Well I was answering Agustinos' question: "Which head is nicer to deal with do you think?"
So my answer is whatI think and becauseI prefer to only deal with my partners heads, either one. Not some fool that pushes himself on me after I make it clear that I am in no way interested.
Make sense?
Unwelcome sexual advances have never been a problem for you?
Yes unwelcome sexual advances were a problem for me but I learned how to handle them.
I still don't understand why my answer to Agustino was insufficient for you.
Reply to Michael Some people gain a sense of self-esteem, or at least a sense of their own attractiveness, and maybe some feeling of sexual power and confidence, if they are frequently approached, even if the approachers are unattractive to them. This is a pretty ordinary thing, I think. It can be better to have options. There is self-deprecating humour in lamenting one's lack of attraction even to people one wouldn't want to say yes to.
Explaining a joke always makes me feel dirty afterwards.
If it's an attempt at humour then it's pretty damn tone deaf (and still nonsensical).
More evidence confirming diagnosis.
NOTE TO MICHEL: References to your diagnosis and lack of treatment options are mostly a joke, which, of course, you don't, won't, can't get, owing to your funny-bone impairment.
Here are three more jokes, cartoons. Please describe your cognitive processing of these cartoons.
Reply to jamalrob I'm probably just being pedantic, but that wouldn't be unwanted sexual advances; it'd be wanted sexual advances from people you're not interested in.
Reply to Bitter Crank I'm not trying to dig myself out of anything. I'm just saying it makes as much sense as an involuntary celibate saying "I wish someone would rape me". It's nonsense. They don't want to be raped; they want someone to have consensual sex with. And as a "joke" it's a pretty insulting conflation.
Reply to Michael But sexual advances, wanted and unwanted, are an ordinary part of life and not in themselves bad, regrettable or traumatic. Unlike rape.
Reply to Michael I heard my name, so I'll respond. This girl at work wrote an anonymous post-it note to me and stuck it on my desk. I determined it was her by comparing it to her handwriting after everyone left. It said, "I want to suck your dick til your cum is all over my tongue."
The request was truly unwanted, but I did enjoy the attention, but I'm disappointed it wasn't Baden, and you're jelly.
No go back to enforcing your decency standards in your humorless cubicle where no one sexually expresses themselves in entirely inappropriate ways that ought to lead to immediate termination, but instead ended in me laughing because I have a sense of humor, although it was very fucked up even by my "standards." Know your audience I guess.
A feature of the #me2 movement is that they are unwilling to distinguish between a pat on a woman's derriere and rape. The former can not be worse than annoying, and has nothing in common with the latter. Similarly, verbal requests for sex are not the same as rape. By collapsing all undesired sexual suggestion, touching, innuendo, humor, and so on into "assault" along with forced sodomy and rape, and then "catastrophizing" a joke of which a woman might disapprove, #metoo has created a movement which will burn out on flimsy grievances.
A feature of the #me2 movement is that they are unwilling to distinguish between a pat on a woman's derriere and rape. The former can not be worse than annoying, and has nothing in common with the latter.
I doubt these me2-people are unable to tell the difference between rape and unwanted sexual advances. So I suspect you misunderstand the movement. One possible view is that both stem from the fact that society has for too long relegated women to second class citizens. Almost no one would think to slap a guy's ass (ok, ok, I'm telling the wrong guy now, but on average!)
It's not the slap that's the problem but the society that considers this acceptable. It shouldn't be. So it's all commentary on those social norms and the acts being an expression of that aren't really the issue here.
It's not the slap that's the problem but the society that considers this acceptable. It shouldn't be. So it's all commentary on those social norms and the acts being an expression of that aren't really the issue here.
Here's the deal - society is hypocritical. If grabbing isn't okay, then it should never be okay, not in some circumstances okay, and in others not okay. There are situations in society when such behaviours are even expected - and that's a problem when you're trying to say that society shouldn't consider it acceptable because you must also eliminate those situations. I mean, if you go in a nightclub in a developed country like the UK, I can guarantee you, 100%, that there will be a lot of unsolicited grabbing going around. What do you do about that? Because people even expect it to happen in such places.
Woman versus man physical aggression is less threatening than the opposite because the man wins that fight 99% of the time. The other 1% ends in a tie that must be decided by lot.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 04, 2018 at 01:04#1396890 likes
A feature of the #me2 movement is that they are unwilling to distinguish between a pat on a woman's derriere and rape. The former can not be worse than annoying,
Jesus fucking Christ what the hell is wrong with you that you think this is an acceptable statement to ever make? Of course it could be worse than annoying.
