The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?
I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.
I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.
I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.
You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.
Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity.
If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.
Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.
Except healthy is a nebulous and relative term. If they are both happy, who are you to tell them to change?
I would love an example of a situation/action that is legal now, but would be rape if an "enthusiastic consent" law was passed. Because I read the blog, and the posts, and I am lost as to what it is, exactly.
Is there a blog post arguing for EC to be incorporated into law?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?
I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.
I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.
I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.
You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.
Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity.
If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.
Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.
And they might say the same about gay sex. I don't think ranking the value, normallacy or health of people's sexual preferences or sex lives is a road we want to go down.
The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?
I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.
I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.
I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.
You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.
Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity.
If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.
Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.
Except healthy is a nebulous and relative term. If they are both happy, who are you to tell them to change?
When two people aren't talking about their sex lives, it often (not always, just often) means that one or both of them actually isn't happy but just doesn't think that they can bring it up.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I would love an example of a situation/action that is legal now, but would be rape if an "enthusiastic consent" law was passed. Because I read the blog, and the posts, and I am lost as to what it is, exactly.
Is there a blog post arguing for EC to be incorporated into law?
It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction.
Wow.
Just wow.
Somehow disagreeing with you about enthusiastic consent means I think rape is just another form of sexual activity. What is wrong with you?
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.
This is really very simple, and your argument here is bare apologism.
You're making the error of equating your theory of Enthusiastic Consent with Consent. Again, this is an error. You have made a mistake. Feral articulated some good thoughts on that. One I particularly liked:
I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex. I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.
This is where you should be differentiating with me. That should be your splitting point, where we argue the respective benefits and downsides of our respective models: not where we frame our model as the one that must be obeyed, and all those who disagree are rapists and rape apologists.
@Feral, I know the quote I used was not towards me and Jakeman, but I felt it was applicable, as it shows the divide I'm attempting to highlight. If you don't want it used that way, I'll retract it.
Unbelievable. You didn't have anything better to respond with (and you still don't seem to understand what consent is), so you just lifted something someone else entirely different said and made it your argument.
You're reaching here. Frankie just isn't having the argument with you that you seem to want.
If you want to be mad at someone and the arguments aren't adding up in a way that lets you, just be mad at me for still hating Skyler in breaking bad
Are we not supposed to hate Skyler anymore? I thought that was still a thing.
There's like 20 pages in the breaking bad thread about why SKFM is wrong for thinking Skyler is a terrible person. Apparently what SKFM thinks about women is of vital importance whether they are real, fictional or hypothetical.
I would love an example of a situation/action that is legal now, but would be rape if an "enthusiastic consent" law was passed. Because I read the blog, and the posts, and I am lost as to what it is, exactly.
Is there a blog post arguing for EC to be incorporated into law?
I read it, and tried to understand, but wasn't sure.
It's talking about affirmative consent, which I see as a different idea.
I recognize that the article has one line equating enthusiastic consent and affirmative consent; however when I've seen those two phrases used, articles discussing legal reform always use the phrase affirmative consent. Articles that use the phrase enthusiastic consent are talking about the sexual scripts between two people.
I see them as related but distinguishable concepts.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I would love an example of a situation/action that is legal now, but would be rape if an "enthusiastic consent" law was passed. Because I read the blog, and the posts, and I am lost as to what it is, exactly.
Is there a blog post arguing for EC to be incorporated into law?
I read it, and tried to understand, but wasn't sure.
It's talking about affirmative consent, which I see as a different idea.
I recognize that the article has one line equating enthusiastic consent and affirmative consent; however when I've seen those two phrases used, articles discussing legal reform always use the phrase affirmative consent. Articles that use the phrase enthusiastic consent are talking about the sexual scripts between two people.
I see them as related but distinguishable concepts.
Fair enough, let me rephrase my question, what, that is legal now, would no longer be legal after the concept of affirmative consent were applied?
The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?
I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.
I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.
I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.
You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.
Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity.
If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.
Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.
Except healthy is a nebulous and relative term. If they are both happy, who are you to tell them to change?
When two people aren't talking about their sex lives, it often (not always, just often) means that one or both of them actually isn't happy but just doesn't think that they can bring it up.
I agree that if someone is unhappy, then that is a bad situation, and a conversation needs to be started. I just don't think we should fall into the trap of "You aren't talking, therefor one of you must be unhappy."
Prot was right, sex should be painful and costly for all parties involved
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?
I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.
I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.
I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.
You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.
Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity.
If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.
Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.
Except healthy is a nebulous and relative term. If they are both happy, who are you to tell them to change?
When two people aren't talking about their sex lives, it often (not always, just often) means that one or both of them actually isn't happy but just doesn't think that they can bring it up.
