than relief!
9:42 pm
O.K. quick psychoanalysis/description of what you believe jf1's story to be. LSP Froth K etc?
9:45 pm
@LSP, how long have you been conversing with jf1.
9:52 pm
Oh, don't ask me. Ask someone with more experience of jf1 and more knowledge of psychology.
9:53 pm
Oh, he popped up on Savage Love comments about a month or so ago (there he posted as "jfc1" but you can tell it's him from the writing style/"opinions"). He professed extreme dissatisfaction with Dan Savage's advice, and proceded to produce reams (and reams and reams) of his own take on the letter-writers' dilemmas (dilemmii?). Usually his take was, the writer was a moron/slut/gay man and should resign themselves to that fact.
He then discovered The Sexist, and blew his wad most spectacularly all over the Rape/Jungle Analogy discussion. I can't remember if that was his first foray into Sexist comments, but that discussion, plus the epic debate/bitchslapping fest that was the Dudes Not Wearing Condoms discussion, which may still be going on? sort of cemented my opinion of him, anyhows.
Upon writing this, I suppose it seems a bit stalker-y, but I've been reading the CP website since I moved to DC a year ago, and no commentator has so dubiously distinguished himself in my memory (with the possible exception of Noodlez over on City Desk/Loose Lips.)
... Sudden insight: I spend too much time on this website... Sigh.
11:27 pm
Benyan--only on the Dudes Who Wont Wear Condoms thread, really. A retort here and there on the Trans violence one. So, according to the time stamps, since January 22nd.
btw, Melissa, he wasn't on the Stroll In The Jungle thread--you're thinking of Rob and John Dias...
(And if you really want to bust out the esoteric plurals, dilemma comes from the Greek so it would be dilemmata. No, that is not useful information in any way.)
As for what's wrong with jf1, topping my differential diagnosis would be Geschwind Syndrome, which can manifest itself in conditions of temporal lobe epilepsy. The hallmarks of this disorder include hypergraphia (the compulsive desire to write), hyperreligiosity (also manifesting itself in exceptionally dogmatic thinking), pedantism, delusions (fixed false beliefs), and ruminative thinking. Psychosis and hyposexuality may also be present (don't know if that applies here...he's certainly very interested in sex as a topic, but does he engage in it??)
Hypergraphia may also be the result of bipolar disorder (in both the manic and depressive phases) or schizophrenia.
9:35 am
...so what's the cause of your need to delude yourself?
9:37 am
This guy must be a relative of yours.
"I don't think any time I broke the law. When I spent the night in jail I was trying to figure out what I possibly did wrong."
-- James O'Keefe, on posing as a telephone repairman to gain access to Sen. Mary Landrieu's office
9:41 am
Honestly I think that post #199 here sums up everything related to this topic, and quite a few others.
If you can't deal with the concept of rape realistically, then you have no hope of dealing with men realistically. You're forcing yourself to try to live in a fantasyland that's determined by your wishful thinking as a female. Everything that you do and say is designed to maintain your Delusional World.
Women like you get themselves raped for the simple reason that you don't accept the possibility that you *could* get raped.
9:49 am
even worse you think that the more control that you try to exert over men, the safer you will be.
Women like you will end up making all men criminals simply because they are men.
9:52 am
And in the process undermining our entire system of law (that's already happened) because you will have so many laws written that are so broad and so restrictive that it will simply be impossible to actually enforce them and maintain a civil society. That's already happened.
We already have a "system of law" that's nothing but a PC clique. Enough laws are on the books already to make everything illegal. Now it is all nothing more than a question of who is complaining about whom, who is arresting whom, who is prosecuting whom, who is passing judgment on whom, and who is reviewing what case. Our system of law is a farce as a result of this nonsense.
9:58 am
...the problem is that none of these laws, not even the entire system of law, will stop women from getting assaulted and raped. There's a complete disconnect between the two simply because they cannot decide beforehand who is going to rape them and who is not. No matter how hard they try.
As long as you cannot categorize a rapist or even someone likely to commit sexual assault not to mention child-abuse, then you cannot pick and choose which men you are going to imprison and which you are not. You can spend all the time that you want attempting to psychoanalyze me. I'm not going to rape you. If anyone does, it'll be one of those guy that you let close to you, because you, in all your genius, think that he's safe. That is the problem that your Delusion Field sets up for you, the problem that it sets up for *me* is that you feel justified in harassing me socially and legally because you think that I'm such a threat to you. Oh you say 'I don't even know you personally" (sure, not after all that "analysis" :) you don't have to. You just pass laws and regulations that ensnare entire swaths of male culture. No problem at all..."they're potential rapists!"
You women don't realize how much trouble you are, really. But then again, why would you want to? And how could you possibly be? in your minds, you're angels walking the earth.
9:59 am
not to mention that half of the guys that want to get into your pants will tell you that repeatedly
10:04 am
"…the problem is that none of these laws, not even the entire system of law, will stop women from getting assaulted and raped. There’s a complete disconnect between the two simply because they cannot decide beforehand who is going to rape them and who is not. No matter how hard they try."
Well, actually they can tell to a degree, but to the degree that they can tell, they don't like the results. For example, what are white college-educated women going to do when one out of every 4 of them are raped by a white college-educated man? The problem is that the act of rape depends as much on the woman as it depends on the man. there simply is no way to segregate "rapists" from the general population of men in a way that society isn't going to have to hold a mirror up to itself and say, "it could be any one of us, depending on the situation, depending on the people involved. Hell the guy who is sitting in judgment over this case right now could be a rapist".
So you start to point fingers at every man. And every man says "nonsense" and points the fingers back at you, for showing a lack of common sense and decency and encouraging men to rape you. And of course, since women are the ones who get raped and not men (unless the men are unfortunate enough to end up in prison where they can easily get raped by other men) women have to accept the brunt of the responsibility because they can only claim that a man has raped them but the proof of it is out of their hands. But in any case they have no doubt in their own minds that they've been raped.
Unless of course they deny that such a thing could ever happen to them. Which is where at least one poster here is standing, clinging to the rocks over a cliff. Unable to take the plunge back from her high perch to Reality.
10:08 am
...or perhaps we should begin to take a womans' claim at face-value just to make them happy...and indeed that is how the law is being changed, to force judges to accept the claims of so-called "domestic violence victims" at face-value. As if they are true, simply because they said so. It's not enough for judges to mandate that their claims must be viewed in the light most favorable for the prosecution, through appellate review. Now they have laws saying that judges must accept their claims as *FACT*.
Unfortunately even *this* does not stop them from ending up as "victims" in the first place.
10:13 am
...the thing is, you can lead a horse to water, and you can even force his head down into it, and you can even take a hose, shove it down his throat and pass water through it, but you can't make him want to drink.
Especially if you try to do is by threats or "force of law".
All that you women are doing by trying to force men to "behave" in the way that you want them to behave is generating a whole lot of hatred and resentment and desire for "payback" for women. You can't play fair you shouldn't play at all. It's not fair for you to be raped, no. But that doesn't make it fair for you to abuse the law and the democratic system and abuse and exploit men through the democratic system all to keep yourselves happy. You show up in court you can make all the claims that you want, you can't force a man to actually back you up by convicting someone they don't want to convict. And that's the bottom line.
On the other hand they will happily convict someone that they *do* want to convict for reasons of their own, and by making it possible for people to be dragged in court simply because you are unhappy with something that they are done and said you create a PC judicial system that convicts people of a crime even if they didn't commit it, for the simple reason that they want to see that person convicted of something. Then they have to spend years of their lives (and clog up the courts and distract the executive branch) to get the wrongful conviction erased. They will never recover from this.
10:16 am
think about it
it's a crime to sexually-assault someone
it's even a crime to harass or annoy someone
but it's not a crime to wrongfully-prosecute or convict someone.
Just think of all the wrong that is being done in courts across the country just in the name of "trying to make women happy". And of course they always want more and can't even get what they really need. No matter what you all do, women are still going to get raped and children are still going to get abducted. Just like there will always be prostitution and corruption and drugs. You can't legislate-away the basic sins of humanity.
10:23 am
Ya, if you falsely report a rape, you should get the same penalty as a rapist!
10:24 am
This is of course different from simply not being able to prove that you have been raped.
10:32 am
....no matter what "it" is, there will always be people who are not suspected of doing it, of being likely to do it, who will not get caught...and who will be accepted, even desired, even if they *do* do it.
Women prove this on a daily basis.
So in the end it all comes down to PC.
And PC is inherently unjust and unfair. Institutionalized prejudice and bias rationalized by irrational fear and the absence of logic.
10:36 am
And even if they do get caught obviously a lot of them did it thinking that they wouldn't get caught.
And that's why so many people are convicted of a crime based on the simple ability to convict them, coupled with the desire on the adjudicating party to not see them get away with something else that they suspect that the convicted person has done. Even when they haven't, even if they have but it can't be proven. You go to court and there's a large chance that you can be convicted of a crime simply because the prosecutor judge and jury just don't like you. So people who play the PC game get away with murder while those who don't (or can't) catch all the hatred for those who get away with murder. All that does is engender more hatred in return and make the innocent suffer as well as the guilty.
10:45 am
In the end the only way that men can survive is to demand that women and other men respect them in spite of all the bullshit they want to say about men. Certainly it is up to them to act in a respectful manner, but they have to stay true to their OWN beliefs of what "acting in a respectful manner" means. Not bend to the will of "society" because so much of society is self-interest and bullshit. You have to be able to stand back from that bullshit stream and do what is right and good for yourself in the long run. And no one can make that decision for someone else. They can only attempt to punish others for not kowtowing to their own personal beliefs, or reward them for doing it.
11:51 am
Isn't it nice of jf1 to provide so much corroborating evidence for my diagnosis!
12:04 pm
K~get outta DC ASAP. Noodlez just got banned from DCist. Jfc isn't over there yet.
12:06 pm
"Isn’t it nice of jf1 to provide so much corroborating evidence for my diagnosis!"
Just a detailed way of telling you that you should look in the mirror.
With every word you wrote, you proved that you were just diagnosing yourself and projecting onto me.
12:19 pm
jf1 may actually be insane, given his assertion earlier in the thread that desire for something and pleasure in it are unrelated. Especially when combined with his belief that wanting to have consensual sex makes a rape charge inevitable. He does not think rationally.
1:17 pm
"Delusion Field at 80% of shipboard reserves, Captain LSP! I'm activating the emergency generators just in case we need to sustain this power long after he's gone!"
"Very good, Froth, let's hold it at this level for a while and see if things will stabilize!"
"I don't know, Captain, it seems that we should push the field to 120% just in case!"
"Very well, Froth, on your mark...GO!"
And the whole ship implodes as these two women push themselves over the brink of insanity into another dimension.
5:17 pm
Oh god, he's also a trekkie. *facepalm*
8:26 am
Now I feel violated. I could cope with the rape-talk, but this? Shame on you, jf1. You betray the geek brotherhood.
4:54 pm
Now the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense from the guy who won't wear one. Isn't it ironic...