For fuck's sake what the hell is wrong with this fucking planet that this is even in question?
Here's the deal - society is hypocritical. If grabbing isn't okay, then it should never be okay, not in some circumstances okay, and in others not okay. There are situations in society when such behaviours are even expected - and that's a problem when you're trying to say that society shouldn't consider it acceptable because you must also eliminate those situations. I mean, if you go in a nightclub in a developed country like the UK, I can guarantee you, 100%, that there will be a lot of unsolicited grabbing going around. What do you do about that?
Currently a lot of people don't know what unwanted sexual advances are and I think the me2-movement is great for awareness, which is a start. The solution is really quite simple. You should pay attention to the person you're interested in and read their actions and hear their words. I've misread flirtation in the past but that became clear before I even touched her. It really isn't that hard and I'm not even good at reading people or moods. That fact makes the problem even more egregious as it takes very little effort to avoid this shit. It really boils down to respecting people instead of seeing them as objects to conquer or use.
The solution is really quite simple. You should pay attention to the person you're interested in and read their actions and hear their words. I've misread flirtation in the past but that became clear before I even touched her. It really isn't that hard and I'm not even good at reading people or moods. That fact makes the problem even more egregious as it takes very little effort to avoid this shit.
The problem with these sentiments, which I've seen all over the place recently, is that they don't take account of the richness of life. Thus they amount to an acceptance of new social restrictions surrounding sex, an impoverishment of sexual interaction and a degradation of individual autonomy, decades after the freedoms gained in the sexual liberation of the sixties.
Everyone is different, and even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks.
It really boils down to respecting people instead of seeing them as objects to conquer or use.
But sometimes people want to be treated like that. Sometimes people want to be conquered and used. People play games. It's part of the fun, and inevitably it will often misfire. But it's ok to make a mistake; it becomes harassment only if you keep on doing it, and that's where respect comes in.
Everyone is different, and even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks.
I think if your risky "advance" is some sort of sexual touching then you're doing it wrong. Is it so hard to ask/wait for verbal confirmation?
The problem with these sentiments, which I've seen all over the place recently, is that they don't take account of the richness of life. Thus they amount to an acceptance of new social restrictions surrounding sex, an impoverishment of sexual interaction and a degradation of individual autonomy, decades after the freedoms gained in the sexual liberation of the sixties.
Everyone is different, and even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks.
But sometimes people want to be treated like that. Sometimes people want to be conquered and used. People play games. It's part of the fun, and inevitably it will often misfire. But it's ok to make a mistake; it becomes harassment only if you keep on doing it, and that's where respect comes in.[
It is indeed and should be a social restriction on how a lot men behave towards women because women don't want to be treated that way. They can't be much clearer about that than they have been recently. That isn't a problem. That's a solution to the problem.
Can you perhaps give a clear example of what sort of behaviour you think men are afraid to show that will be a problematic restriction on sex, impoverishment of sexual interaction or degradation of autonomy? Just so we get a good idea because I might not be "manly" enough to think of it since I don't see whatever it is you seem to be alluding to.
Reply to Michael This. Although one time I had sparks flying so hard after about 30 minutes that dinner was just an excuse to avoid kissing then and there. Good times. :D
Because you're all dying to know, the (old) Way of Michael when at a club: if I see a girl I'm attracted to on the dance floor I don't just walk up to her and start groping or grinding against her. I look her in the eyes, smile, hold out my hand, and see if she takes it. No sexual harassment, no having to "read between the lines", no "impoverishment of sexual interaction and a degradation of individual autonomy".
It is indeed and should be a social restriction on how a lot men behave towards women because women don't want to be treated that way.
Well, that's not true for all women. I mean, you'd be hardpressed to show that there are no women out there who like to be objectified for example. I've met some, and they will outright tell you that they have no problem with that, and they even desire it.
Now, obviously I disagree with such treatments of women for religious & moral reasons, but it doesn't mean that they're not present in society. Good luck trying to convince your average guy in the Western world not to pat a woman's bottom in what they take to be the "right" social settings.
Well, that's not true for all women. I mean, you'd be hardpressed to show that there are no women out there who like to be objectified for example. I've met some, and they will outright tell you that they have no problem with that, and they even desire it.
Sure, and there are people out there who like BDSM. But you don't use that to try to justify acting on the assumption that maybe the person you're with likes that sort of thing.
Now, obviously I disagree with such treatments of women for religious & moral reasons, but it doesn't mean that they're not present in society.
That's what the #MeToo movement is drawing attention to.
Good luck trying to convince your average guy in the Western world not to pat a woman's bottom in what they take to be the "right" social settings.
That's what the #MeToo movement is trying to do. It might be futile (or it might not), but it's an admirable effort all the same.
Reply to Benkei I'm not sure I want to give you the example you're looking for, because I don't want to stray from my point, which is that all of this "it's really quite simple" stuff forecloses on the possibilities to the detriment of sexual interaction, and what we tolerate in terms of physical contact and flirtation differs from person to person. Your comments express a wish to impose a regime of flirtation that you believe is the only permissible one. I was pointing out that it's not always easy, and in some of those cases it is worth trying (for both parties, obviously).
It is indeed and should be a social restriction on how a lot men behave towards women because women don't want to be treated that way. They can't be much clearer about that than they have been recently.
Treated what way? And who is "they"? All women? And note that I'm not arguing against the metoo movement as such, but with some of the attitudes that have come out of it, from some campaigners and commentators.
Reply to Michael But you might follow it up with one. In fact it might be expected and desired. And still with no verbal confirmation. (I don't care if you wouldn't do it yourself; I'm pointing out that people and situations differ)
I think if your risky "advance" is some sort of sexual touching then you're doing it wrong. Is it so hard to ask/wait for verbal confirmation?
As in "can we now has sex?" as If that's how it ever happens. When did verbal communication become more reliable than any other form? A robotic "yes, have sex with me" response is less convincing than her physical expressions may be. I'd find it more troubling if she signed a consent form than if she didn't.
But you might follow it up with one. In fact it might be expected and desired. And still with no verbal confirmation.
No. I don't force a woman into a position that she might not want. I just present the opportunity. So hold out my hand rather than just take hers; ask her if she wants to kiss me rather than just try to kiss her. And, of course, don't take a dance as an invitation to cop a feel.
(I don't care if you wouldn't do it yourself; I'm pointing out that people and situations differ)
That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The point of the #MeToo movement is that this shouldn't be accepted as the norm. Yes, there are times where people might be receptive to it, but given how often people aren't receptive to it and the fact that it's worse to be harassed than to be left waiting for someone else to make the first move, it's proper to err on the side of caution.
When did verbal communication become more reliable than any other form?
Since so many people seem to think that being smiled at is an invitation to grab a woman's arse?
As in "can we now has sex?" as If that's how it ever happens. When did verbal communication become more reliable than any other form? A robotic "yes, have sex with me" response is less convincing than her physical expressions may be. I'd find it more troubling if she signed a consent form than if she didn't.
I wasn't exactly referring to the situation where you might be in bed with a woman, kissing, and rubbing against each other. I'm referring to the sort of situation where a woman hugs you and you think it's OK to have a feel of her breasts.
Reply to Michael Yes, this is where we differ. I think it should be accepted as the norm, and I don't believe a single unrepeated unwanted advance amounts to harassment, although certainly it might sometimes be totally unacceptable.
It's revealing that you describe sexual advances with sordid expressions such as "cop a feel", and "grab an arse". What I think it reveals is the prudishness and regressiveness of the movement. Sexual advances do not always have the character of a grab, a grope or a lunge.
I think it should be accepted as the norm, and I don't believe a single unrepeated unwanted advance amounts to harassment, although certainly it might sometimes be totally unacceptable.
Sure, it might be pushing the language to call it harassment, but if it's "totally unacceptable" then surely it shouldn't be accepted as the norm?
It's revealing that you describe sexual advances with sordid expressions such as "cop a feel", and "grab an arse". What I think it reveals is the prudishness and regressiveness of the movement. Sexual advances do not always have the character of a grab, a grope or a lunge.
Does it matter what you call it? If I'm having my photo taken with someone, it would be wrong of them to take the opportunity to sensually caress my genitals with one of their hands.
Sure, it might be pushing the language to call it harassment, but if it's "totally unacceptable" then surely it shouldn't be accepted as the norm?
It's unacceptable to pounce on a stranger, put your hand down his trousers and feel his balls, and it shouldn't be acceptable. That doesn't go against my point. Not all sexual advances are like that.
