The problem of men at large coming across as disgusting pigs only out to sate their sexual lust is a two part problem. It's just as much the fault of women as it is for men. Men are conditioned by society (friends, family, and the media) that in order to actually get a girl interested they have to do all these things that can come across as weird, rapey, and make someone generally uncomfortable. Everybody is different, and when it comes to sexual relationships this is very apparent. If a guy goes out with a girl and they have a few dates, and the time comes where the guy wants to move things along, the options are: talk about it, or stay silent and try to push things in the desired direction with small steps. Since everybody is different, either of these options will have varying responses from different people. If the guy tries to talk about it to make sure the girl is on the same page because he doesn't want to do something that makes her uncomfortable, it is either viewed as endearing, pathetic, or patronizing. It can be viewed as pathetic because it shows he may not have the confidence to act on some of his feelings. It can be viewed as endearing because he wants to make sure the other party is comfortable. It can be seen as patronizing because to the girl, if he's wanting to make sure they're on the same page it's because he must think less of her.
On the other hand, if he stays silent and tried to slowly push things in the direction he wants with small actions, it can come across as unwanted and rapey. It can also be totally fine.
Likewise, for women, they have to worry about whether or not the guy they're seeing is some psycho.
There is no right or wrong answer with the exception of direct, sexual contact that is undesired by either party (this is always wrong). The current problems surrounding sexual relationships are the fault of everybody. I don't think there's any way to "fix" it because the purpose of dating is to specifically find a person you mix well with. There are bound to be awkward and very uncomfortable experiences. That's how it works and that's how it's always worked.
So are we just going to ignore that sex is a two party act, two people have to be involved, and if you can't handle your own "yes" and "No" that is, at the end of the day your responsibility, you should probably spend a few minutes questioning all that before just saying everything is assault.
This is the kind of strawman we used to make a few years ago as a ridiculous scenario, and people would always say "That'll never happen like that".
Kinda seems like it is.
Aziz clearly went to far, but the girl had her own role to play in exercising her own agency, and blaming aziz and his fame over that is, I don't know, but it seems to me that it ducks personal responsibility.
[editline]18th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53062259]Really? Why is it taken as an axiomatic truth that men are horny pigs who will go all out to get everything they want out of a sexual situation, and that women should be the ones to control those urges for them, and to say no and get out of a situation themselves if they don't want it to continue? Why is everyone assuming that she didn't want [I]any[/I] sexual contact at all in the first place? What if she went in wanting to get intimate with him, but over the course of the encounter she started to realise how pushy and gross he was being and therefore changed her mind? And why are people blaming her for changing her mind halfway through?[/QUOTE]
Personally I'm not. She's welcome to that.
But it stopped, didn't it? What is the actual solution here? Time travel and the ability to erase decisions?
Honestly, we should think about the environment this could create going forward.
stop being an abuser twat Azeez
[QUOTE=Rusty100;53061646]what is with the victim blaming in this thread[/QUOTE]
The only victim here is Aziz Ansari's career.
This just seems like a case of miscommunication and misunderstanding between two individuals, nothing more, nothing less.
He went too far and wasn't listening well enough / misunderstood and she chose to endure it for longer than she needed to and didn't communicate well or directly enough.
Why the fuck something like this would / should affect someones career is beyond me.
reinforcing the idea that there is nothing wrong with a woman freezing up and just letting things happen to her makes women easier prey for predators around the world.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53062769]reinforcing the idea that there is nothing wrong with a woman freezing up and just letting things happen to her makes women easier prey for predators around the world.[/QUOTE]
There is something wrong with it. It sucks for her.
Something bad happening to a woman doesn't mean that a man needs to be punished for it.
[editline]18th January 2018[/editline]
Sometimes shitty situations occur that don't require revenge.
Why do people keep saying she froze up? She actively engaged with him. When she said stop he stopped. I don't think Aziz Ansari is without fault here, but he didn't just fuck a girl who was non-responsive.
You can't push for women to be strong and independent if you treat them as being entirely without agency as soon as a man approaches. Aziz probably failed to read her body language or missed her hesitation, but giving him a blowjob kind of sends mixed signals, if she even communicated her unwillingness to him.
Having a bad sexual encounter is not the same as sexual assault, and immediately jumping to conclusions about either party is irresponsible and dangerous.
If I'm being pressured for sex (surprisingly it does happen to disgusting neckbeards too) then I leave. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm able to prevent actions from happening without threat of consequence, then that does not constitute sexual assault.
Is Ansari a sleazeball? Based on these accounts, yes. Is he a sexual abuser? No.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53062834]You can't push for women to be strong and independent if you treat them as being entirely without agency as soon as a man approaches. [/QUOTE]
It's worse than that, it completely destroys consent. This attitude that women can't be responsible for their own actions because societal expectations pressure them into doing what men want them to is not only denying them agency, it's saying that even clearly communicated consent might [I]really[/I] just be acquiescing to pressure and can't be trusted.
You could go on a date, think you're hitting it off, take her back to your place, have a sexual encounter that seems mutually consensual, and then find out a week later that it wasn't 'really' consensual because she felt pressured into going along with it. Since societal norms generally expect that men make the first move, you have to go out on a limb and then hope that if you get a positive response it's genuine. This gets real problematic real fast.
And now, we've both completely undermined the legitimacy of consent, and stated that sometimes women will say things they don't mean because society tells them to. Actual abusers and date-rapists are going to use that to justify pressuring women who say 'no', on the assumption that they really want it and are just saying no because society tells them to. Complete regression of the advances made in changing the culture around sex.
The socialization of girls and women is a serious issue, and Ansari's behavior in this is practically the epitome of sleaze, but if you start treating adults like children who aren't responsible for their actions it'll only make the problem worse.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;53061678]It's not that easy for women. The recent Revelations around the entertainment industry shows just how easy it is for a man in power (which, given Aziz's fame, he certainly is) to destroy the career of a woman who spurns his advances. And also generally for women, it can often seem easier to just let it happen, for fear of physical retribution. Combine this with the general lack of agency that women are socialised into feeling in interactions with men.'.
There's also a lot of documentation around a tendency to freeze up and be unable to think clearly or even physically move when being sexually assaulted, which makes sense given the mosuse and abuse of our most imtimate act.
Its absolutely not as simple as 'she's an adult she should have left
Not gonna pass judgement on Aziz until we have more information, but at a minimum this should be a wake up call to guys that 'no' mean 'no', not 'keep trying your luck and I might give in because it's easier than pushing you away'. It's also a reminder that if she is not clearly into it, that is also a no.[/QUOTE]
See, that may be true, but how exactly are men supposed to deal with this issue?
Should we assume that a woman's consent may be the result of pressure due to our social status? Or of fear that our strength means we might violently retaliate should they refuse? Or simply of gender roles?
Is it a reasonable expectation to demand that men operate as if women assume they're scum of the earth who will do everything in their power to coerce them into having sex with them? Should we be collectively blamed for the actions of those few? And deemed guilty of sexual assault against women who erroneously expressed their consent because of those misconceptions?
You mention gender norms of women being passive, which I think is central to this whole issue. It's something some women appreciate, (just like some men appreciate conforming to traditional male gender norms) since they don't have to do all the legwork and have more choice, but which harms women who want more agency along with the vast majority of men. Men are faced with a choice between engaging contact, however comfortable and skilled with that they may be, or get nothing, since the chances of being approached by a woman unprompted is basically null for the average guy.
This leads to men initiating most flirts and sexual advances, which, if the man is not skilled or comfortable enough, can quickly end up being interpreted as sexual harassment. It doesn't help that there's a double standard where some women might be creeped out by an advance they would have found enticing if initiated by a man they find attractive.
If women initiated as much as men do, they would empathize more and misconstrue less interactions as being ill-intended. Men would also be more aware of what's acceptable and what's pushy because they would have been on the other side of the fence. It would generally ease up most of the tensions, anyone could operate with the level of agency they prefer without fear of being left out or called a 'slut'.
Unfortunately, the current media trend, while beneficial to actual assault victims, doesn't seem to be headed in that direction. Men are held accountable for everything and are expected to think of all that women could go through while women are still expected to be passive, except when it comes to denouncing those who they deem abused them. It's just a retread of the same shit, only with different gender norms, when those should be done away with entirely.
The movement could spearhead some positive change, by normalizing women sexually behaving like men are expected to. Actual sexual liberation, not this fake asymmetrical shit. But it seems to cater to accusations, which is simply reductive of the whole problem and is really a symptom of why we have a hard time going forward as a society.
I'd be interested to hear how women envision their ideal encounter. We're often told what we shouldn't do, but never what we should do and I think it's an underexplored facet of the issue.
Can someone explain what they want sex to look like in a perfect world? "Do you consent to me touching your breast? Do you consent to me touching your thigh? I'm going to touch your other thigh now, is that okay? Thank you. Do you consent.." Sex is intuitive and impulsive, if you're seriously incapable of making decisions for yourself as to whether or not you want to have sex then you shouldn't be going out drinking with celebrities and then going home alone with them in the wee hours of the night. Actual sexual assault is obviously horrible and obviously (with the Weinstein revelations) super super common and requiring attention, but this is absolute shit. At some point you have to draw the line and put some responsibility on a grown woman for engaging in sex. If she didn't enjoy it or felt uncomfortable, I feel bad for her, but trying to frame Ansari as some kind of sexual predator because he was a horny man on a date is totally uncalled for.
[QUOTE=geel9;53062813]There is something wrong with it. It sucks for her.
Something bad happening to a woman doesn't mean that a man needs to be punished for it.
[editline]18th January 2018[/editline]
Sometimes shitty situations occur that don't require revenge.[/QUOTE]
exactly, it sucks extremely that women have been socialized to be passive, and that people are continuing to encouraging passivity by placing all the blame on how men are socialized to be more sexually aggressive. i believe women are fully capable of asserting control over the outcome of situations like this one, that if they feel like they are being pressured into doing something that they don't really want to that they can stand up for themselves. what I see instead is people saying men are too strong and too powerful for women to stand up to, that if they try they'll get killed or their life ruined. it is well meaning, especially since there is truth in that, but it has the effect of scaring women into submission.
we should be working to change how we socialize men to be less sexually aggressive while at the same time socializing women to be more assertive.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53063136]we should be working to change how we socialize men to be less sexually aggressive while at the same time socializing women to be more assertive.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, one can't go without the other IMO.
[QUOTE=aydin690;53061663] Is sex not implied?.[/QUOTE]
Sex is NEVER implied. I'm pretty sure I was even taught that in Sex Ed.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;53063753]i have a weird perspective on this: as a child i learned that the easiest way to avoid getting hurt was to let it happen. the less you resisted, the less hurt you got. i kind of learned helplessness. as a result, i tend to shut down and play along when stuff like this happens. i doubt i would have had the strength to given even as [I]much[/I] resistance as she did. [B]if this had happened to me and he was being this forceful and scary, i guarantee would've shut down and done everything he wanted just to avoid getting fucking murdered.[/B] i probably wouldn't have given [I]any[/I] cues at all, because of how thoroughly I've had it pounded into my head that resisting=more pain.
a lot of women are in my position, to varying degrees, and it creates nightmare scenarios like this one where one party is as traumatized as a rape victim and the other party isn't guilty of assault. there's no right answer and nobody at fault. it's just one of life's horrors. [/QUOTE]
you said yourself that if someone was being this 'forceful and scary' - that's not faultless, that's on the other person. you should be made to feel safe by a sexual partner, not scared into submission (unless it's an agreed upon kink beforehand). even if you show no cues that you're uncomfortable, it's a societal thing that conditions a lot of men into just going for what they want and being creepy about it. like it's been pointed out in this thread by a few people, rather than looking for a yes or obvious signs of interest, they simpy feel lack of resistance is good enough. it's like a technicality. i don't believe this is a 'nobody's at fault' situation, i think the fault is on the person making the other person feel uncomfortable and violated as well as society at large. if you're a reasonable human who can think outside of their dick in a sexual situation, it's always VERY CLEAR when the other person is not into it either through passiveness, sheepishness, or many many other cues. they're simply just not being looked for by a lot of people, because they're only thinking about their own sexual drive.
please do not be sorry my friend, i am sorry that those things have happened to you. i'm not telling you what to think at all, just what i think. please do not blame yourself for being the way you are
[QUOTE=Rusty100;53063793]you said yourself that if someone was being this 'forceful and scary' - that's not faultless, that's on the other person. you should be made to feel safe by a sexual partner, not scared into submission (unless it's an agreed upon kink beforehand). even if you show no cues that you're uncomfortable, it's a societal thing that conditions a lot of men into just going for what they want and being creepy about it. like it's been pointed out in this thread by a few people, rather than looking for a yes or obvious signs of interest, they simpy feel lack of resistance is good enough. it's like a technicality. i don't believe this is a 'nobody's at fault' situation, i think the fault is on the person making the other person feel uncomfortable and violated as well as society at large. if you're a reasonable human who can think outside of their dick in a sexual situation, it's always VERY CLEAR when the other person is not into it either through passiveness, sheepishness, or many many other cues. they're simply just not being looked for by a lot of people, because they're only thinking about their own sexual drive.[/QUOTE]
I feel like there's a deeper tragedy that's worth being investigated here. I don't want to use this as an excuse to victim blame, or to say the perpetrator isn't blameless, or that this is exactly what has happened in Ansari's case, but hear me out:
It is very well possible that in some cases that a well meaning individual would initiate a sexual encounter. The individual on the other end may feel scared, and may shut down. This is totally natural for some people and I can sympathize with this happening. But the individual initiating the encounter might not be realizing that this "shutting down" is occurring. Maybe by initiating the encounter, and seeing that the person isn't stopping them from continuing, they may believe (as an individual acting in good faith), that this is a consented upon sexual encounter. Tragically, this person may unknowingly rape the victim.
So, what does this mean? First of all, and most importantly, this doesn't mean we get to say "Oh it was just a misunderstanding, your feelings aren't valid." It is important that victims of such experiences speak out about it when they can gather the strength to do so. But secondly, and again I need to be clear, I'm not implying that this is exactly what happened in this case or that nothing should be done, but I'm implying that if this is indeed the case and that Ansari is being truthful about not intending harm, there may be a deeper societal issue at play here. This issue is worth being discussed, and should not be swept under the rug, because it's leading to actual real life human beings being deeply afraid about their life and security.
But it leads to an uncomfortable question: If this so-called well-meaning individual did not intend to harm someone, but did anyway, what should be done? Should their lives be ruined or should something else be done? Or, more to the point, can this be known for sure and if not am I creating a loophole by giving rapists the benefit of the doubt, and we should assume that all of these cases were committed in bad faith? Is it acceptable losses that examples be made to prevent this from happening in the future? From my limited understanding of the event as of right now, I believe that Ansari was not acting in good faith, but this is tangential to what I'm wondering.
That said, my main point is that EVEN IF we presume that Ansari was indeed acting in good faith and that it indeed was in fact a grand misunderstanding, [I]there still exists fundamental issues with how we treat sexual encounters, and maybe some reflection is warranted[/I].
PS: If saying "Are you absolutely sure you're okay with this?" or "Tell me if you're uncomfortable, the safeword is banana!" or whatever you want to ensure that they're peachy for a split second before a sexual encounter is enough to turn you and your partner into fucking Mormons who are afraid of missionary sex then maybe the encounter shouldn't be in the first place. I understand that some things can kill the mood, but Jesus Christ. It just takes a femtosecond to affirm that they're comfortable, it's not asking them to write a doctoral thesis.
(PPS: Rusty I'm not responding directly to you but just using your post as a springboard to launch many disparate ideas.)
This is such a fucking gray spot I can't even fathom the amounts of stupid it takes to try and say one way or the other.
This was an awkward sexual encounter, there are many like them but this one was theirs. Whether Aziz had a right to poke and prod afterward but the fact he basically gave her a 'we'll just watch TV with clothes on, you can leave if you want' is like the textbook definition of giving someone a way out.
He did everything that he could to communicate with her and she mumbled out responses up until the end. I'm not saying he's blameless, but it honestly feels like grasping at the loosest straws.
To use another analogy about my first PS: if you're gonna ride a bike, you should put on a helmet. Is it inconvenient to make sure it's secured properly? Sure. Could it mess up your nice hair? Yeah, it can. Is safety and security more important than convenience? Absolutely, positively, without a doubt. Being sure your partner is comfortable may be a slight inconvenience but it's probably not gonna ruin your day. If they get freaked out by you asking them that then they probably weren't into it in the first place so you just avoided a rape charge. Nothing to lose.
[QUOTE=srobins;53062979]Can someone explain what they want sex to look like in a perfect world? "Do you consent to me touching your breast? Do you consent to me touching your thigh? I'm going to touch your other thigh now, is that okay? Thank you. Do you consent.." Sex is intuitive and impulsive, if you're seriously incapable of making decisions for yourself as to whether or not you want to have sex then you shouldn't be going out drinking with celebrities and then going home alone with them in the wee hours of the night. Actual sexual assault is obviously horrible and obviously (with the Weinstein revelations) super super common and requiring attention, but this is absolute shit. At some point you have to draw the line and put some responsibility on a grown woman for engaging in sex. If she didn't enjoy it or felt uncomfortable, I feel bad for her, but trying to frame Ansari as some kind of sexual predator because he was a horny man on a date is totally uncalled for.[/QUOTE]
Make out with them, feel them up. If they seem [I]eagerly responsive,[/I] then keep going. Are they kind of just letting you do it? Ask them "this alright with you?" or "you doing okay?"
It's seriously not that complicated. And don't try to reduce Ansari's pushiness to "because he was a horny man" because I don't want to be dragged into your unaware definition of "a horny man."
TBH it's such a dumb strawman response to say "what's next, do I have to ask for consent when I move my hand to another breast?" No one is saying that, stop acting like they are. No, no one is going to demand you verbally ask their consent for the next inch of your cock, and no, no one is going to start writing up Sexual Consent Contracts before you fuck.
We're far past saying "lock him up," instead saying "this is bad, he was pushy and douchey, it needs to be called out. [I]don't do what he did.[/I]"
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53064048]Ask them "this alright with you?" or "you doing okay?"[/QUOTE]
We'd all like it to be that simple, but it's really not. As plenty of people have pointed out in this thread, women are socialized to be agreeable and not to resist. Someone who's afraid or feeling pressured might say 'yes, it's alright' or 'yes, I'm ok' even if they aren't.
So put yourself in this situation: You've had a great date, you've been flirty and physical with your partner, they eagerly agree to come back to your place, you start getting intimate. After multiple sex acts short of full penetration, you think it's time to go for it. They seem a little less than eagerly responsive and you pick up on this, so you ask 'This alright with you?' and they say 'Yes'.
Now what? They've seemed excited the whole evening and you've already engaged in extremely intimate, sexual acts. Are they uncomfortable with sex after being comfortable with everything short of sex? Are they excited, but a cold fish in bed? Are they just nervous? If you err on the side of caution you stop what you're doing altogether, but that question didn't get you any closer to figuring out what's going on in their head.
In addition, in saying 'this alright with you?' you are retroactively seeking consent [I]while you're already committing an act[/I]. If they're [I]not[/I] okay with what you're doing and say 'no', then in the eyes of some people you're already committing sexual assault or rape by performing a sex act that they don't consent to. Since we accept that consenting to one act does not mean automatic consent to all other acts, the only logical way to prevent that situation is to seek consent prior to every act, and you wind up with the 'do you consent to this, how about this, how about this, etc' situation that we all agree is ridiculous. The normal, human alternative, to do something and gauge your partner's reaction like you say, can still get you in trouble, [I]especially[/I] if you misread their response or get a 'yes' they didn't really mean.
I'm not saying this to justify Ansari's sleazy pushiness or say that it's impossible to tell if they want it or anything like that, just that this isn't a sterile, easy thing where a single yes-or-no question is all you need. It's not complicated when you boil it down to such a simple thought experiment, but sex is complicated when you put it into practice with real human beings, and people trying to turn it into a black-and-white issue are hurting innocent people.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;53063793]If you're a reasonable human who can think outside of their dick in a sexual situation, it's always VERY CLEAR when the other person is not into it either through passiveness, sheepishness, or many many other cues. they're simply just not being looked for by a lot of people, because they're only thinking about their own sexual drive.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but I have to point out that [b]no.[/b] No, it isn't always "very clear". That's a broad generalisation that assumes every woman fits the same mold.
For some women, passiveness [I]is[/I] the way they manifest their enjoyment. I was surprised by this as well. I was with a pretty shy girl for a couple of months, and while I was used to girls being pretty expressive when having sex, this one was silent and kept a somewhat neutral facial expression. This led me to think that she was uncomfortable or bored, but that wasn't actually the case when I asked her, and she initiated sexual acts several times after that, always with the same reaction (or apparent lack thereof).
Throw in the fact that consent can be withdrawn in the middle of the act, and that a freeze up mechanism can occur, and you end up with situations you simply can't do shit about as a partner.
My ex had vaginismus, and we spent one year together without being able to do something as simple as coitus. Once that was finally possible, it was painful for her half of the time, which lead to me being very cautious about how she felt during the act. It was difficult to tell apart pain from pleasure at a glance, especially in the dark. In both situations she had similar facial expressions, and since her parents were often sleeping in the room next to hers she muffled her own moans which thus sounded more or less identical to muffled pain or discomfort sounds.
So to make up for that I just asked periodically if it hurt, but when it didn't it just annoyed her and lead her to basically go "shut the fuck up and plow". Most of the time she would tell me if it hurt so we could stop, so it wasn't too much of an issue.
But one night she experienced this "freeze" where she was hurting but couldn't bring herself to stop me, she could only wait for it to be over. Due to the aforementioned reasons, I didn't know anything wrong was happening and she didn't even tell me about it until months later, when she became increasingly psychologically unstable. She was more and more distant and irritated with me. Even after she told me, things kept going downhill. Even though I clearly felt guilty about the whole event she was more and more resentful towards me, and kept saying she felt like she was raped. She repeatedly refused to go see a therapist despite my offers to help. Eventually it became unbearable and we broke up.
All of this happened despite me not "thinking solely about my dick", as you put it. It's easy for randoms on the internet to play armchair psychologists and claim that it's always obvious whether a woman is comfortable having sex or not. It's much harder when you're actually put in a difficult situation.
I strongly advise PelPix to seek therapy to solve her issue. Yes, it's a good idea to ensure your partner is caring and won't disregard your own feelings. But that's not a guarantee that mistakes won't happen, nor does it mean it's the partner's fault if it does.
It's important to be able to properly express consent, and even more important to be able to explicitly retract it if you feel uncomfortable. I'm sure there's a lot of professionals who can help you with that, and it should make your romantic life much easier.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53064831]We'd all like it to be that simple, but it's really not. As plenty of people have pointed out in this thread, women are socialized to be agreeable and not to resist. Someone who's afraid or feeling pressured might say 'yes, it's alright' or 'yes, I'm ok' even if they aren't.
So put yourself in this situation: You've had a great date, you've been flirty and physical with your partner, they eagerly agree to come back to your place, you start getting intimate. After multiple sex acts short of full penetration, you think it's time to go for it. They seem a little less than eagerly responsive and you pick up on this, so you ask 'This alright with you?' and they say 'Yes'.
Now what? They've seemed excited the whole evening and you've already engaged in extremely intimate, sexual acts. Are they uncomfortable with sex after being comfortable with everything short of sex? Are they excited, but a cold fish in bed? Are they just nervous? If you err on the side of caution you stop what you're doing altogether, but that question didn't get you any closer to figuring out what's going on in their head.
In addition, in saying 'this alright with you?' you are retroactively seeking consent [I]while you're already committing an act[/I]. If they're [I]not[/I] okay with what you're doing and say 'no', then in the eyes of some people you're already committing sexual assault or rape by performing a sex act that they don't consent to. Since we accept that consenting to one act does not mean automatic consent to all other acts, the only logical way to prevent that situation is to seek consent prior to every act, and you wind up with the 'do you consent to this, how about this, how about this, etc' situation that we all agree is ridiculous. The normal, human alternative, to do something and gauge your partner's reaction like you say, can still get you in trouble, [I]especially[/I] if you misread their response or get a 'yes' they didn't really mean.
I'm not saying this to justify Ansari's sleazy pushiness or say that it's impossible to tell if they want it or anything like that, just that this isn't a sterile, easy thing where a single yes-or-no question is all you need. It's not complicated when you boil it down to such a simple thought experiment, but sex is complicated when you put it into practice with real human beings, and people trying to turn it into a black-and-white issue are hurting innocent people.[/QUOTE]
So, is your alternative to just not bother with asking and doing it anyway? What do you propose should be done, otherwise?
If I ask someone if they're alright, and I hear them say "yes," then you're good. They seem hesitent? They might be nervous, but you asked, so you [I]already did the right thing.[/I] At some point, they may ask you to stop, and then you do. It [I]really is that simple.[/I] I'm not sure what's the challenge to surmount here.
You're nitpicking here at saying "well, technically, you're already doing it, so you already assaulted" which isn't how it works at all. I have [I]never[/I] heard a story where someone said "they asked if I was okay with it after already touching my breast and only stopped after I said no, so I'm accusing them with assault."
It's honestly so simple to just ask someone's consent. You act like it's some unsolvable puzzle of "well she said yes but she still seems hesitent," when you can literally just ask "hey, you still seem uncomfrotable." You can bring it up and communicate. You can use your words. It's really not complicated at all.
I'm really tired of people trying to use the excuse of "sex is supposed to be spontaneous, not a discussion" to counter this because it comes off as valuing their sexual fantasy over another person, that they'd rather have their sex than be considerate.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53064866]So, is your alternative to just not bother with asking and doing it anyway? What do you propose should be done, otherwise?
If I ask someone if they're alright, and I hear them say "yes," then you're good. They seem hesitent? They might be nervous, but you asked, so you [I]already did the right thing.[/I] At some point, they may ask you to stop, and then you do. It [I]really is that simple.[/I] I'm not sure what's the challenge to surmount here.
You're nitpicking here at saying "well, technically, you're already doing it, so you already assaulted" which isn't how it works at all. I have [I]never[/I] heard a story where someone said "they asked if I was okay with it after already touching my breast and only stopped after I said no, so I'm accusing them with assault."
It's honestly so simple to just ask someone's consent. You act like it's some unsolvable puzzle of "well she said yes but she still seems hesitent," when you can literally just ask "hey, you still seem uncomfrotable." You can bring it up and communicate. You can use your words. It's really not complicated at all.
I'm really tired of people trying to use the excuse of "sex is supposed to be spontaneous, not a discussion" to counter this because it comes off as valuing their sexual fantasy over another person, that they'd rather have their sex than be considerate.[/QUOTE]
It actually isn't about "rather have sex then be considerate". I have done as suggest in this thread before. Literally asking "is this okay?" To every new act. Guess what? "Can you stop being a wimp?" Was the response to that. Not everyone and not every situation is going to fall into your purview of what it should be.
the way the article gets overly detailed about some things (like the white/red wine thing) while at the same time being super vague about some very important details ("non-verbal cues") makes it difficult to discuss the whole situation in detail imo
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53064947]It actually isn't about "rather have sex then be considerate". I have done as suggest in this thread before. Literally asking "is this okay?" To every new act. Guess what? "Can you stop being a wimp?" Was the response to that. Not everyone and not every situation is going to fall into your purview of what it should be.[/QUOTE]
Did they seem hesitant? Were they stand-offish to what you were doing? If yes, and they said "can you stop being a wimp," then they were a selfish lover that sucks at communicating.
Obviously not everyone/every situation is going to work. You're [I]going to get[/I] shit parters like that person in your example might be. Douchey partners come in girl varieties, too, and they need to be told the same things about consent and communication.
So, I'll ask again: what's the alternative to communicating?
[editline]19th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53064962]Sex doesn't have to be a discussion.... again, spend some time with your partner before going cave exploring and you'll find what they're comfortable with, and the nonverbal cues you can use. For example: I've been married 7 years, we haven't asked each other "hey wanna have sex" since 6 months before we got married. If you spend time with people.. you find out that not everything needs to be spelled out.
Sex absolutely does have to be a discussion with a stranger/fling, and absolutely should be a discussion that's had in a relationship. But it doesn't HAVE to be a discussion every time if you're not some sort of oblivious moron. And if you are said oblivious moron, then perhaps the dating/flirting/sexing game isn't for you.[/QUOTE]
I'm inagreement with you. I was actually thinking of what you said a few posts ago when I typed out what you quoted. With the person I'm dating, I don't think of all these things, because we're comfortable enough with each other and trust each other enough to be okay with whatever happens, and if something makes one of us uncomfortable, we just say it and all is well.
For flings, however, I apply everything I've already said.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53064970]Did they seem hesitant? Were they stand-offish to what you were doing? If yes, and they said "can you stop being a wimp," then they were a selfish lover that sucks at communicating.
Obviously not everyone/every situation is going to work. You're [I]going to get[/I] shit parters like that person in your example might be. Douchey partners come in girl varieties, too, and they need to be told the same things about consent and communication.
So, I'll ask again: what's the alternative to communicating?
[editline]19th January 2018[/editline]
I'm inagreement with you. I was actually thinking of what you said a few posts ago when I typed out what you quoted. With the person I'm dating, I don't think of all these things, because we're comfortable enough with each other and trust each other enough to be okay with whatever happens, and if something makes one of us uncomfortable, we just say it and all is well.
For flings, however, I apply everything I've already said.[/QUOTE]
IMO, you're starting with the wrong assumption.
The responsibility of expressing discomfort in the situation lies with the person feeling discomfort. They are adults, and should be expected to communicate their desires. It isn't the responsibility of the comfortable person to probe the mind of the other person, trying to figure out if they're feeling uncomfortable. They aren't a child who needs to be walked through their own emotions and desires by a more responsible adult.
Just fuck hookers boys, they list their dos/don'ts on their backpage, takes the guesswork out of it
[QUOTE=sgman91;53064986]IMO, you're starting with the wrong assumption.
The responsibility of expressing discomfort in the situation lies with the person feeling discomfort. They are adults, and should be expected to communicate their desires. It isn't the responsibility of the comfortable person to probe the mind of the other person, trying to figure out if they're feeling uncomfortable. They aren't a child who needs to be walked through their own emotions and desires by a more responsible adult.[/QUOTE]
I'm not asking you to probe, and sometimes people who're uncomfortable can't get their thoughts out. That's too idealistic to expect uncomfortable people to always be able to sound off their discomfort.
You don't have to probe, just note when they don't seem into it, and bring it up. It's seriously not hard. It doesn't matter who's "responsibility" it is; you don't think "she's not acting eager, but it's not my responsibility to worry about that" and then keep going. A quick "hey, you good?" can do so much. The jump between doing nothing and doing that is big.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