I agree that if someone is unhappy, then that is a bad situation, and a conversation needs to be started. I just don't think we should fall into the trap of "You aren't talking, therefor one of you must be unhappy."
Especially since there are people who will be unhappy BECAUSE they are forced to talk about it.
It's not your place to say that. You do not get to make judgements on what sexual variations people enjoy, so long as it is legal. Judging people for their sexual preferences is something I figured you, of all people, would be against.
I would love an example of a situation/action that is legal now, but would be rape if an "enthusiastic consent" law was passed. Because I read the blog, and the posts, and I am lost as to what it is, exactly.
Is there a blog post arguing for EC to be incorporated into law?
I read it, and tried to understand, but wasn't sure.
It's talking about affirmative consent, which I see as a different idea.
I recognize that the article has one line equating enthusiastic consent and affirmative consent; however when I've seen those two phrases used, articles discussing legal reform always use the phrase affirmative consent. Articles that use the phrase enthusiastic consent are talking about the sexual scripts between two people.
I see them as related but distinguishable concepts.
Fair enough, let me rephrase my question, what, that is legal now, would no longer be legal after the concept of affirmative consent were applied?
All manner of coercive activities. "Hey babe, come on you went on this date with that hot dress, and you've been acting all cutesy all night, and now you don't want to get it on?", having sex with a person who's blackout drunk
Beyond that enthusiastic consent is a really awesome way to just expand your sex life in a way that isn't shitty. If you're into a fetish or something, you talk about the fetish and ask if they want to do that fetish instead of sticking your feet in her mouth mid coitus. It saves a lot of agony, it helps you know that you're having sex with someone who's into it, and if properly used (including check ins if your partner doesn't seem into it) can help you make sure that you aren't sexually assaulting your partner!
I have a hard time seeing a problem with it (I can understand criticisms of implementation by other feminist peeps, but I don't buy the 'telling me to make sure I'm not sexually assaulting my partner is an affront on my liberty!' argument, because hey, what about their liberty)
It's not your place to say that. You do not get to make judgements on what sexual variations people enjoy, so long as it is legal. Judging people for their sexual preferences is something I figured you, of all people, would be against.
So, you think shame has a valid place in intimacy? Because that's what we're talking about here. Let's be honest - sexual culture in the US is, to put it mildly, extremely fucked up the wazoo. A large part of the reason that we don't talk about what we like and don't like in bed is because we are accultured against it. And women get a double whammy, because our culture has the whole Madonna/whore complex issue that tells them that if they show signs of being a sexual being, that marks them as a Bad Person.
So I don't see a problem in saying that if you view shame as an intrinsic part of sex and sexuality, you don't have a healthy relationship with it.
I would love an example of a situation/action that is legal now, but would be rape if an "enthusiastic consent" law was passed. Because I read the blog, and the posts, and I am lost as to what it is, exactly.
Is there a blog post arguing for EC to be incorporated into law?
I read it, and tried to understand, but wasn't sure.
It's talking about affirmative consent, which I see as a different idea.
I recognize that the article has one line equating enthusiastic consent and affirmative consent; however when I've seen those two phrases used, articles discussing legal reform always use the phrase affirmative consent. Articles that use the phrase enthusiastic consent are talking about the sexual scripts between two people.
I see them as related but distinguishable concepts.
Fair enough, let me rephrase my question, what, that is legal now, would no longer be legal after the concept of affirmative consent were applied?
All manner of coercive activities. "Hey babe, come on you went on this date with that hot dress, and you've been acting all cutesy all night, and now you don't want to get it on?", having sex with a person who's blackout drunk
Beyond that enthusiastic consent is a really awesome way to just expand your sex life in a way that isn't shitty. If you're into a fetish or something, you talk about the fetish and ask if they want to do that fetish instead of sticking your feet in her mouth mid coitus. It saves a lot of agony, it helps you know that you're having sex with someone who's into it, and if properly used (including check ins if your partner doesn't seem into it) can help you make sure that you aren't sexually assaulting your partner!
I have a hard time seeing a problem with it (I can understand criticisms of implementation by other feminist peeps, but I don't buy the 'telling me to make sure I'm not sexually assaulting my partner is an affront on my liberty!' argument, because hey, what about their liberty)
Can't we just teach people to say no if they aren't into something, and to stop when they hear no instead? This seems like a much less disruptive way of letting people have normal sex lives.
They have an understanding, and are happy with their relationship the way it is. There is no reason to start calling things like that unhealthy.
You can read minds too?
The exchange went exactly like this:
BSoB wrote: Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity. If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.
AngelH wrote: Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.
He's making a direct judgment on their sex life which he has no right to make. It has nothing to do with reading minds. It comes down to the fact that we have no right to judge how other people get their legal sexual enjoyment based off of our own expectations and preferences.
I don't see it being helpful to assume that the worst of people you talk with unless they prove to be whatever you suspect them of being. If you go into the discussion convinced that they are unbreakable walls of sexism/rape/etc, why even bother arguing with them?
It's not your place to say that. You do not get to make judgements on what sexual variations people enjoy, so long as it is legal. Judging people for their sexual preferences is something I figured you, of all people, would be against.
So, you think shame has a valid place in intimacy? Because that's what we're talking about here. Let's be honest - sexual culture in the US is, to put it mildly, extremely fucked up the wazoo. A large part of the reason that we don't talk about what we like and don't like in bed is because we are accultured against it. And women get a double whammy, because our culture has the whole Madonna/whore complex issue that tells them that if they show signs of being a sexual being, that marks them as a Bad Person.
So I don't see a problem in saying that if you view shame as an intrinsic part of sex and sexuality, you don't have a healthy relationship with it.
There is no ranked system of sexual health. Talking about sex while having sex is not a goal we are all supposed to be working towards. A healthy sex life is about two people who have sex the way they enjoy having sex in a way that breaks no law. A healthy sex life is definitively not conforming to a specific model developed by a person who does not share the same preferences and pleasures you do.
If a couple wants to discuss everything they're doing while they're doing it, good for them. That is how a healthy sex life is manifested for them. If a couple wants to go to a swing club and have wild orgies with random strangers, good for them. If a couple finds exploration and uncertainty in their sex lives appealing, good for them. To the original: if a couple finds that having sex through a sheet is awesome, good for them.
You have no right telling anyone what they should be doing to enjoy a proper and healthy sex life. No one died and made you the Sex King (though that sounds like an awesome thing to be).
They have an understanding, and are happy with their relationship the way it is. There is no reason to start calling things like that unhealthy.
You can read minds too?
I thought mind reading was assumed in this thread.
I mean, since we can know who is sexist and who isn't.
We can know that actions are sexist, we can't know whether people are sexist because we can't read their minds.
The 'an action is sexist, we can't tell with people' thing has come up a lot in this thread and is a part of the 'we can't read minds' doctrine.
What you can do is interpret an action as sexist. However, this does not make it definitively sexist. This is due to complicated concepts such as "context" and "perspective".
BSoB:
It is 5 on friday, i'm out. assuming this thread is still interesting on monday, i'll be back.
It's always interesting (when we're not talking about SKFM).
The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?
I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.
I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.
I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.
You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.
Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity.
If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.
Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.
Except healthy is a nebulous and relative term. If they are both happy, who are you to tell them to change?
When two people aren't talking about their sex lives, it often (not always, just often) means that one or both of them actually isn't happy but just doesn't think that they can bring it up.
I agree that if someone is unhappy, then that is a bad situation, and a conversation needs to be started. I just don't think we should fall into the trap of "You aren't talking, therefor one of you must be unhappy."
And how are they going to start that conversation unless they feel safe and comfortable talking about sex?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
They have an understanding, and are happy with their relationship the way it is. There is no reason to start calling things like that unhealthy.
You can read minds too?
Uh, i absolutely can tell what my wife is thinking most of the time. I guess that's pretty unhealthy right?
It is 5 on friday, i'm out. assuming this thread is still interesting on monday, i'll be back.
It's a grey situation because it's a long term relationship--you can't magically read her mind, you can read her tone, her body language, etc. To some degree I can do the same with my ladyfriend. I'd rather have an explicit verbal consent because it's the one of the few ways you can be sure and because I wouldn't want to cause pain or discomfort to my loved one. I can understand the idea seeming like an affront (especially because we're switching between hypotheticals and your actual relationship), but it isn't! The issue is that, in this debate'y atmosphere, acknowledging that you can probably get affirmative (though not necessarily enthusiastic) consent via body language will get people trying to find exceptions and arguing against it.
We live in the real world, and there is no perfectly applied rule. I've found, and many others have found, that enthusiastic consent is a system that increases utility and creates better relations between people who are having sex. Enthusiastic consent is also a system which, if implemented, could reduce sexual assaults and how accepted sexual assault is. But it isn't perfect. If you've found a system that works, then more power to you. The broader question is whether your 'system' is generalizable.
It's not your place to say that. You do not get to make judgements on what sexual variations people enjoy, so long as it is legal. Judging people for their sexual preferences is something I figured you, of all people, would be against.
So, you think shame has a valid place in intimacy? Because that's what we're talking about here. Let's be honest - sexual culture in the US is, to put it mildly, extremely fucked up the wazoo. A large part of the reason that we don't talk about what we like and don't like in bed is because we are accultured against it. And women get a double whammy, because our culture has the whole Madonna/whore complex issue that tells them that if they show signs of being a sexual being, that marks them as a Bad Person.
So I don't see a problem in saying that if you view shame as an intrinsic part of sex and sexuality, you don't have a healthy relationship with it.
There is no ranked system of sexual health. Talking about sex while having sex is not a goal we are all supposed to be working towards. A healthy sex life is about two people who have sex the way they enjoy having sex in a way that breaks no law. A healthy sex life is definitively not conforming to a specific model developed by a person who does not share the same preferences and pleasures you do.
If a couple wants to discuss everything they're doing while they're doing it, good for them. That is how a healthy sex life is manifested for them. If a couple wants to go to a swing club and have wild orgies with random strangers, good for them. If a couple finds exploration and uncertainty in their sex lives appealing, good for them. To the original: if a couple finds that having sex through a sheet is awesome, good for them.
You have no right telling anyone what they should be doing to enjoy a proper and healthy sex life. No one died and made you the Sex King (though that sounds like an awesome thing to be).
Enthusiastic consent isn't a prescribed script that must be followed to the letter. It's just open communication, mutual respect, and lack of coercion. Maybe some of that communication can be nonverbal! Different people communicate in different fashions. It seems to me that your argument here is perfectly in line with feminism.
If a couple wants to discuss everything they're doing while they're [consensually] doing it, good for them. That is how a healthy sex life is manifested for them. If a couple wants to go to a swing club and have wild [consensual] orgies with random strangers, good for them. If a couple finds [consensual] exploration and uncertainty in their sex lives appealing, good for them.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Can't we just teach people to say no if they aren't into something, and to stop when they hear no instead? This seems like a much less disruptive way of letting people have normal sex lives.
You're basically saying, "If I touch you, it's okay until you say no."
This is only broadly acceptable when it plays into monogamous heteronormative sexual scripts - a man is on a date with a woman, and interprets some signals as a sexual green light, and then touches her or moves in for a kiss. It turns out he misinterpreted, so she says no.
When you take this attitude and apply it to any other sexual script, you can see why it's not really okay. Would you grope a stranger's tits on the street? Is that an okay thing to do until she says no? Is it okay for me to grope your crotch? How about your wife's tits? What if I buy her a drink first?
The reason the very first example, of a man and a woman on a date, gets a pass is because he have normalized an attitude that says that men are entitled to access to a woman's body after he's invested a certain amount of time, attention, and or money. This is also the root of Nice Guy behavior and is known in feminist circles as "consent by default." It's the notion that in certain social contexts, consent to sex is the default state until it is revoked.
The other examples are shocking because there's no social schema claiming entitlement. You're not entitled to grope the breasts of a girl on the street. You are entitled to grope the breasts of a girl at the end of a date.
Similarly, when we learn as young girls to tolerate “low-level” boundary violations like the ones we often are forced to suffer in silence at school, at home and on the street – bra-snapping, boob-grabbing, ass pinching, catcalling, dick flashing “all in good fun” relentless violations that adults and authorities routinely ignore – it makes it harder for us to notice when even greater boundaries are being violated, eventually leading to the reality that many women who are raped just freeze and fall silent, because that’s what they’ve been taught to do over and over since day one. You tell me what’s more infantilizing: repeatedly letting boys (and grown men) off the hook for their behavior because “boys will be boys” and we can’t ever expect any differently, or creating a consent standard in which all partners take active responsibility for their partner’s safety, and which acknowledges the truly diseased sexual culture we’re soaking in every day.
You can't have a culture of institutionalized entitlement between equals. And if we want to break the idea that men are ever entitled to women's bodies, then we can't have a world where it is okay to just do sexual stuff to somebody until/unless they say no.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+3
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
@Feral it's an interesting discussion, and I can see where you're coming from.
The only thing is, at the end of a date night, I as a woman would feel "entitled" to grab my date's butt/crotch (if things went well) that I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to do to any stranger on the street. So I'm not quite seeing the reasoning here that a power imbalance is created.
Edited to add: The problem, in my opinion, seems to be those people who feel entitled to hug, caress, or grop a woman whom they have not gone on a romantic date with and don't know very well, and the need of the woman to be agressive to make those people stop it, making her a "bitch" in her social circle.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
@Feral I read your post multiple times, and I almost get it, but I just can't make "if you feel uncomfortable, lemme know" equal "it's ok for me to touch you until you say no".
@Cambiata Your sample scenario has a male counterpart. As a guy, if a woman shows any kind of sexual aggressiveness to you, you're supposed to enjoy it because it's the "manly" thing to do. I was once involved in a situation like that, and I ended up feeling like a jerk for pushing the girl off because I wasn't comfortable. To this day I despise that I felt like a jerk for doing that.
I'm just adding this as an agreement to what you're saying, I dunno if my anecdote makes it look like I'm devaluing yours.
Can't we just teach people to say no if they aren't into something, and to stop when they hear no instead? This seems like a much less disruptive way of letting people have normal sex lives.
You're basically saying, "If I touch you, it's okay until you say no."
This is only broadly acceptable when it plays into monogamous heteronormative sexual scripts - a man is on a date with a woman, and interprets some signals as a sexual green light, and then touches her or moves in for a kiss. It turns out he misinterpreted, so she says no.
When you take this attitude and apply it to any other sexual script, you can see why it's not really okay. Would you grope a stranger's tits on the street? Is that an okay thing to do until she says no? Is it okay for me to grope your crotch? How about your wife's tits? What if I buy her a drink first?
The reason the very first example, of a man and a woman on a date, gets a pass is because he have normalized an attitude that says that men are entitled to access to a woman's body after he's invested a certain amount of time, attention, and or money. This is also the root of Nice Guy behavior and is known in feminist circles as "consent by default." It's the notion that in certain social contexts, consent to sex is the default state until it is revoked.
The other examples are shocking because there's no social schema claiming entitlement. You're not entitled to grope the breasts of a girl on the street. You are entitled to grope the breasts of a girl at the end of a date.
Similarly, when we learn as young girls to tolerate “low-level” boundary violations like the ones we often are forced to suffer in silence at school, at home and on the street – bra-snapping, boob-grabbing, ass pinching, catcalling, dick flashing “all in good fun” relentless violations that adults and authorities routinely ignore – it makes it harder for us to notice when even greater boundaries are being violated, eventually leading to the reality that many women who are raped just freeze and fall silent, because that’s what they’ve been taught to do over and over since day one. You tell me what’s more infantilizing: repeatedly letting boys (and grown men) off the hook for their behavior because “boys will be boys” and we can’t ever expect any differently, or creating a consent standard in which all partners take active responsibility for their partner’s safety, and which acknowledges the truly diseased sexual culture we’re soaking in every day.
You can't have a culture of institutionalized entitlement between equals. And if we want to break the idea that men are ever entitled to women's bodies, then we can't have a world where it is okay to just do sexual stuff to somebody until/unless they say no.
I'm not following why a "no means no" regime would mean people could try any of the things you described outside of the kiss on the date. Why wouldn't we still have all the expectations and rules about appropriate and inappropriate behavior that we have now, meaning it would never be ok to engage in sexual activity with someone outside normal circumstances like a date or other situation where people understand sex may occur, just with an end to the "she said no but I knew she really wanted it" problem?
@Feral it's an interesting discussion, and I can see where you're coming from.
The only thing is, at the end of a date night, I as a woman would feel "entitled" to grab my date's butt/crotch (if things went well) that I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to do to any stranger on the street. So I'm not quite seeing the reasoning here that a power imbalance is created.
Edited to add: The problem, in my opinion, seems to be those people who feel entitled to hug, caress, or grop a woman whom they have not gone on a romantic date with and don't know very well, and the need of the woman to be agressive to make those people stop it, making her a "bitch" in her social circle.
what if the woman did not enjoy the romantic date and became repulsed by the date
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
@Feral it's an interesting discussion, and I can see where you're coming from.
The only thing is, at the end of a date night, I as a woman would feel "entitled" to grab my date's butt/crotch (if things went well) that I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to do to any stranger on the street. So I'm not quite seeing the reasoning here that a power imbalance is created.
The power imbalance is a thing that happens in aggregate. It's not so much that any time one person touches another person without explicit consent that a power imbalance is created right then and there, because that depends on the circumstances and mental states of both parties.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Cambiata Your sample scenario has a male counterpart. As a guy, if a woman shows any kind of sexual aggressiveness to you, you're supposed to enjoy it because it's the "manly" thing to do. I was once involved in a situation like that, and I ended up feeling like a jerk for pushing the girl off because I wasn't comfortable. To this day I despise that I felt like a jerk for doing that.
I'm just adding this as an agreement to what you're saying, I dunno if my anecdote makes it look like I'm devaluing yours.
I was thinking something like that.
There's a discussion regarding sex-positive feminism versus anti-raunch feminism I've seen in a few places... it's the observation that sex-positivity tends to be modeled after stereotypical male sexuality. Some women (or even low-sexual-desire men) complain that they don't feel like they can be included in sex-positive discussions unless they sexually act like stereotypical men.
I guess this attitude could be verbalized as "well, if men don't care too much about casual boundary transgressions, then maybe women shouldn't care too much either."
I'm not following why a "no means no" regime would mean people could try any of the things you described outside of the kiss on the date. Why wouldn't we still have all the expectations and rules about appropriate and inappropriate behavior that we have now, meaning it would never be ok to engage in sexual activity with someone outside normal circumstances like a date or other situation where people understand sex may occur, just with an end to the "she said no but I knew she really wanted it" problem?
Then we need to make sure we're on the same page about what activities are expected and under what circumstances we might expect them, and how do we do that unless we're willing to communicate openly?
And even if you and I have that conversation and work out a script that sounds reasonable to the two of us, that doesn't apply to our other partners. The script between you and me isn't as important as the script between me and my girlfriends or the script between you and your wife.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
@Feral it's an interesting discussion, and I can see where you're coming from.
The only thing is, at the end of a date night, I as a woman would feel "entitled" to grab my date's butt/crotch (if things went well) that I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to do to any stranger on the street. So I'm not quite seeing the reasoning here that a power imbalance is created.
Edited to add: The problem, in my opinion, seems to be those people who feel entitled to hug, caress, or grop a woman whom they have not gone on a romantic date with and don't know very well, and the need of the woman to be agressive to make those people stop it, making her a "bitch" in her social circle.
what if the woman did not enjoy the romantic date and became repulsed by the date
Well then obviously touching would be bad, but I would generally set that down to the dude in question deliberately ignoring body language or verbal cues that their touch is not wanted. And notice I don't say "confusion" on the dude's part, because if you're confused about whether your touch is desired then that is the time you need to ask.*
*
I have employed the "touch a dude on the elbow" method of trying to let a guy know I was interested in him, even though I wasn't sure he felt the same, and I don't see that kind of semi-neutral touch as harmful or needing permission. With the caveat that the touch not be frequently repeated and/or go on for too long. I can understand if others might feel differently about this one.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Cambiata Your sample scenario has a male counterpart. As a guy, if a woman shows any kind of sexual aggressiveness to you, you're supposed to enjoy it because it's the "manly" thing to do. I was once involved in a situation like that, and I ended up feeling like a jerk for pushing the girl off because I wasn't comfortable. To this day I despise that I felt like a jerk for doing that.
I'm just adding this as an agreement to what you're saying, I dunno if my anecdote makes it look like I'm devaluing yours.
I was thinking something like that.
There's a discussion regarding sex-positive feminism versus anti-raunch feminism I've seen in a few places... it's the observation that sex-positivity tends to be modeled after stereotypical male sexuality. Some women (or even low-sexual-desire men) complain that they don't feel like they can be included in sex-positive discussions unless they sexually act like stereotypical men.
I guess this attitude could be verbalized as "well, if men don't care too much about casual boundary transgressions, then maybe women shouldn't care too much either."
I'm not following why a "no means no" regime would mean people could try any of the things you described outside of the kiss on the date. Why wouldn't we still have all the expectations and rules about appropriate and inappropriate behavior that we have now, meaning it would never be ok to engage in sexual activity with someone outside normal circumstances like a date or other situation where people understand sex may occur, just with an end to the "she said no but I knew she really wanted it" problem?
Then we need to make sure we're on the same page about what activities are expected and under what circumstances we might expect them, and how do we do that unless we're willing to communicate openly?
And even if you and I have that conversation and work out a script that sounds reasonable to the two of us, that doesn't apply to our other partners. The script between you and me isn't as important as the script between me and my girlfriends or the script between you and your wife.
I see the theoretical problem, but I think we already have a system up and running pretty well right now. Dating someone, being romantically involved with them, dancing with them etc may all invite a "light" opening activity like a kiss, and in almost all other situations, there is no opening for anything at all. If we supplement this with the ability to say no to the attempted kiss, I think we're good.
Posts
Except healthy is a nebulous and relative term. If they are both happy, who are you to tell them to change?
Is there a blog post arguing for EC to be incorporated into law?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And they might say the same about gay sex. I don't think ranking the value, normallacy or health of people's sexual preferences or sex lives is a road we want to go down.
When two people aren't talking about their sex lives, it often (not always, just often) means that one or both of them actually isn't happy but just doesn't think that they can bring it up.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It was posted many pages ago.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
I read it, and tried to understand, but wasn't sure.
EDIT: I guess that's affirmative consent. having trouble keeping the terms in my head.
There's like 20 pages in the breaking bad thread about why SKFM is wrong for thinking Skyler is a terrible person. Apparently what SKFM thinks about women is of vital importance whether they are real, fictional or hypothetical.
It's talking about affirmative consent, which I see as a different idea.
I recognize that the article has one line equating enthusiastic consent and affirmative consent; however when I've seen those two phrases used, articles discussing legal reform always use the phrase affirmative consent. Articles that use the phrase enthusiastic consent are talking about the sexual scripts between two people.
I see them as related but distinguishable concepts.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Fair enough, let me rephrase my question, what, that is legal now, would no longer be legal after the concept of affirmative consent were applied?
I agree that if someone is unhappy, then that is a bad situation, and a conversation needs to be started. I just don't think we should fall into the trap of "You aren't talking, therefor one of you must be unhappy."
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Especially since there are people who will be unhappy BECAUSE they are forced to talk about it.
It's not your place to say that. You do not get to make judgements on what sexual variations people enjoy, so long as it is legal. Judging people for their sexual preferences is something I figured you, of all people, would be against.
Twitter
All manner of coercive activities. "Hey babe, come on you went on this date with that hot dress, and you've been acting all cutesy all night, and now you don't want to get it on?", having sex with a person who's blackout drunk
Beyond that enthusiastic consent is a really awesome way to just expand your sex life in a way that isn't shitty. If you're into a fetish or something, you talk about the fetish and ask if they want to do that fetish instead of sticking your feet in her mouth mid coitus. It saves a lot of agony, it helps you know that you're having sex with someone who's into it, and if properly used (including check ins if your partner doesn't seem into it) can help you make sure that you aren't sexually assaulting your partner!
I have a hard time seeing a problem with it (I can understand criticisms of implementation by other feminist peeps, but I don't buy the 'telling me to make sure I'm not sexually assaulting my partner is an affront on my liberty!' argument, because hey, what about their liberty)
"I shouldn't have to ask if my partner wants to have sex to have sex with them."
Twitter
You can read minds too?
Twitter
So, you think shame has a valid place in intimacy? Because that's what we're talking about here. Let's be honest - sexual culture in the US is, to put it mildly, extremely fucked up the wazoo. A large part of the reason that we don't talk about what we like and don't like in bed is because we are accultured against it. And women get a double whammy, because our culture has the whole Madonna/whore complex issue that tells them that if they show signs of being a sexual being, that marks them as a Bad Person.
So I don't see a problem in saying that if you view shame as an intrinsic part of sex and sexuality, you don't have a healthy relationship with it.
I thought mind reading was assumed in this thread.
I mean, since we can know who is sexist and who isn't.
Can't we just teach people to say no if they aren't into something, and to stop when they hear no instead? This seems like a much less disruptive way of letting people have normal sex lives.
The exchange went exactly like this:
BSoB wrote: Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity. If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.
AngelH wrote: Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.
He's making a direct judgment on their sex life which he has no right to make. It has nothing to do with reading minds. It comes down to the fact that we have no right to judge how other people get their legal sexual enjoyment based off of our own expectations and preferences.
We can know that actions are sexist, we can't know whether people are sexist because we can't read their minds.
The 'an action is sexist, we can't tell with people' thing has come up a lot in this thread and is a part of the 'we can't read minds' doctrine.
Twitter
There is no ranked system of sexual health. Talking about sex while having sex is not a goal we are all supposed to be working towards. A healthy sex life is about two people who have sex the way they enjoy having sex in a way that breaks no law. A healthy sex life is definitively not conforming to a specific model developed by a person who does not share the same preferences and pleasures you do.
If a couple wants to discuss everything they're doing while they're doing it, good for them. That is how a healthy sex life is manifested for them. If a couple wants to go to a swing club and have wild orgies with random strangers, good for them. If a couple finds exploration and uncertainty in their sex lives appealing, good for them. To the original: if a couple finds that having sex through a sheet is awesome, good for them.
You have no right telling anyone what they should be doing to enjoy a proper and healthy sex life. No one died and made you the Sex King (though that sounds like an awesome thing to be).
Uh, i absolutely can tell what my wife is thinking most of the time. I guess that's pretty unhealthy right?
It is 5 on friday, i'm out. assuming this thread is still interesting on monday, i'll be back.
What you can do is interpret an action as sexist. However, this does not make it definitively sexist. This is due to complicated concepts such as "context" and "perspective".
BSoB:
It's always interesting (when we're not talking about SKFM).
And how are they going to start that conversation unless they feel safe and comfortable talking about sex?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's a grey situation because it's a long term relationship--you can't magically read her mind, you can read her tone, her body language, etc. To some degree I can do the same with my ladyfriend. I'd rather have an explicit verbal consent because it's the one of the few ways you can be sure and because I wouldn't want to cause pain or discomfort to my loved one. I can understand the idea seeming like an affront (especially because we're switching between hypotheticals and your actual relationship), but it isn't! The issue is that, in this debate'y atmosphere, acknowledging that you can probably get affirmative (though not necessarily enthusiastic) consent via body language will get people trying to find exceptions and arguing against it.
We live in the real world, and there is no perfectly applied rule. I've found, and many others have found, that enthusiastic consent is a system that increases utility and creates better relations between people who are having sex. Enthusiastic consent is also a system which, if implemented, could reduce sexual assaults and how accepted sexual assault is. But it isn't perfect. If you've found a system that works, then more power to you. The broader question is whether your 'system' is generalizable.
Enthusiastic consent isn't a prescribed script that must be followed to the letter. It's just open communication, mutual respect, and lack of coercion. Maybe some of that communication can be nonverbal! Different people communicate in different fashions. It seems to me that your argument here is perfectly in line with feminism.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You're basically saying, "If I touch you, it's okay until you say no."
This is only broadly acceptable when it plays into monogamous heteronormative sexual scripts - a man is on a date with a woman, and interprets some signals as a sexual green light, and then touches her or moves in for a kiss. It turns out he misinterpreted, so she says no.
When you take this attitude and apply it to any other sexual script, you can see why it's not really okay. Would you grope a stranger's tits on the street? Is that an okay thing to do until she says no? Is it okay for me to grope your crotch? How about your wife's tits? What if I buy her a drink first?
The reason the very first example, of a man and a woman on a date, gets a pass is because he have normalized an attitude that says that men are entitled to access to a woman's body after he's invested a certain amount of time, attention, and or money. This is also the root of Nice Guy behavior and is known in feminist circles as "consent by default." It's the notion that in certain social contexts, consent to sex is the default state until it is revoked.
The other examples are shocking because there's no social schema claiming entitlement. You're not entitled to grope the breasts of a girl on the street. You are entitled to grope the breasts of a girl at the end of a date.
The problem is that if men are ever entitled to a woman's body by default, then women are always on a sexually subordinate level to men. As described in one of the prior links from the thread (http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/the-nonexistent-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-consequences-of-enthusiastic-consent/):
You can't have a culture of institutionalized entitlement between equals. And if we want to break the idea that men are ever entitled to women's bodies, then we can't have a world where it is okay to just do sexual stuff to somebody until/unless they say no.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The only thing is, at the end of a date night, I as a woman would feel "entitled" to grab my date's butt/crotch (if things went well) that I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to do to any stranger on the street. So I'm not quite seeing the reasoning here that a power imbalance is created.
Edited to add: The problem, in my opinion, seems to be those people who feel entitled to hug, caress, or grop a woman whom they have not gone on a romantic date with and don't know very well, and the need of the woman to be agressive to make those people stop it, making her a "bitch" in her social circle.
@Cambiata Your sample scenario has a male counterpart. As a guy, if a woman shows any kind of sexual aggressiveness to you, you're supposed to enjoy it because it's the "manly" thing to do. I was once involved in a situation like that, and I ended up feeling like a jerk for pushing the girl off because I wasn't comfortable. To this day I despise that I felt like a jerk for doing that.
I'm just adding this as an agreement to what you're saying, I dunno if my anecdote makes it look like I'm devaluing yours.
Twitter
I'm not following why a "no means no" regime would mean people could try any of the things you described outside of the kiss on the date. Why wouldn't we still have all the expectations and rules about appropriate and inappropriate behavior that we have now, meaning it would never be ok to engage in sexual activity with someone outside normal circumstances like a date or other situation where people understand sex may occur, just with an end to the "she said no but I knew she really wanted it" problem?
what if the woman did not enjoy the romantic date and became repulsed by the date
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The power imbalance is a thing that happens in aggregate. It's not so much that any time one person touches another person without explicit consent that a power imbalance is created right then and there, because that depends on the circumstances and mental states of both parties.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I was thinking something like that.
There's a discussion regarding sex-positive feminism versus anti-raunch feminism I've seen in a few places... it's the observation that sex-positivity tends to be modeled after stereotypical male sexuality. Some women (or even low-sexual-desire men) complain that they don't feel like they can be included in sex-positive discussions unless they sexually act like stereotypical men.
I guess this attitude could be verbalized as "well, if men don't care too much about casual boundary transgressions, then maybe women shouldn't care too much either."
Then we need to make sure we're on the same page about what activities are expected and under what circumstances we might expect them, and how do we do that unless we're willing to communicate openly?
And even if you and I have that conversation and work out a script that sounds reasonable to the two of us, that doesn't apply to our other partners. The script between you and me isn't as important as the script between me and my girlfriends or the script between you and your wife.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well then obviously touching would be bad, but I would generally set that down to the dude in question deliberately ignoring body language or verbal cues that their touch is not wanted. And notice I don't say "confusion" on the dude's part, because if you're confused about whether your touch is desired then that is the time you need to ask.*
*
I see the theoretical problem, but I think we already have a system up and running pretty well right now. Dating someone, being romantically involved with them, dancing with them etc may all invite a "light" opening activity like a kiss, and in almost all other situations, there is no opening for anything at all. If we supplement this with the ability to say no to the attempted kiss, I think we're good.