It's unacceptable to pounce on a stranger, put your hand down his trousers and feel his balls, and it shouldn't be acceptable. That doesn't go against my point. Not all sexual advances are like that.
What kind of advances are you talking about then? Feeling them from outside his trousers? Feeling his arse? Kissing him?
Sure, and there are people out there who like BDSM. But you don't use that to try to justify acting on the assumption that maybe the person you're with likes that sort of thing.
No, it doesn't justify making random assumptions about people. But maybe the assumption isn't random - maybe I've seen them watching BDSM, maybe they told me they tried it and liked it in the past, etc.
That's what the #MeToo movement is trying to do. It might be futile (or it might not), but it's an admirable effort all the same.
If my way, and the way of these #MeToo people are the same, then let them follow me and my rules. If a woman goes scantily dressed and is grabbed, 3 months in jail for both the woman and the man who grabbed her. If you, and the #MeToo movement disagree with that, then you're not trying to do the same thing as I am.
Reply to Michael It depends on what kind of interaction you've had with him up to that point, and on the qualities of that interaction. In my scenario--I possibly didn't describe it in enough detail--I had in mind coming up behind a man in the street and reaching around. I'm not sure why that came to mind, but hey.
EDIT: But I imagine the response to this might be to ask if I think the only unacceptable sexual advance is a sexual assault, and this shows why I don't want to get bogged down in details and definitions.
If my way, and the way of these #MeToo people are the same, then let them follow me and my rules. If a woman goes scantily dressed and is grabbed, 3 months in jail for both the woman and the man who grabbed her. If you, and the #MeToo movement disagree with that, then you're not trying to do the same thing as I am.
Well this came out of nowhere. I was just saying that the #MeToo movement is "trying to convince your average guy in the Western world not to pat a woman's bottom in what they take to be the 'right' social settings."
I was just saying that the #MeToo movement is "trying to convince your average guy in the Western world not to pat a woman's bottom in what they take to be the 'right' social settings."
It depends on what kind of interaction you've had with him up to that point, and on the qualities of that interaction. In my scenario--I possibly didn't describe it in enough detail--I had in mind coming up behind a man in the street and reaching around. I'm not sure why that came to mind, but hey.
Is that sort of interaction the sort that the #MeToo movement is condemning? Because it seems to me that they're condemning the sort that I'm describing.
Reply to Michael I don't know what world you live in, but I remember in your country I was at a club, and a fellow collegue came to me, and he said: "Wanna see what I do?" and I said "sure". So he went through the club, and every girl on the dancing floor he started grabbing, and trying to kiss, even when they physically resisted in fact, he did not stop. And what happened to him? Nothing. And he did that not once, but every time he was in the club - which was at least once every week. So good luck convincing your fellow Brits - more like they'll laugh in your face. There is no convincing these brutes.
Reply to mcdoodle Maybe so. But I will say that some of the fiercest debates I've seen about this, both in real life and online, have been between women.
They can't be much clearer about that than they have been recently.
Yes they can. How about they stop going to clubs, they stop dressing almost naked, etc. Then they will really make a point. Can you imagine it? Only men in the clubs? Then even the clubs will go out of business! What will the men grab? Each other's bottoms? Grabbing keeps happening precisely because of complicity in sharing in a morally corrupt culture.
So, what? It's not worth trying? That we shouldn't at least hold the guilty accountable (e.g. Weinstein)?
No, it's not worth trying to stop it in a stupid & hypocritical way. It's a systematic problem that emerges out of the cultural understanding and lack of moral values that Western man (and woman) have about sex.
Reply to jamalrob Quite agree. And it is philosophically interesting. How we are with each other is not explored that much, esp analytically. The atomising of talk into speech acts, for instance, means that the to and fro of social interaction doesn't get properly explored. And there aren't that many variables involved in social exchange: say, previous mutual presuppositions between the parties, and their relative power/status, and their emotional states at the outset. I think the difficulty with your contextuality argument - although I basically agree with it - is that if enough twits overstep a certain sort of mark, then a rule starts being introduced. Like driving on one side of the road or the other, for instance. Pedestrians manage without such a rule but drivers can't. So it's worth thinking about what 'a certain sort of mark' is constituted by. 'Using power for sexual ends' might be one aspect of a description. (copied from Shoutbox)
I think the difficulty with your contextuality argument - although I basically agree with it - is that if enough twits overstep a certain sort of mark, then a rule starts being introduced. Like driving on one side of the road or the other, for instance. Pedestrians manage without such a rule but drivers can't. So it's worth thinking about what 'a certain sort of mark' is constituted by. 'Using power for sexual ends' might be one aspect of a description.
Yes, I see what you mean. But this is where I want to stand up for the ability of people to negotiate these difficulties themselves. I'm not the only one who believes that some of the attitudes of MeToo represent an increasing infantilization of women.
Your comments express a wish to impose a regime of flirtation that you believe is the only permissible one. I was pointing out that it's not always easy, and in some of those cases it is worth trying (for both parties, obviously).
Currently, there are two regimes for flirtation. One invented by men that women are expected to acquiesce to and another that women also like that is readily available for anyone to understand by paying attention. I've never had problem navigating the second one. Did I try to slip my hand under a girl's bra when we were kissing? Yes. And then she stopped me and I didn't try again. I've been fully undressed together with a girl and she changed her mind as it would've been her first time and she wasn't really in love with me (and I have a micropenis, sue me). Men and women both make mistakes and even may regret things (especially when alcohol is involved). There is still room for error and mistakes here. So I don't think your fear is founded and I'm sincerely not being obtuse. I really don't understand what sort of situations you're thinking of that become problematic all of a sudden.
Again, I think it's the underlying norms that are at issue here. A female colleague is afraid to complain about an unwanted sexual advance as it might damage her career. Outside banking relationships are uncomfortably chummy with my female colleagues. The women are expected, as part of their job, to accept the hugs and continuous hands on shoulders, backs and arms from people they might see once a year. I'm sure there are women out there that think "protecting" these women is an infantilisation as they imagine they would stand up to that shit. They might. The reality is that the three female colleagues I've discussed this with haven't and won't despite #metoo.
As a man, I don't have those fears to speak up about unwanted sexual advances because first off, I'm butt ugly so the chance of this happening is 0.0001% of that of an ugly woman. For her it's about 20% a year. Second, I can be assertive, because I'm a guy. Setting a boundary is fucking manly you know but if a woman does it she's just being bitchy.
I live in a country where 75% of women have been confronted with sexual harassment, 45% of women have been confronted with sexual or physical assault (2014). Higher than most other European countries due to the fact Dutch women are much more likely to report to the police. Let that sink in: in a reportedly progressive society with assertive women who have no qualms about reporting this sort of thing to the police, 75% and 45% are huge numbers.
I'm referring to the sort of situation where a woman hugs you and you think it's OK to have a feel of her breasts.
Yeah, but that's hardly ever the case, and I can't imagine a "hey, now that we've hugged, can I grab your breasts?" would be in order. I suppose it's better than just reaching out and seeing what happens, but the question itself is fairly rude and inappropriate in itself. And from there I'd go on to say that if you are of the 99% of the population that understands when a sexual advance has become appropriate, you don't need all this instruction and you don't need rules imposed upon you that were motivated by the behavior of the socially retarded or criminally inclined.
The truth is that all this asking "can I kiss you" or "can I touch you now" is in itself socially inappropriate behavior from a romantic perspective, and it tends not to show respect as much as it does inexperience, uncertainty, insecurity, and awkwardness. It's also a standard I seriously doubt you ever adhered to, probably considering yourself sophisticated enough not to be burdened with it, which is sort of the reaction you're getting from others when you say that standard ought be standardized.
What you're describing is a very prescriptive language system where communication is dictated by political considerations without allowing the communication to occur naturally, as would be the case if you allowed gestures, behaviors, and non-verbal cues to determine meaning. Although I like the idea of giving more work to lawyers, I can't accompany people on dates to make certain proper legal consent has been obtained, although I could be swayed given the right compensation.
Reply to Hanover You seem to be taking a very overreaching and pedantic interpretation of my claim.
First, it was in response to jamalrob saying "even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks". If you're in a situation where it isn't clear, you shouldn't take the risk and be proactive with sexual touching. I may have been too rash in specifying verbal confirmation, but the general point is that I don't think it right to risk inappropriateness on the chance that it might be wanted and seen as romantic.
Second, clearly it isn't "hardly ever the case", given that there's a pretty big movement out there right now that's trying to shine light on such inappropriate behaviour (and, just so we're clear again, I'm commenting on the types of behaviour that are being condemned by the #MeToo movement, not some hypothetical example where the welcomeness of further sexuality is obvious). Whatever you say, it's wrong for men to be patting their waitress on the ass as they're walking away from the table.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 04, 2018 at 14:32#1398660 likes
I don't know what world you live in, but I remember in your country I was at a club, and a fellow collegue came to me, and he said: "Wanna see what I do?" and I said "sure". So he went through the club, and every girl on the dancing floor he started grabbing, and trying to kiss, even when they physically resisted in fact, he did not stop. And what happened to him? Nothing. And he did that not once, but every time he was in the club - which was at least once every week. So good luck convincing your fellow Brits - more like they'll laugh in your face. There is no convincing these brutes.
If your "fellow colleague" had done such a thing with my group of friends, he wouldn't have made it past one friend without a verbal confrontation, two friends before he was confronted PHYSICALLY, a firm grab on the forearm along with the same verbal confrontation. We are choosing not to be quiet, not because we can't hold our own but because there are people out here, in the club scene that respect another enough to find out what is going on.
Two thoughts: @Agustino I can understand your not getting into the middle of customs in another country on the first night but why would YOU condone that behavior by returning to the club with him time after time? Do you remove some cloak of morality when you leave your home country?
The second thought is that if "your colleague" had behaved that way in the states on the first night he might not have been tossed out by the establishments' management but by the second night and women were NOT receptive to his behavior, he would be escorted out. Any establishment worth their salt are not going to facilitate this unwanted behavior for fear that at some point they might be held legally accountable.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 04, 2018 at 14:37#1398670 likes
A feature of the #me2 movement is that they are unwilling to distinguish between a pat on a woman's derriere and rape
Really? BC, you have known me for over a decade and do you honestly think that I cannot tell the difference between a pat on the ass and rape?
Such an insult to the #MeToo movement.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 04, 2018 at 14:40#1398680 likes
That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The point of the #MeToo movement is that this shouldn't be accepted as the norm. Yes, there are times where people might be receptive to it, but given how often people aren't receptive to it and the fact that it's worse to be harassed than to be left waiting for someone else to make the first move, it's proper to err on the side of caution.
Let that sink in: in a reportedly progressive society with assertive women who have no qualms about reporting this sort of thing to the police, 75% and 45% are huge numbers.
I agree, but the problem is the underlying sexual culture of Western society. On the one hand, this culture has made sex into a matter of self-esteem. That is why comments such as these: Quoting Benkei
As a man, I don't have those fears to speak up about unwanted sexual advances because first off, I'm butt ugly so the chance of this happening is 0.0001% of that of an ugly woman.
even make sense. That is why we - as a culture - speak with great admiration for the Don Juans of our society. If you can get in bed with lots of women you are respected and admired. So why is it a mystery that most of the uneducated (the majority of the population) men will do whatever it takes to attain to that position? And similarly, if you are a woman, and you can attract a lot of men, you are given high status - suddenly you are someone to look up to, someone whom other women should emulate.
So why should I be surprised that sexual relations are some of the most abusive relations there are? It is entirely to be expected in this cultural environment. If you went on to speak with some of those men who grab women, etc. - which is a large majority of them - they would laugh at you. They would say, "you go do that, we will keep doing what we've been doing". They will say "you have a micropenis, so you want to stop people like us, with bigger tools, because you cannot compete with us". That is how they will approach this subject. They will say that you are a woman's slave, etc. So that's how the rhetoric will go. It will be impossible to change their minds. Even if you make a law against it, and enforce it, all that you will do is make them afraid, but inside, they will be the same, completely unchanged. So how will you ever get to such people?
Agustino I can understand your not getting into the middle of customs in another country on the first night but why would YOU condone that behavior by returning to the club with him day after day?
I did not go with him to the club, he was there, and he knew me, so he came to me to do what every man wants to do - impress the other with his skills. And I did not return to the club that often, but he did.
And I did not condone the behaviour, I didn't oppose it, since nothing could be done. You think I could have stopped him? He would have done it anyway, he didn't need me. It was very rare that he failed to get a girl - that was one of the nights when he would complain that "all the pussies suck tonight". And he wasn't alone actually doing this, he had a group of guys who were all doing this.
The second thought is that if "your colleague" had behaved that way in the states on the first night he might not have been tossed out by the establishments' management but by the second night and women were NOT receptive to his behavior, he would be escorted out. