packawana said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

packawana said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

GMP said:

---

Who'd you rape?

---

Nice deflection and obscurantism in service of your virtue signaling.

Translation: "straying from the 'woke' orthodoxy and ideology triggers me, but I have no substance to rebuke. So I'll just make a baseless personal attack."

---

I think, as a society, we can accept that "accepting aggressive male behavior" or "being drunk" doesn't equal consent.

---

Society has not come to a consensus of what "consent" means -- legally, morally, culpably. We also conflate greasy behavior and sexual manipulation with a crime -- both when men or woman do it.

Mainstream culture does not require accountability on behalf of the female. Given that sexual crimes are difficult to indict and prosecute given a lack of evidence in most cases and the difficulty in asserting consent was given or not given (it can be one party did perceive consent given, and the other did not), they use the hammer of cultural pressure to either extort or destroy the alleged perp in the courts and in public.

By her own account, she was clearly giving mixed signals. It was clear both parties were manipulating the other to achieve their ends (not against the law, in principle). We keep telling women that men are responsible for foreseeing any doubt or apprehension. Most sexual contact is initiated and engaged in via non-verbal cues. When a man/woman makes an advance, however inappropriate, it is your responsibility to declare consent or non consent. Despite what those who marinate in the identity politics of our social-political environment, the absence of a 'no' can in fact mean 'yes'. Anybody who has spent time with other humans, particularly the opposite sex, know this to be both intuitively and demonstrably self-evident.

If I were a fly on the wall I have little trouble doubting that this dude's behavior would be cringy and tacky, and that if it were my own son I'd beat his a*s. But I'd feel the same about her behavior also. Being drunk doesn't alleviate your responsibility -- legally and morally -- to acquiescing to sexual contact, regretting it later, and then claiming you were victimized. That's not admirable or acceptable behavior, and it warrants being called out.

This video doesn't claim to reflect a broader consensus of just how hypocritical and sexist the narrative on consent is, but it does give you a glimpse of how deep and unquestioning the double standard is for some.

---

Sure there's a double standard, but it's the same double standard that makes it more acceptable, say, for a man to walk around scantily clad without having to worry about being catcalled or assaulted. Gender roles are something that exist in society and for a large history of it, women have been treated as sexual objects for the men than the other way around. Of course there would be a double standard that exists.

To be honest, this post comes off to me as incredibly self-serving. Woman gives mixed signals to man. Why does that entitle man to keep going? That essentially sounds like an excuse to keep getting what you want without paying any price for it.

---

This is why it's extremely hard to criticize the feminist metoo movement etc. Any criticism of current standards and paradigms gets conflated with apologetics for undesirable male behavior.

And it's not surprising that you deflect from points I'm making by clutching on to the 'cat calling' and 'sexual object' red herrings.

"Gender roles exist..." Yes but the feminist movement can't pick a lane. Are women and men equal, or are they biologically and socially different which warrant different standards as being reasonable? Or is it fair to employ both whenever it suits your desires? "Women are objectified! The male patriarchy and misogyny!" But I guess it's not wrong when women volunteer to use their bodies as sexual symbols on IG or at work or wherever to further their interests, whether it be career, sexually, whatever.

Men and women objectify each other all the time. It's not a license to commit sexual assault, or harassment or rape. No serious person is saying this. What my post was saying (which you already know) is that the concept of "consent" has been muddled (I would argue purposefully) to both 'correct for history' and to correct for the difficult legal reality the renders non-consent difficult to prove in criminal court. So we demolish basic concepts of reason and fairness to allow the destruction of men alleged to have committed crimes against women whether or not there is evidence to suggest it. My post was saying 'consent' is often subjective, or at least can be perceived differently by two well intentioned people, and that being submissive doesn't alleviate one's responsibility to declare a sexual action on their body is not wanted, but that is often the crutch being used. She was "helpless". She was "uncomfortable...too uncomfortable to say no so she just let it happen and didn't want to risk getting harmed". This is all socially- and politically- motivated sophistry.

"the same double standard that makes it more acceptable, say, for a man to walk around scantily clad without having to worry about being catcalled or assaulted"

First of all, while 'cat calling' is pretty low brow, low IQ behavior, it's not against the law and wouldn't render the woman a victim warranting social damages by a civil court. It's undesirable behavior. (And no serious person suggests assault or harassment is justified in the face of 'sexually provocative attire'). And men would not be justified in claiming to be a victim should women be verbally expressing their attraction to them'. . This is what's so hard to undertand: this social justice and identity politics narrative has such a condescending and infantile view of women as helpless, meek, submissive and confused humans who are victimized by 'verbal expressions of attraction.' Again, are women helpless and submissive and needing of the moral and physical mitigating efforts of men/society, or are they equal and capable and charged with the accountability and responsibility everyone has for their agency and the consequences of it?

Did you watch the video? At 6 min 30sec three grown women were given a sexual scenario where their man was asleep and they wanted to perform oral s e x on them, and were asked what would qualify as consent. They said, to varying degrees, I don't need him to be awake to say yes. If he's my man, or if we have had relations recently, I shouldn't have to ask.

"Woman gives mixed signals to man. Why does that entitle man to keep going?"

Nothing entitles anybody to anything in sexual activity. It's an ebb and flow of contact and approval (non verbal affirmative cues and/or acquiescing), and at any point certain actions can be explicitly rejected by either party. Nobody is saying mixed signals entitle anybody to anything that can't be revoked, and the reverse is true as well. A girl who has 'rejected' and 'accepted' you in the past now consents to visiting you in your hotel room, it's not unreasonable to make an advance if you perceive everything that follows is an invitation. When the person says no, that's when she's entitled for him to stop. If 5 minutes later she affirms or acquiesces sex, she is culpable of the ensuing sexual activity should she at any future time regret it. Here's something that will blow your mind: people often don't always know what they want at any given time, they're often morally or emotionally torn between choices at any given time. But it is always on the individual to establish their own physical and sexual boundaries and explicitly stating when those are being crossed.

So no, it's not clear, there's a lot of grey. And women are typically the gate keepers of sexual activity. Culture has not been able to establish a consensus, and we lack courage in calling out the personal responsibility and culpability of all parties involved.

GBear4Life said:

---

packawana said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

packawana said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

GMP said:

---

Who'd you rape?

---

Nice deflection and obscurantism in service of your virtue signaling.

Translation: "straying from the 'woke' orthodoxy and ideology triggers me, but I have no substance to rebuke. So I'll just make a baseless personal attack."

---

I think, as a society, we can accept that "accepting aggressive male behavior" or "being drunk" doesn't equal consent.

---

Society has not come to a consensus of what "consent" means -- legally, morally, culpably. We also conflate greasy behavior and sexual manipulation with a crime -- both when men or woman do it.

Mainstream culture does not require accountability on behalf of the female. Given that sexual crimes are difficult to indict and prosecute given a lack of evidence in most cases and the difficulty in asserting consent was given or not given (it can be one party did perceive consent given, and the other did not), they use the hammer of cultural pressure to either extort or destroy the alleged perp in the courts and in public.

By her own account, she was clearly giving mixed signals. It was clear both parties were manipulating the other to achieve their ends (not against the law, in principle). We keep telling women that men are responsible for foreseeing any doubt or apprehension. Most sexual contact is initiated and engaged in via non-verbal cues. When a man/woman makes an advance, however inappropriate, it is your responsibility to declare consent or non consent. Despite what those who marinate in the identity politics of our social-political environment, the absence of a 'no' can in fact mean 'yes'. Anybody who has spent time with other humans, particularly the opposite sex, know this to be both intuitively and demonstrably self-evident.

If I were a fly on the wall I have little trouble doubting that this dude's behavior would be cringy and tacky, and that if it were my own son I'd beat his a*s. But I'd feel the same about her behavior also. Being drunk doesn't alleviate your responsibility -- legally and morally -- to acquiescing to sexual contact, regretting it later, and then claiming you were victimized. That's not admirable or acceptable behavior, and it warrants being called out.

This video doesn't claim to reflect a broader consensus of just how hypocritical and sexist the narrative on consent is, but it does give you a glimpse of how deep and unquestioning the double standard is for some.

---

Sure there's a double standard, but it's the same double standard that makes it more acceptable, say, for a man to walk around scantily clad without having to worry about being catcalled or assaulted. Gender roles are something that exist in society and for a large history of it, women have been treated as sexual objects for the men than the other way around. Of course there would be a double standard that exists.

To be honest, this post comes off to me as incredibly self-serving. Woman gives mixed signals to man. Why does that entitle man to keep going? That essentially sounds like an excuse to keep getting what you want without paying any price for it.

---

This is why it's extremely hard to criticize the feminist metoo movement etc. Any criticism of current standards and paradigms gets conflated with apologetics for undesirable male behavior.

And it's not surprising that you deflect from points I'm making by clutching on to the 'cat calling' and 'sexual object' red herrings.

"Gender roles exist..." Yes but the feminist movement can't pick a lane. Are women and men equal, or are they biologically and socially different which warrant different standards as being reasonable? Or is it fair to employ both whenever it suits your desires? "Women are objectified! The male patriarchy and misogyny!" But I guess it's not wrong when women volunteer to use their bodies as sexual symbols on IG or at work or wherever to further their interests, whether it be career, sexually, whatever.

Men and women objectify each other all the time. It's not a license to commit sexual assault, or harassment or rape. No serious person is saying this. What my post was saying (which you already know) is that the concept of "consent" has been muddled (I would argue purposefully) to both 'correct for history' and to correct for the difficult legal reality the renders non-consent difficult to prove in criminal court. So we demolish basic concepts of reason and fairness to allow the destruction of men alleged to have committed crimes against women whether or not there is evidence to suggest it. My post was saying 'consent' is often subjective, or at least can be perceived differently by two well intentioned people, and that being submissive doesn't alleviate one's responsibility to declare a sexual action on their body is not wanted, but that is often the crutch being used. She was "helpless". She was "uncomfortable...too uncomfortable to say no so she just let it happen and didn't want to risk getting harmed". This is all socially- and politically- motivated sophistry.

"the same double standard that makes it more acceptable, say, for a man to walk around scantily clad without having to worry about being catcalled or assaulted"

First of all, while 'cat calling' is pretty low brow, low IQ behavior, it's not against the law and wouldn't render the woman a victim warranting social damages by a civil court. It's undesirable behavior. (And no serious person suggests assault or harassment is justified in the face of 'sexually provocative attire'). And men would not be justified in claiming to be a victim should women be verbally expressing their attraction to them'. . This is what's so hard to undertand: this social justice and identity politics narrative has such a condescending and infantile view of women as helpless, meek, submissive and confused humans who are victimized by 'verbal expressions of attraction.' Again, are women helpless and submissive and needing of the moral and physical mitigating efforts of men/society, or are they equal and capable and charged with the accountability and responsibility everyone has for their agency and the consequences of it?

Did you watch the video? At 6 min 30sec three grown women were given a sexual scenario where their man was asleep and they wanted to perform oral s e x on them, and were asked what would qualify as consent. They said, to varying degrees, I don't need him to be awake to say yes. If he's my man, or if we have had relations recently, I shouldn't have to ask.

So no, it's not clear, there's a lot of grey. And women are typically the gate keepers of sexual activity. Culture has not been able to establish a consensus, and we lack courage in calling out the personal responsibility and culpability of all parties involved.

---

Look, clearly you're someone who's been personally affected by a (false?) accusation in some fashion so I'm trying to be reasonable here.

1. Objectification and actual acts of sexual violence are related concepts. To divorce the two would be intellectually dishonest. If you treat a person as an object, you dehumanise them and allow yourself to rationalize committing inhuman acts. That's not to say people don't objectify -- they do, but objectification contributes to the ability of folks to conduct themselves in an uncouth manner toward others.

2. In the case of women acting sexually -- who has agency here? The women themselves or others? I would agree that this is a far more complex discussion of the role of sexuality in society (and I personally lean toward being very sex-positive), but again, this comes off as apologetics for improper behavior. Whether or not women use their sexuality for personal means is irrelevant to whether or not a woman should submit to a sexual act. That's a personal decision for all the people in that act, regardless of gender. Such a decision should be unambiguous.

Now to tackle your argument about equality, you make a false equivalence between societal and political equality and relationship dynamics. No one can reasonably say that in all cases of women and men having sexual relations, there is total physical and positional equality between the two. That lack of equality is not the same thing as both of those genders lacking the same civil liberties, employment opportunities, and basic societal privileges.

3. In the case of consent being ambiguous, it is true that there's a bit of grey here. Things you would do with some partners may not be okay with other partners. But personally I would want to know if my partner actually wants to go through with a very emotionally and physically taxing act (for both of us), and I would expect her to afford me the same respect.

4. None of what I'm saying here applies only to women. If a man feels uncomfortable about a woman, say a boss, pressure him into a sexual relationship because of some sort of power differential, she would be equally guilty under my criteria.

What I would ask is why would you see an evolving expectation of clear consent as a bad thing? What is that getting in the way of? If someone wants to have sex with you, they'll make that pretty clear.

And if they don't

- A. You can actually ask them to be upfront about their intentions. Humans are capable of doing that.
- B. If they're not clear at that point then why would you still want to keep going other than to simply satisfy your own desires at the expense of their well-being?

Quote:

---

1. Objectification and actual acts of sexual violence are related concepts. To divorce the two would be intellectually dishonest. If you treat a person as an object, you dehumanise them and allow yourself to rationalize committing inhuman acts. That's not to say people don't objectify -- they do, but objectification contributes to the ability of folks to conduct themselves in an uncouth manner toward others.

---

Entire paragraph is muddled by ideology and narrative...They're perhaps tengentially related concepts, but it's not relevant here. Men who sexualize women (almost all of us, most won't verbalize it or allow it to prompt inappropriate behavior like you and I). There are degenerates that cat-call. Yes. And so? It's an annoying reality some women deal with to varying degrees. We all wish men didn't do this, along with murder and rape etc. How is this relevant in determening what qualifies as consent, and how that's applied to each of the sexes?

Quote:

---

2. In the case of women acting sexually -- who has agency here? The women themselves or others? I would agree that this is a far more complex discussion of the role of sexuality in society (and I personally lean toward being very sex-positive), but again, this comes off as apologetics for improper behavior. Whether or not women use their sexuality for personal means is irrelevant to whether or not a woman should submit to a sexual act. That's a personal decision for all the people in that act, regardless of gender. Such a decision should be unambiguous.

---

Yeah, the "tolerant" advocate for 'sex-positive' and are probably fans of the sexual liberalization in the 1970s yet are perplexed when we have a hyper-sexual populace where men and women are tought sex is 'casual' and inherently positive. Um, no it's not.

I'm not saying how women use their sexuality justifies whether men are entitled to certain sexual acts from her -- no fair minded person could say that about what I wrote. It's to poke holes in the narrative of men sexualizing women. Um, no, women do it to -- for themselves and in other men. The question is about what women giving consent, and their responsibility for being ambiguous and unclear (or in some cases dishonest and misinformed) about consent.

Remember Aziz Ansari? Girl claimed he put her hands on his junk like 6 times? Why would he do that? Maybe because you're flirting with him and haven't said no. You're playing a game. Do I condone Aziz? Of course not. It makes him seem so pathetic and desperate. But that isn't commensurate with her claims of sexual assualt, that she didn't give her consent, or that she's a victim. She is responsible and culpable for her behavior. It's not the man's job to do double-tests 3 and 4 times to ensure she's 100% on board! Would a really good guy make sure, or at least give pause when there's a sense of doubt on her part? Yeah. That's probably why you and I and most guys haven't been accused of sexual assault or harassment. Or we just don't deal with flaky, unstable women, who knows.

Quote:

---

Now to tackle your argument about equality, you make a false equivalence between societal and political equality and relationship dynamics. No one can reasonably say that in all cases of women and men having sexual relations, there is total physical and positional equality between the two. That lack of equality is not the same thing as both of those genders lacking the same civil liberties, employment opportunities, and basic societal privileges.

---

I honestly don't follow you here. I understand political equality and relationship dynamics are not the same thing. But I'm not sure what your point is or why it's relevant to consent and accountability in sexual encounters. Are you saying the burden is greater on the man to ensure consent is given? How? And why? The initiator of sexual contact may be way off base and misread the situation, but if there's no objection and he continues to pass all the non-verbal barriers without objection....

Quote:

---

3. In the case of consent being ambiguous, it is true that there's a bit of grey here. Things you would do with some partners may not be okay with other partners. But personally I would want to know if my partner actually wants to go through with a very emotionally and physically taxing act (for both of us), and I would expect her to afford me the same respect.

---

Dude, that's really sweet, but that's not a requisite, and should a man not take these precautions, he's not culpable after the fact if the woman acquiesces the acitivy. Women aren't children. They don't need a man to call a timeout every 4 minutes like a college basketball game or else it's non-consent. That's absurd, it's sexist, it's anti-woman, it flies in the face of sincere feminism.

Quote:

---

4. None of what I'm saying here applies only to women. If a man feels uncomfortable about a woman, say a boss, pressure him into a sexual relationship because of some sort of power differential, she would be equally guilty under my criteria.

---

No disagreement here. Do you acknowledge that's not the standard in our culture though? Men are required to be accountable for their sexual acts and the consent involved, and reasonably so. Remember Maggie Lam's racist and sexist column describing what is, by the SJW own criteria, an unequivocal rape ( I disagree. The guy is legally adult. If he wants to sit there and tolerate a sales pitch to have sex, that's on him)

http://www.dailycal.org/2016/06/30/361455/

Quote:

---

What I would ask is why would you see an evolving expectation of clear consent as a bad thing? What is that getting in the way of? If someone wants to have sex with you, they'll make that pretty clear.

And if they don't

- A. You can actually ask them to be upfront about their intentions. Humans are capable of doing that.
- B. If they're not clear at that point then why would you still want to keep going other than to simply satisfy your own desires at the expense of their well-being?

---

Clear consent is a responsibility of both parties -- and not for the other person, for themselves. It is an ebb and flow of trial and error and both parties are responsible and accountable to be explicit in their own boundaries in the moment.

But you are espousing precisely what I object to: you're advocating for clearer, more cautious process of establishing consent -- but put the onus squarely on the man, and then applying moral (and legal?) culpability on the man merely because the woman claims so. This, as far as I can tell, is incredibly problematic for any concept of justice, equality and fairness.

In some respects, you want women to have "the 'power' of men, the privilege of women, and the responsibility of neither"

GBear4Life said:

---

Quote:

---

1. Objectification and actual acts of sexual violence are related concepts. To divorce the two would be intellectually dishonest. If you treat a person as an object, you dehumanise them and allow yourself to rationalize committing inhuman acts. That's not to say people don't objectify -- they do, but objectification contributes to the ability of folks to conduct themselves in an uncouth manner toward others.

---

Entire paragraph is muddled by ideology and narrative...They're perhaps tengentially related concepts, but it's not relevant here. Men who sexualize women (almost all of us, most won't verbalize it or allow it to prompt inappropriate behavior like you and I). There are degenerates that cat-call. Yes. And so? It's an annoying reality some women deal with to varying degrees. We all wish men didn't do this, along with murder and rape etc. How is this relevant in determening what qualifies as consent, and how that's applied to each of the sexes?

Quote:

---

2. In the case of women acting sexually -- who has agency here? The women themselves or others? I would agree that this is a far more complex discussion of the role of sexuality in society (and I personally lean toward being very sex-positive), but again, this comes off as apologetics for improper behavior. Whether or not women use their sexuality for personal means is irrelevant to whether or not a woman should submit to a sexual act. That's a personal decision for all the people in that act, regardless of gender. Such a decision should be unambiguous.

---

Yeah, the "tolerant" advocate for 'sex-positive' and are probably fans of the sexual liberalization in the 1970s yet are perplexed when we have a hyper-sexual populace where men and women are tought sex is 'casual' and inherently positive. Um, no it's not.

I'm not saying how women use their sexuality justifies whether men are entitled to certain sexual acts from her -- no fair minded person could say that about what I wrote. It's to poke holes in the narrative of men sexualizing women. Um, no, women do it to -- for themselves and in other men. The question is about what women giving consent, and their responsibility for being ambiguous and unclear (or in some cases dishonest and misinformed) about consent.

Remember Aziz Ansari? Girl claimed he put her hands on his junk like 6 times? Why would he do that? Maybe because you're flirting with him and haven't said no. You're playing a game. Do I condone Aziz? Of course not. It makes him seem so pathetic and desperate. But that isn't commensurate with her claims of sexual assualt, that she didn't give her consent, or that she's a victim. She is responsible and culpable for her behavior. It's not the man's job to do double-tests 3 and 4 times to ensure she's 100% on board! Would a really good guy make sure, or at least give pause when there's a sense of doubt on her part? Yeah. That's probably why you and I and most guys haven't been accused of sexual assault or harassment. Or we just don't deal with flaky, unstable women, who knows.

Quote:

---

Now to tackle your argument about equality, you make a false equivalence between societal and political equality and relationship dynamics. No one can reasonably say that in all cases of women and men having sexual relations, there is total physical and positional equality between the two. That lack of equality is not the same thing as both of those genders lacking the same civil liberties, employment opportunities, and basic societal privileges.

---

I honestly don't follow you here. I understand political equality and relationship dynamics are not the same thing. But I'm not sure what your point is or why it's relevant to consent and accountability in sexual encounters. Are you saying the burden is greater on the man to ensure consent is given? How? And why? The initiator of sexual contact may be way off base and misread the situation, but if there's no objection and he continues to pass all the non-verbal barriers without objection....

Quote:

---

3. In the case of consent being ambiguous, it is true that there's a bit of grey here. Things you would do with some partners may not be okay with other partners. But personally I would want to know if my partner actually wants to go through with a very emotionally and physically taxing act (for both of us), and I would expect her to afford me the same respect.

---

Dude, that's really sweet, but that's not a requisite, and should a man not take these precautions, he's not culpable after the fact if the woman acquiesces the acitivy. Women aren't children. They don't need a man to call a timeout every 4 minutes like a college basketball game or else it's non-consent. That's absurd, it's sexist, it's anti-woman, it flies in the face of sincere feminism.

Quote:

---

4. None of what I'm saying here applies only to women. If a man feels uncomfortable about a woman, say a boss, pressure him into a sexual relationship because of some sort of power differential, she would be equally guilty under my criteria.

---

No disagreement here. Do you acknowledge that's not the standard in our culture though? Men are required to be accountable for their sexual acts and the consent involved, and reasonably so. Remember Maggie Lam's racist and sexist column describing what is, by the SJW own criteria, an unequivocal rape ( I disagree. The guy is legally adult. If he wants to sit there and tolerate a sales pitch to have sex, that's on him)

http://www.dailycal.org/2016/06/30/361455/

Quote:

---

What I would ask is why would you see an evolving expectation of clear consent as a bad thing? What is that getting in the way of? If someone wants to have sex with you, they'll make that pretty clear.

And if they don't

- A. You can actually ask them to be upfront about their intentions. Humans are capable of doing that.
- B. If they're not clear at that point then why would you still want to keep going other than to simply satisfy your own desires at the expense of their well-being?

---

Clear consent is a responsibility of both parties -- and not for the other person, for themselves. It is an ebb and flow of trial and error and both parties are responsible and accountable to be explicit in their own boundaries in the moment.

But you are espousing precisely what I object to: you're advocating for clearer, more cautious process of establishing consent -- but put the onus squarely on the man, and then applying moral (and legal?) culpability on the man merely because the woman claims so. This, as far as I can tell, is incredibly problematic for any concept of justice, equality and fairness.

In some respects, you want women to have "the 'power' of men, the privilege of women, and the responsibility of neither"

---

1. I'm not certain how either of our responses aren't full of ideology. Clearly you're of the belief that most, if not all, power in sexual acts belong to women, which is an ideological statement in and of itself. To address how objectification leads to bad things happening, it's not a hard line to follow. You start seeing a person as less human and therefore rationalize that you can do things to a person you wouldn't find it typically acceptable to do. Human history is full of cases like this.

2. You're conflating women complaining about social imbalance with not feeling comfortable during sex. Those contexts are very different.

3. I don't see how it's there's any onus being placed more on either gender here. Person A asks if Person B wants to have sex. Person B gives clear yes or no answer or is noncommittal. Person A does not continue unless you get a clear Yes. Unless you think Person A is entitled to sex unless a clear 'No' has been given, I don't see where there's an imbalance of responsibility (on a side note, being sex positive isn't the same thing as believing that you're entitled to it). If anything, the onus is on the initiator to not overstep the boundaries of the request (And I happen to fall in the camp that him telling Maggie to stop qualifies as breaking these boundaries).

However, assigning a gender to the roles simply underscores the implication that getting sex to happen must be the man's role and it's the woman's role to accept or decline. That's a pretty ****ed up view of sex in my opinion. Hell, it even puts guys in a negative light that reduces men to sex-driven machines who could never, ever be uncomfortable during the act.

I feel like I just got dropped into a Gore v. Buckley debate. It's fascinating and a good read and civil and I can understand at least 70%. It's an important discourse that you don't see or hear anymore. I have my own juvenile and "gut" feel, but important to exhibit temperance...unless it is you come off as a complete bore.

cal83dls79 said:

---

I feel like I just got dropped into a Gore v. Buckley debate. It's fascinating and a good read and civil and I can understand at least 70%. It's an important discourse that you don't see or hear anymore. I have my own juvenile and "gut" feel, but important to exhibit temperance...unless it is you come off as a complete bore.

---

Yeah, IMO this is kind of the present cultural conversation happening in real time. The turmoil and confusion over sexual roles is because were in a period of redefinition. Eventually it will come to a kind of new understanding, which will persist until the next period of change.

I kind of see it this way:

Postwar period: late 1940s-mid 1960s, very strictly defined gender roles. Man works, woman cares for the house and family. Men are expected to pursue the women, full stop. Pros: safety and stability. Cons: personal freedom.

Sexual awakening: roughly the late 1960s through the 80s. Gender roles less strictly defined, personal freedom abounds, more public recognition of gay/bisexual/other sexualities. Bad news: AIDS, high divorce rates, less safety and security for the nuclear family.

Now society is looking for a new safer, more secure approach to sex and relationships (perhaps in response to the seeming chaos of world events, perhaps due to exhaustion with the previous era), but while still incorporating all that was learned during the awakening (men and women both free to make choices, gay and trans people not left out). It's a bit bumpy, as you all can see. #MeToo was always likely to overreach eventually, but it's still probably a necessary movement -- there was a problem that needed to be exposed.

packawana said:

---

To be honest, this post comes off to me as incredibly self-serving. Woman gives mixed signals to man. Why does that entitle man to keep going? That essentially sounds like an excuse to keep getting what you want without paying any price for it.

---

Are we still talking about this case?

Is it known that any illegal activity occurred? We have an apparent allegation. One that is obscure, at best, because of the many internal contradictions. Is there any actual evidence that some offense was committed against her?

Everyone seems to be arguing hypotheses, both instant and universal. Then, after the hypotheses are proposed, the "if" part is ignored and they are treated as concrete occurrences.

Quote:

---

1. I'm not certain how either of our responses aren't full of ideology. Clearly you're of the belief that most, if not all, power in sexual acts belong to women, which is an ideological statement in and of itself. To address how objectification leads to bad things happening, it's not a hard line to follow. You start seeing a person as less human and therefore rationalize that you can do things to a person you wouldn't find it typically acceptable to do. Human history is full of cases like this.

---

As far as I can tell, ideology is problematic when we work backwards from a set of ideals/value principles that form the basis of a social-political-economic framework in order to address a specific problem (e.g. the ambiguity of consent). I make a concerted effort in everything I say and do not to fall in this trap, and maybe you didn't either. I'm so used to seeing it in people who take your position because, obviously, I see that the rational point of view, particularly when using the liberal's own values and standards, is antithetical to the mainstream view that attempts to 'correct for history' and compensate for the 'inadequacies and submissive volatility of a woman's sexual decision making process'. I'll accept that you didn't, and that I said so in error.

I think we need to define objectify, because on some level I do follow you and I agree, and it's not hard to do so. The stereotypical male who cat calls sees woman as not simply inferior objects to be used as a physical means to an end is probably more likley to commite sexual violence than you or I. But I typically view women I don't personally know (or haven't met yet) as sexual objects, i.e. I sexualize them; I interpret them by how attractive they are to me. Until I have context of who they are as people, they are at bottom sexual creatures to me. Yet I don't have the proclivity or desire to violate them or treat them differently than I would an unattractive female. It would be naive of you to presume women don't do this with men as well. We are visual and sexual creatures. We are also civilized and don't act on this primal biological programming (at least most of us).

Quote:

---

2. You're conflating women complaining about social imbalance with not feeling comfortable during sex. Those contexts are very different.

---

I'm not doing that (can you show me a quote where I implied this?). In addressing the issue you're posing here, what does 'uncomfortable during sex' mean? This is like a mealy-mouth crutch and standard to alleviate responsibility from one party over the other. What are reasonable displays of verbal and non-verbal 'uncomfortableness'? I think you're using your own moral values (which I think we share) in how you interact with women sexually, and implying any behavior that falls short of that (by the man, not the woman) can render the woman a 'victim', either criminally or socially, and indict that man, at least morally, of something akin to crime. That is what I reject wholeheartedly. I'm not here to advocate for the sleeziness of men like Harvey Weinstein. I don't think it's admirable. Nor do I admire women (or men) alleviating themselves from accountability for their consent (affirmative or non verbal, doesn't matter) due to the current culturally approved factors (e.g. 'I wasn't sure', 'I was too drunk', etc etc). As you said, male initiates sexual contact, female signals consent or rejection. Most often the female establishes consent by physical, non-verbal cues, which at minimum is simply not rejecting the advance.

Do you realize how easy it is to accuse someone of a sexual crime and how difficult it is to prove and, by the same token, disprove? What we have happening a lot is what appears to have happened at Cal: hyper sexual male gawks attractive female; they both proceed in the merry-go-round of sexual lust and manipulation -- he projecting position of strength, authority and access to achieve sexual conquest, and she projecting sexual provocativeness through her (mixed) signals of interest in order to achieve at minimum professional advancement, at most a sexual experience with a man in a position of perceived power -- in essence, they're both playing games, i.e. one or both are playing hard to get, one or both are not being transparent about what they really think and feel, and what motivates their behavior etc.

Quote:

---

3. I don't see how it's there's any onus being placed more on either gender here. Person A asks if Person B wants to have sex. Person B gives clear yes or no answer or is noncommittal. Person A does not continue unless you get a clear Yes. Unless you think Person A is entitled to sex unless a clear 'No' has been given, I don't see where there's an imbalance of responsibility (on a side note, being sex positive isn't the same thing as believing that you're entitled to it). If anything, the onus is on the initiator to not overstep the boundaries of the request (And I happen to fall in the camp that him telling Maggie to stop qualifies as breaking these boundaries).

---

I addressd much of this already. You earlier said if there's any ambiguity it's on the man to stop. Why is a woman, merely because she's dealing with indecision and doubt, that she's no longer responsible for not explicitly rejecting sexual advances thereafter? And you can give a verbal response that contradicts your own physical non-verbal cues ("I'm not sure if this is a good idea " [as she continues to grab and kiss his face].

Quote:

---

However, assigning a gender to the roles simply underscores the implication that getting sex to happen must be the man's role and it's the woman's role to accept or decline. That's a pretty ****ed up view of sex in my opinion. Hell, it even puts guys in a negative light that reduces men to sex-driven machines who could never, ever be uncomfortable during the act.

---

I don't know where you get this idea from what I wrote. I'm merely stating the facts of what is usually the case: men initiate sex, women do not. This is the case for all sorts of biological, environmental and social conditions. Of course there are plenty of exceptions.

I don't really think you addressed many of the points I brought up. I think our moral compasses are pretty aligned, and much of the stuff we agree on. I just think women have been empowered to believe deluded ideas about sexual interaction and consent that adversely affects everyone, nobody more than women. But hopefully the exchange was helpful to readers.

EDIT

Quote:

---

#MeToo was always likely to overreach eventually, but it's still probably a necessary movement -- there was a problem that needed to be exposed.

---

Ah, this sums up the moral and logical absurdity of the SJW movement, and it underpins the overarching ideological impulse that has very real consequences: a very casual acknowledgement that a social movement was 'likely to overreach...' but that it was 'necessary' nonetheless.

Quite extraordinary. For SJWs, the ends justify the means. The innocent lives destroyed, the destruction of basic legal, moral and cultural principles of fairness, justice and equality are simply collateral damage in the quest to "correct for history". If yo ask sincere SJWs they will be honest with you about this. You will point out to them quite clearly how the application of privilege to a group of people determined by their immutable characteristics and historical oppression in order to correct for history undermines the attempt for justice for such groups, and does so at the expense of justice and fairness to others....and they will look at you with a straight face and more or less verbalize what sycasey did here: "that's the price of 'progress'. "

What is this problem that SJWs claim is so urgent as to trample principles of justice and equality? It's true, most of us had no idea so many women were holding on to stories of being sexually advanced on, keeping it silent to advance their career, then coming public when their career was safe and the bank was open.

sycasey said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

I feel like I just got dropped into a Gore v. Buckley debate. It's fascinating and a good read and civil and I can understand at least 70%. It's an important discourse that you don't see or hear anymore. I have my own juvenile and "gut" feel, but important to exhibit temperance...unless it is you come off as a complete bore.

---

Yeah, IMO this is kind of the present cultural conversation happening in real time. The turmoil and confusion over sexual roles is because were in a period of redefinition. Eventually it will come to a kind of new understanding, which will persist until the next period of change.

I kind of see it this way:

Postwar period: late 1940s-mid 1960s, very strictly defined gender roles. Man works, woman cares for the house and family. Men are expected to pursue the women, full stop. Pros: safety and stability. Cons: personal freedom.

Sexual awakening: roughly the late 1960s through the 80s. Gender roles less strictly defined, personal freedom abounds, more public recognition of gay/bisexual/other sexualities. Bad news: AIDS, high divorce rates, less safety and security for the nuclear family.

Now society is looking for a new safer, more secure approach to sex and relationships (perhaps in response to the seeming chaos of world events, perhaps due to exhaustion with the previous era), but while still incorporating all that was learned during the awakening (men and women both free to make choices, gay and trans people not left out). It's a bit bumpy, as you all can see. #MeToo was always likely to overreach eventually, but it's still probably a necessary movement -- there was a problem that needed to be exposed.

---

bumpy, yes. Well put. You still aren't the bore at the table, quite the contrary.

Whoa @ this thread

going4roses said:

---

Whoa @ this thread

---

not sure I meant it that way. Seemed crass

GBear4Life said:

---

Quote:

---

#MeToo was always likely to overreach eventually, but it's still probably a necessary movement -- there was a problem that needed to be exposed.

---

Ah, this sums up the moral and logical absurdity of the SJW movement, and it underpins the overarching ideological impulse that has very real consequences: a very casual acknowledgement that a social movement was 'likely to overreach...' but that it was 'necessary' nonetheless.

Quite extraordinary. For SJWs, the ends justify the means. The innocent lives destroyed, the destruction of basic legal, moral and cultural principles of fairness, justice and equality are simply collateral damage in the quest to "correct for history". If yo ask sincere SJWs they will be honest with you about this. You will point out to them quite clearly how the application of privilege to a group of people determined by their immutable characteristics and historical oppression in order to correct for history undermines the attempt for justice for such groups, and does so at the expense of justice and fairness to others....and they will look at you with a straight face and more or less verbalize what sycasey did here: "that's the price of 'progress'. "

What is this problem that SJWs claim is so urgent as to trample principles of justice and equality? It's true, most of us had no idea so many women were holding on to stories of being sexually advanced on, keeping it silent to advance their career, then coming public when their career was safe and the bank was open.

---

You are making a lot of assumptions about people's underlying motivations here. Maybe the women who reported offenses under #MeToo are mostly just being honest and now feel comfortable expressing themselves because others are also speaking out? Maybe they also didn't realize how common this was until they heard from others? (Yes, I realize that not every person will be honest. I'm just talking about the broad strokes here.)

I think the existence and subsequent outing of people like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, etc., are proof enough that there was a legitimate problem going on in a lot of industries, where sexual harassment or assault were swept under the rug for a long time. Probably still happens now, albeit less so. In the meantime, which lives were "unfairly" destroyed? You brought up Aziz Ansari, and while he did suffer some embarrassment from his bad seduction attempt being publicized, his career seems to still be intact and he has faced no legal consequences. Seems like the large majority of those who are probably innocent have managed to survive this movement thus far.

I never tried to claim that there are zero downsides. I'm not comfortable with some instances where #MeToo is invoked on scant evidence, and will say so when appropriate. But if this means that the guys who would have become the next Weinstein think twice about their behavior? That's a net positive IMO.

And a bit of advice: try to avoid invoking "SJW" as a shorthand term if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion with people of a liberal persuasion. That term has mostly arisen out of the reactionary right wing of the Internet as a pejorative description of liberals. I see it as a caricature of my political positions (someone who cares about social justice! Horrors!) and am likely to discount people who lead with it. You're free to continue using it if you like, I'm just telling you that it won't help your case with me.

Quote:

---

Remember Aziz Ansari? Girl claimed he put her hands on his junk like 6 times? Why would he do that?

---

Probably because he wanted to have sex with her. She didn't make him do anything.

Quote:

---

You're playing a game. Do I condone Aziz? Of course not. It makes him seem so pathetic and desperate. But that isn't commensurate with her claims of sexual assualt, that she didn't give her consent, or that she's a victim. She is responsible and culpable for her behavior. It's not the man's job to do double-tests 3 and 4 times to ensure she's 100% on board! Would a really good guy make sure, or at least give pause when there's a sense of doubt on her part? Yeah. That's probably why you and I and most guys haven't been accused of sexual assault or harassment. Or we just don't deal with flaky, unstable women, who knows.

---

There are a few different issues here (not all directly linked to the Aziz case).

(1) If you don't want to have sex with someone and they're having sex with you, then you have a valid claim to being a victim of sexual assault. I'm not yet talking about legal culpability, and I recognize that some women might not feel victimized in some circumstances that match that description. That's cool. Whether or not the accused wanted it, though, and whether or not it was a traumatic event for them, depend entirely on what's going on in their own brain and body. You're sneaking in an extra premise if you infer that they really did want it because they didn't do more to stop it, which brings me to point (2).

(2) When you talk to victims (Do you?), the #1 reason that they give for not speaking up or fighting back is a fear of what the accused could do to them (physically, socially, professionally) if they reject the advances. Whether or not they are too scared to resist is another fact that only depends on what's going on in their brain and body. You're sneaking in an additional premise if you argue that they weren't really afraid, or that they shouldn't have been afraid based on the situation that they were in. The point is, there are lots of cases in which this point (2) makes the additional premise that I mentioned in point (1) null and void.

(3) An entirely separate issue is whether or not the accused should've known that the accuser didn't want it at the time, and this is where we get to the biggest disagreement that I've seen in this thread, and the main point of this post: What constitutes due diligence, and what is criminally negligent when it comes to obtaining consent? In some historical eras and parts of the world, failing to dress modestly, or walking alone without male accompaniment, has been taken as a sign of consent. Whether or not that is persuasive to a jury in determining legal culpability depends largely on the cultural values and assumptions of those jurors. I would argue that values and assumptions are precisely what we need to shift in the United States in 2019. It's true that the accused might not have been able to pick up on subtle cues that the accuser wasn't interested. The best way for the accused to know for sure is to ask. This isn't just something that "really nice guys" do. It's not something that's "sweet." This shouldn't be viewed as a courtesy. If you don't try to obtain enthusiastic affirmative consent, then that should be a big problem for your case and your credibility. If the accuser is wasted, then they can't have given consent and that's a big problem for your case and your credibility. If you have a position of power over the accuser, then that's a big problem for your case and your credibility.

(4) I've deliberately avoided using gendered language thoughout this post. Though these issues are in practice usually a male/female thing thanks to our current social structure and the fear of physical, social, and professional retribution mentioned above, the ideas don't rely at all on any difference between men and women. If you're hooking up with an MMA fighter and she starts to tie you to the bed, or drip hot wax on you, or insert things into places that you might not want them to go, then she'd better be sure to have enthusiastic affirmative consent. If she doesn't get it and does these things anyway then she's the one to blame. After all, she's an MMA fighter, so it might be hard for you to say "No" to her.

GBear4Life said:

---

I wrote a point-by-point response earlier which was deleted so I'll try to go through each of these one-by-one but it won't have as much depth as I would like.

Quote:

---

1. I'm not certain how either of our responses aren't full of ideology. Clearly you're of the belief that most, if not all, power in sexual acts belong to women, which is an ideological statement in and of itself. To address how objectification leads to bad things happening, it's not a hard line to follow. You start seeing a person as less human and therefore rationalize that you can do things to a person you wouldn't find it typically acceptable to do. Human history is full of cases like this.

---

I think we need to define objectify, because on some level I do follow you and I agree, and it's not hard to do so. The stereotypical male who cat calls sees woman as not simply inferior objects to be used as a physical means to an end is probably more likley to commite sexual violence than you or I. But I typically view women I don't personally know (or haven't met yet) as sexual objects, i.e. I sexualize them; I interpret them by how attractive they are to me. Until I have context of who they are as people, they are at bottom sexual creatures to me. Yet I don't have the proclivity or desire to violate them or treat them differently than I would an unattractive female. It would be naive of you to presume women don't do this with men as well. We are visual and sexual creatures. We are also civilized and don't act on this primal biological programming (at least most of us).

I think most human beings are biologically wired on some level to view others as sexual objects. However, the level of objectification is something that continues to be a pervasive problem. There is a degree of difference between thinking someone is cute on the street and going on 4chan and taking part in whatever trash discussions re:sex that are happening there. Furthermore, objectification in relation to sex through human history has largely been perpetrated by men upon women (see marital rape, master/slave relationships, rape as a weapon of war as poignant examples). Today's version of dehumanization isn't as bad as those, but to continue seeing other people simply as means to sexual gratification and not as fully-fleshed human beings with emotion and feelings and confusion is an attitude that we should try to move away from as a society.

Quote:

---

2. You're conflating women complaining about social imbalance with not feeling comfortable during sex. Those contexts are very different.

---

I'm not doing that (can you show me a quote where I implied this?).

Quote:

---

"Gender roles exist..." Yes but the feminist movement can't pick a lane. Are women and men equal, or are they biologically and socially different which warrant different standards as being reasonable? Or is it fair to employ both whenever it suits your desires? "Women are objectified! The male patriarchy and misogyny!" But I guess it's not wrong when women volunteer to use their bodies as sexual symbols on IG or at work or wherever to further their interests, whether it be career, sexually, whatever.

---

You're discussing concepts of equality which generally portends to equality with regards to opportunity, liberties, human rights, opportunity at advancement, etc and attributing that to feminism in general rather than the role of feminism in affirmative consent. Many of what is described here are de jure inequalities, rather than de facto ones. Further, what you're arguing against are two different strands of feminism, and I think most feminists would even accept that remedying de facto inequalities are more complicated than simply "arguing for equality".

In addressing the issue you're posing here, what does 'uncomfortable during sex' mean? This is like a mealy-mouth crutch and standard to alleviate responsibility from one party over the other. What are reasonable displays of verbal and non-verbal 'uncomfortableness'? I think you're using your own moral values (which I think we share) in how you interact with women sexually, and implying any behavior that falls short of that (by the man, not the woman) can render the woman a 'victim', either criminally or socially, and indict that man, at least morally, of something akin to crime. That is what I reject wholeheartedly. I'm not here to advocate for the sleeziness of men like Harvey Weinstein. I don't think it's admirable. Nor do I admire women (or men) alleviating themselves from accountability for their consent (affirmative or non verbal, doesn't matter) due to the current culturally approved factors (e.g. 'I wasn't sure', 'I was too drunk', etc etc). As you said, male initiates sexual contact, female signals consent or rejection. Most often the female establishes consent by physical, non-verbal cues, which at minimum is simply not rejecting the advance.

This falls to whether one believes the impairment of rational judgement allows for one to give consent. I'm of the mind that while you're in a state of impairment, you can't give consent outright. That includes being drunk, but also other states such as impaired psychological conditions.

Do you realize how easy it is to accuse someone of a sexual crime and how difficult it is to prove and, by the same token, disprove? What we have happening a lot is what appears to have happened at Cal: hyper sexual male gawks attractive female; they both proceed in the merry-go-round of sexual lust and manipulation -- he projecting position of strength, authority and access to achieve sexual conquest, and she projecting sexual provocativeness through her (mixed) signals of interest in order to achieve at minimum professional advancement, at most a sexual experience with a man in a position of perceived power -- in essence, they're both playing games, i.e. one or both are playing hard to get, one or both are not being transparent about what they really think and feel, and what motivates their behavior etc.

I don't see how any of the above disproves that one party has no more responsibility than the other. The fact that both of these are equivocated (which I believe is done when you say they're both 'playing games') willfully ignores the value of power in interactions such as these. I would further argue that the ownership of power or even the perception of ownership of power also requires one to excercise that ownership with responsibility

Quote:

---

3. I don't see how it's there's any onus being placed more on either gender here. Person A asks if Person B wants to have sex. Person B gives clear yes or no answer or is noncommittal. Person A does not continue unless you get a clear Yes. Unless you think Person A is entitled to sex unless a clear 'No' has been given, I don't see where there's an imbalance of responsibility (on a side note, being sex positive isn't the same thing as believing that you're entitled to it). If anything, the onus is on the initiator to not overstep the boundaries of the request (And I happen to fall in the camp that him telling Maggie to stop qualifies as breaking these boundaries).

---

I addressd much of this already. You earlier said if there's any ambiguity it's on the man to stop. Why is a woman, merely because she's dealing with indecision and doubt, that she's no longer responsible for not explicitly rejecting sexual advances thereafter? And you can give a verbal response that contradicts your own physical non-verbal cues ("I'm not sure if this is a good idea " [as she continues to grab and kiss his face].

I believe you're referring to this:

Quote:

---

Woman gives mixed signals to man. Why does that entitle man to keep going? That essentially sounds like an excuse to keep getting what you want without paying any price for it.

---

This was meant more in reference to the Anzari example you brought up, but is also a single case of my general view that consent should be clear. If you'd like, you could replace the genders with anything you'd want and my stance would still hold.

Further, even if one's physical and verbal cues are contradictory, why would that give the other party license to keep going? "Oh they kinda are touching me still but they're saying they don't really feel like it so what the hell I'm going to keep going anyway" is a really dangerous attitude to have toward an emotionally taxing exercise like sex. That, in my mind, reeks of self-entitlement.

Quote:

---

However, assigning a gender to the roles simply underscores the implication that getting sex to happen must be the man's role and it's the woman's role to accept or decline. That's a pretty ****ed up view of sex in my opinion. Hell, it even puts guys in a negative light that reduces men to sex-driven machines who could never, ever be uncomfortable during the act.

---

I don't know where you get this idea from what I wrote. I'm merely stating the facts of what is usually the case: men initiate sex, women do not. This is the case for all sorts of biological, environmental and social conditions. Of course there are plenty of exceptions.

Almost every point you've brought up is fixated on the "man initiates, woman affirms or refuses" dichotomy even after I pointed out that the consent model could be abstracted away to any relationship dynamic. Furthermore, you've shown consistent explicit concern that women at-large have had responsibility taken away from them in society to refuse sex and that the onus falls on men to recognize reticence because the man will always initiate. That speaks to an expectation that sexual dynamics will continue to be constrained to this model, which, I would argue, is a very bad bet.

---

Quote:

---

I don't really think you addressed many of the points I brought up. I think our moral compasses are pretty aligned, and much of the stuff we agree on. I just think women have been empowered to believe deluded ideas about sexual interaction and consent that adversely affects everyone, nobody more than women. But hopefully the exchange was helpful to readers.

See the previous point.

---

The biggest point on my end that concerns me is why you think nonresistance == consent. There's a ton of things that could lead someone to nonresistance. For example, if someone had psychological trauma, froze up, and felt physically unable to counteract a sexual advance, no one would reasonably interpret that as a consensual activity.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

To be honest, this post comes off to me as incredibly self-serving. Woman gives mixed signals to man. Why does that entitle man to keep going? That essentially sounds like an excuse to keep getting what you want without paying any price for it.

---

Are we still talking about this case?

Is it known that any illegal activity occurred? We have an apparent allegation. One that is obscure, at best, because of the many internal contradictions. Is there any actual evidence that some offense was committed against her?

Everyone seems to be arguing hypotheses, both instant and universal. Then, after the hypotheses are proposed, the "if" part is ignored and they are treated as concrete occurrences.

---

I think we're discussing the more general conversation around consent at this point.

I wonder if it's possible for folks to respond to other posts without including the entire thread in their response.

It would make the conversation much more readable. As it is, 95% of a given response (rough estimate) is just repetitive verbiage, adding nothing to the discussion. A conversation killer imho.

Without quoting previous threads, I have two concerns:

1) is every post bar one night stand now rape when one of the people having sex is drunk?

2) what about women that actually get turned off when you stop and ask them if it is okay to...?

If you have not experienced number 2, then you live in a different world than the types of scenes where most of these events you are discussing happen.

oski003 said:

---

Without quoting previous threads, I have two concerns:

1) is every post bar one night stand now rape when one of the people having sex is drunk?

2) what about women that actually get turned off when you stop and ask them if it is okay to...?

If you have not experienced number 2, then you live in a different world than the types of scenes where most of these events you are discussing happen.

---

(1) is definitely the hardest question to draw a definitive line on. Obviously there's a point at which one party is so drunk that they can't give consent, and as with many things, objectively there's no one number where you can clearly say "Crime" or "Not a crime" without argument. The same is true of speed limits or, to stay on the alcohol theme, with the legal driving limit. I should add that there already are laws in California stating that intoxicated people can't give consent. The real question is "Who determines what counts as intoxicated enough, and how do they determine it?"

(2) People want to have sex. If men refused to have sex with women without asking first, how long do you think the women would hold out? My guess is not long.

cal83dls79 said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Whoa @ this thread

---

not sure I meant it that way. Seemed crass

---

Whoa @ the conjecture jeez "crass" really? Perhaps ask next time first that's if you don't understand ... Ok or just let it be.

berk18.2 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Without quoting previous threads, I have two concerns:

1) is every post bar one night stand now rape when one of the people having sex is drunk?

2) what about women that actually get turned off when you stop and ask them if it is okay to...?

If you have not experienced number 2, then you live in a different world than the types of scenes where most of these events you are discussing happen.

---

(1) is definitely the hardest question to draw a definitive line on. Obviously there's a point at which one party is so drunk that they can't give consent, and as with many things, objectively there's no one number where you can clearly say "Crime" or "Not a crime" without argument. The same is true of speed limits or, to stay on the alcohol theme, with the legal driving limit. I should add that there already are laws in California stating that intoxicated people can't give consent. The real question is "Who determines what counts as intoxicated enough, and how do they determine it?"

(2) People want to have sex. If men refused to have sex with women without asking first, how long do you think the women would hold out? My guess is not long.

---

Your response to 2 would work if people always acted rationally. They don't.

In the case of #1: Yep, if a woman is drunk & you have sex with her, when she sobers up she can claim you raped her. Better wait until the woman sobers up before engaging in sex.

#2: If asking a woman clearly if she wants to engage in sexual contact with you, and asking results in her rejecting you, you are far better off being rejected than assuming she wants sex when she hasn't plainly & clearly said that's what she wants. That's just reality.

And you better clearly ask about STDs - HIV requires a life changing regiment of drugs & changed behavior just to survive.

Once the ground rules with a potential sexual partner are established, have fun. Until then, man up & make sure you've established your partner's desires.

Not "romantic?" Answering questions posed by the police about raping a drunk woman isn't romantic in the slightest way. That is a fact we can all agree on.

There are a lot of worse things in this world than getting rejected by a woman who isn't bright enough to know that you are complimenting & respecting her by clearly asking about sexual contact.

oski003 said:

---

berk18.2 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Without quoting previous threads, I have two concerns:

1) is every post bar one night stand now rape when one of the people having sex is drunk?

2) what about women that actually get turned off when you stop and ask them if it is okay to...?

If you have not experienced number 2, then you live in a different world than the types of scenes where most of these events you are discussing happen.

---

(1) is definitely the hardest question to draw a definitive line on. Obviously there's a point at which one party is so drunk that they can't give consent, and as with many things, objectively there's no one number where you can clearly say "Crime" or "Not a crime" without argument. The same is true of speed limits or, to stay on the alcohol theme, with the legal driving limit. I should add that there already are laws in California stating that intoxicated people can't give consent. The real question is "Who determines what counts as intoxicated enough, and how do they determine it?"

(2) People want to have sex. If men refused to have sex with women without asking first, how long do you think the women would hold out? My guess is not long.

---

Your response to 2 would work if people always acted rationally. They don't.

---

If you mean that the women to whom you're referring would rather stick to this particular gun and live a life of celibacy, then I would respond that there are plenty of fish in the sea. Lots of them find consent attractive, and they go to bars too. As a side note, if a man can't find a way to establish consent without killing the mood, then I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the woman wasn't that into him in the first place. I say this, of course, with the obligatory caveat that there are all kinds of people in the world, and therefore a token number of counter-examples to every general claim including that one.

There's another thing that concerns me about the idea of this woman who can't be bothered about consent: If the man doesn't try to establish enthusiastic affirmative consent, then how can he know that doing so would have turned her off?

This next bit is a more general comment, and not a response to any particular post or poster:

I feel pretty strongly about this topic, obviously. A lot of my friends, from Cal and from other places, have stories of sexual assault. The overall percentage, and the stories themselves, are really eye-opening. I guarantee you that all of you know a lot more women who've been sexually assaulted than men who've been accused (falsely or otherwise). The women that've told me these things weren't going to the police. They weren't going to the press. They didn't have anything to gain by sharing these stories. But don't take my word for it; I would hope that everybody here has women that they trust and that they'll listen to, and that they've tried to get a few different female perspectives on this topic. If you haven't, then I really don't think that you can know what you're talking about.

Bear19 said:

---

I wonder if it's possible for folks to respond to other posts without including the entire thread in their response.

It would make the conversation much more readable. As it is, 95% of a given response (rough estimate) is just repetitive verbiage, adding nothing to the discussion. A conversation killer imho.

---

I wanted to make sure to address every point.

berk18.2 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

berk18.2 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Without quoting previous threads, I have two concerns:

1) is every post bar one night stand now rape when one of the people having sex is drunk?

2) what about women that actually get turned off when you stop and ask them if it is okay to...?

If you have not experienced number 2, then you live in a different world than the types of scenes where most of these events you are discussing happen.

---

(1) is definitely the hardest question to draw a definitive line on. Obviously there's a point at which one party is so drunk that they can't give consent, and as with many things, objectively there's no one number where you can clearly say "Crime" or "Not a crime" without argument. The same is true of speed limits or, to stay on the alcohol theme, with the legal driving limit. I should add that there already are laws in California stating that intoxicated people can't give consent. The real question is "Who determines what counts as intoxicated enough, and how do they determine it?"

(2) People want to have sex. If men refused to have sex with women without asking first, how long do you think the women would hold out? My guess is not long.

---

Your response to 2 would work if people always acted rationally. They don't.

---

If you mean that the women to whom you're referring would rather stick to this particular gun and live a life of celibacy, then I would respond that there are plenty of fish in the sea. Lots of them find consent attractive, and they go to bars too. As a side note, if a man can't find a way to establish consent without killing the mood, then I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the woman wasn't that into him in the first place. I say this, of course, with the obligatory caveat that there are all kinds of people in the world, and therefore a token number of counter-examples to every general claim including that one.

There's another thing that concerns me about the idea of this woman who can't be bothered about consent: If the man doesn't try to establish enthusiastic affirmative consent, then how can he know that doing so would have turned her off?

This next bit is a more general comment, and not a response to any particular post or poster:

I feel pretty strongly about this topic, obviously. A lot of my friends, from Cal and from other places, have stories of sexual assault. The overall percentage, and the stories themselves, are really eye-opening. I guarantee you that all of you know a lot more women who've been sexually assaulted than men who've been accused (falsely or otherwise). The women that've told me these things weren't going to the police. They weren't going to the press. They didn't have anything to gain by sharing these stories. But don't take my word for it; I would hope that everybody here has women that they trust and that they'll listen to, and that they've tried to get a few different female perspectives on this topic. If you haven't, then I really don't think that you can know what you're talking about.

---

If you mean to say that's it always smart for a guy to actively ask for consent before advancing a base, that is excellent advice. However, to make it defacto rape if a guy doesn't ask consent before advancing a base, that would be too high of bar. Perhaps human mating would have to be significantly altered so that consent could be requested in casual banter.

cal83dls79 said:

---

I feel like I just got dropped into a Gore v. Buckley debate. It's fascinating and a good read and civil...

---

Better than the original. Gore Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-fascist", and Buckley responded by calling Vidal a "queer" (back when that was an insult) and threatening to punch him in the nose.

Good times...

JSC 76 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

I feel like I just got dropped into a Gore v. Buckley debate. It's fascinating and a good read and civil...

---

Better than the original. Gore Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-fascist", and Buckley responded by calling Vidal a "queer" (back when that was an insult) and threatening to punch him in the nose.

Good times...

---

"SJW" is the new "queer."

I wonder how many women are responding on this thread.. If this has already been discusssed....my bad.

I may be a woman.

The mods have access to our email addresses and I, believe, "real names". They can, at least, make educated guesses as to gender.

BEARUPINDC said:

---

I wonder how many women are responding on this thread.. If this has already been discusssed....my bad.

I may be a woman.

The mods have access to our email addresses and I, believe, "real names". They can, at least, make educated guesses as to gender.

---

Maybe, my name is gender neutral ( ish)

"In the case of #1: Yep, if a woman is drunk & you have sex with her, when she sobers up she can claim you raped her. Better wait until the woman sobers up before engaging in sex."

Doesn't the above presume that only the woman has been drinking? Wouldn't it typically be true that both parties have been drinking? Why does the woman get the benefit of the doubt for being drunk but the man does not?

going4roses said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

I wonder how many women are responding on this thread.. If this has already been discusssed....my bad.

I may be a woman.

The mods have access to our email addresses and I, believe, "real names". They can, at least, make educated guesses as to gender.

---

Maybe, my name is gender neutral ( ish)

---

My real, for sure, actual name is also gender neutal(ish)....that's one reason why I said
the mods can (only) make educated guesses.

Gotcha

The instagram posts by the accuser is now naming at least one name: a current player.

I'm not going on IG. Don't mention the name, but different player than named on fb, or same one?

Sorry, I dont go on FB. Upper division on offense. .

JSC 76 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

I feel like I just got dropped into a Gore v. Buckley debate. It's fascinating and a good read and civil...

---

Better than the original. Gore Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-fascist", and Buckley responded by calling Vidal a "queer" (back when that was an insult) and threatening to punch him in the nose.

Good times...

---

and Buckley always regretted that remark, Vidal didn't fare well afterwards as well.

going4roses said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Whoa @ this thread

---

not sure I meant it that way. Seemed crass

---

Whoa @ the conjecture jeez "crass" really? Perhaps ask next time first that's if you don't understand ... Ok or just let it be.

---

was referring to my own comment. Not yours. Was worried I came off as crass myself.