Starker on 16/1/2018 at 05:39
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
The Aziz example is precisely why I think the issue of consent is very complicated - buyers remorse and regrettable sexual experiences following impulsive or compromised decision-making are a reality of human nature. To expect and presume people to operate optimally all the time and be having borderline autistic "do you want some tea" type conversations about sex is simply preposterous and a gross oversimplification of how we all operate. We can all get caught up in the moment and in the cold (sober) light of day reflect on our decision making.
How is it autistic to make sure your partner is really okay with what you're doing? If she doesn't seem into it, if she isn't kissing you back, if she keeps pulling away -- these are clear signs that something's wrong. This is very different from someone having regrets in the morning. This is someone having regrets 30 minutes into very aggressive tea offering.
Quote Posted by Tocky
I did read the full article. That is a lot of what confuses me. What person who is in the act of resisting someone gives them a blowjob? In my day we left the house and went home. Is a blowjob like a handshake now?
Maybe she felt obligated to reciprocate. It's not as if she had made up her mind at that point to never have sex with him. In fact, she was probably quite open to the possibility. She liked the guy and went on a date with him, after all. It's just that he took things too far. She was probably still hoping to salvage the situation, which is why she told him to slow down instead of leaving outright. So giving oral sex in that situation doesn't really seem all that far-fetched, especially if it's not a full blowjob, but a brief activity.
Scots Taffer on 16/1/2018 at 06:08
Quote Posted by Starker
How is it autistic to make sure your partner is really okay with what you're doing? If she doesn't seem into it, if she isn't kissing you back, if she keeps pulling away -- these are clear signs that something's wrong. This is very different from someone having regrets in the morning. This is someone having regrets 30 minutes into very aggressive tea offering.
At this point I'm wondering if you made the tea video given you're so set on defending it.
By the way, your comments about "if she doesn't seem into it, if she isn't kissing you back, if she keeps pulling away" are non-verbal cues, it's not a "yes/no I'll have tea" response. That's why I think it's borderline autistic to suggest that all sexual interactions in all conditions can be filtered through a "would you like some tea" framing mechanism. Non-verbal communication is a significant component of all interactions are also susceptible to perception and interpretation, which hence makes everything a bit murky.
But I'm done labouring this point. I think it's a shitty metaphor and I'm done attacking it.
Quote Posted by Brethren
I have not dated for over 25 years, so I may be very out of touch. But isn't dating through Tinder a lot different than other dating? Specifically using Tinder assumes sex, I assume, whereas just meeting someone out or through a friend of a friend would usually indicate you want to have some relationship potential. Or am I completely wrong there?
I guess I would pretty disappointed with...society?...mankind?...if just taking someone out for dinner one time meant you automatically asssumed sex was included with the deal. Call me old fashioned if you must.
Brethren, my intent wasn't to label you as a prude or old-fashioned but to point out that this is definitely an area where social norms have significantly shifted over time. Tinder isn't exclusively a hook up app, but it can function as one - it's all in the power of the user. However the consequential impact of online dating is (broadly speaking) the desensitizing of short term sexual interactions. The hook-up culture has, in many ways, replaced traditional dating and many people start relationships these days in a sexual context and then progress into a "proper" relationship.
Starker on 16/1/2018 at 07:07
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
At this point I'm wondering if you made the tea video given you're so set on defending it.
By the way, your comments about "if she doesn't seem into it, if she isn't kissing you back, if she keeps pulling away" are non-verbal cues, it's not a "yes/no I'll have tea" response. That's why I think it's borderline autistic to suggest that all sexual interactions in all conditions can be filtered through a "would you like some tea" framing mechanism. Non-verbal communication is a significant component of all interactions are also susceptible to perception and interpretation, which hence makes everything a bit murky.
Aren't you on the other hand turning the tea video into something it's not? It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide into consent and everything relating to it. It's just making a very simple point -- if someone doesn't want to have sex, don't force the issue. Don't expect them to put out, don't pester them, don't coerce them. Maybe this doesn't apply to every conceivable situation, but it damn sure applies to a lot of them.
The point of the tea video was never that you should explicitly ask someone before every sexual interaction. And I don't think anyone here has suggested it either, so I'm not sure where you're even getting this from.
Renzatic on 16/1/2018 at 07:16
I guess the only failing of the tea video is that it does somewhat imply that consent is usually given verbally. More often than not, it's just something that happens, and you can tell it's alright because she's broken out the g-string, a cat 'o nine tails, and the Airwolf theme is playing over the Bluetooth.
...and a chinchilla. But not for reasons you'd think. It's there mostly to witness.
Vasquez on 16/1/2018 at 08:18
Imo if you have any doubts what the other wants or doesn't want, you should ask. That would be the human way to do it. If it's already hot tongue kissing and panting and ripping off clothes, I'm pretty sure it's okay to proceed without asking. And even then, if the other one says "No" (however unlikely), you should stop.
If you're so immature it feels uncomfortable to ask "Would you like to have sex?" when things seem to progress that way, but you still are not 99% sure about it, I'd say you're too immature to have sex.
I guess I'm autistic, I've always rather asked than ended up in an awkward situation :D
Edit. Pre-emptive strike against nitpickers
Kolya on 16/1/2018 at 08:53
She only needs to have left out that she was giggling and laughing from when she first met him to the time she entered the cab.
Starker on 16/1/2018 at 11:56
Quote Posted by Tocky
I did read the full article. That is a lot of what confuses me. What person who is in the act of resisting someone gives them a blowjob? In my day we left the house and went home. Is a blowjob like a handshake now?
You might want to read (
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person) this short story. It's not about consent as such, but it does show why someone would consent to unwanted sex. Or I don't even know if consent is the right word here. Relent? Yield?
Quote:
Looking at him like that, so awkwardly bent, his belly thick and soft and covered with hair, Margot recoiled. But the thought of what it would take to stop what she had set in motion was overwhelming; it would require an amount of tact and gentleness that she felt was impossible to summon. It wasn't that she was scared he would try to force her to do something against her will but that insisting that they stop now, after everything she'd done to push this forward, would make her seem spoiled and capricious, as if she'd ordered something at a restaurant and then, once the food arrived, had changed her mind and sent it back.
Starker on 16/1/2018 at 12:56
Here's a piece from a woman who explains why it's hard for her to support Grace's side of the story:
Quote:
(
http://www.katykatikate.com/2018/01/not-that-bad_15.html) http://www.katykatikate.com/2018/01/not-that-bad_15.html
Women have already taken enough of a painful personal inventory to be able to say #metoo; I am not eager to go back over what I've come to comfortably accept as "crappy hookups," or "shitty sex," and come to realize that yes, that was sexual assault too.
If we begin to call all sexual assault what it is, we will have to voluntarily admit more pain into our lives, pain that we have up to this point refused to let in the door. If we call this kind of sexual encounter an assault, then women who have been weathering what they call bad sex will suddenly have justification for the icky feelings and shame that follows them home in the cab. And yet, we'd really rather just hit the showers.
I've taken that cab, crying. And I've taken that shower. And I would never have told the story, because I would have been afraid of someone thinking, "That's not that bad," the way I just fucking did. I don't have to
imagine what happened to Grace because I
remember it.
This is complicated.
And yes, guys, what Grace described is totally normal for a woman. This is a normal sex encounter. The women that you're seeing scoff at her? They aren't scoffing because they think a guy would never do that. They're scoffing because they believe every single word she said. They don't have to imagine it either.
This is a common, normal hookup. A shitty, painful hookup where Grace's comfort and pleasure were like #7 on the priority list. Mean, punishing sex is normal. And awful. Our normal is awful.
[...]
What I'm realizing now, after reading Grace's story and the responses to it, is that when I shrink my own pain, I also shrink my empathy for women who feel the same pain and feel it full-size. I resent Grace for talking about her hookup as if it's an assault. I'm mad at her for talking about it at all.
But that's not because she was wrong to talk about it. And it's for sure not because she was wrong to go on a date, drink wine, or try to have a pleasurable sexual encounter. She wasn't. She wasn't wrong.
It's because if what happened to her is a violation, then we are all violated. And everyone is a violator. And that's a scary fucking world to live in. I don't want that to be the world I live in.
Can it be that we are so okay with being hurt as women that we are skeptical of the idea that sex shouldn't be humiliating or scary?
heywood on 16/1/2018 at 15:05
Quote Posted by Kolya
Imagine the same scenario, but instead of groping and kissing you, the guy slaps you in the face. You have the exact same problem now.
If getting slapped in the face was a widespread, systemic problem, we'd have to do something about that too.
I don't consider being slapped in the face to be quite as serious as being groped, or having my career advancement options tied to giving out sexual favors. But still, if an actor developed a reputation for slapping co-stars in the face, that would be reason enough in my book not to give him work.
Quote:
As I just demonstrated this is not exclusive to sexual harassment, but happens whenever word stands against word and evidence is hard to come by.
Frankly, I think it's you who has a problem with the justice system. Which would be fine, if you had a better idea, but your only suggestion so far has been to pillory suspects, which most of us have kind of stepped away from a few hundred years ago for rather obvious reasons that you choose to ignore now.
No, the criminal code is just one set of behavioral rules to live by. It doesn't cover everything and it isn't meant to. That's why we have things like civil courts, employment contracts, organizational codes of conduct, policies, etc. The nature of the criminal justice system makes it good for some things, not so good for others. Because the criminal justice system is empowered to dole out the most severe punishments such as imprisonment, it is deliberately biased in favor of the accused. The standard for conviction is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". It also costs a lot of public money to prosecute people, so prosecutors exercise a lot of discretion in deciding which cases to prosecute. They very rarely pursue cases of sexual harassment or assault, and even rape can be very hard to prosecute.
The second tier of justice is the civil courts, where the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard does not apply. Civil cases are decided based on the "preponderance of the evidence", and the two sides are given more or less equal standing. Some victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct decide that their best hope for some kind of justice is to get paid off. They lawyer up and threaten to sue, and either they reach a settlement that binds them to a gag order or they end up in civil court.
A third tier is administrative justice. Employers, professional organizations, schools, clubs, the military, etc are responsible for self policing all sorts of bad behavior including sexual harassment, trading sex for career advancement, or slapping colleagues. They also dole out administrative punishments such as reprimands, suspensions, reductions in grade, disbarment, revocation of licenses, or termination. The consequences range from being minor to career damaging.
Finally, there is the court of public opinion, where we make decisions every day about which business to patronize, whose products to buy, what media to consume, etc. Because we live in relatively free societies, we all get to set our own individual standards. The court of public opinion is the least desirable place to address the problems of sexual misconduct, but it's also the last resort when other systems fail.
One of the best examples of failure is Fox News. Their corporate culture protected serial sexual harassers such as Bill O'Reilly. They knew what he was doing but they never administratively punished the guy. He paid off his accusers and kept them quiet with gag orders so nobody outside of Fox News would know that he has a long history as a serial harasser and abuser. It turns out this problem went to the top with Roger Ailes, and it wasn't addressed until it was outed in public, starting with anonymous leaks to the media about O'Reilly's previous settlements.
This isn't a witch hunt, and I've never said that all accusations are true and other things that catbarf tried to put in my mouth. This is a movement to make employers and other organizations set and enforce the standards of behavior that the public expects, and hold individuals accountable when their employers et al. won't do so. It's sad that we need to resort to public shaming to do it, but that's where we're at. If you take the position that we can't do anything unless there is a criminal conviction, you're basically making it acceptable for people to continue sexually harassing and sexually abusing with almost no deterrent.
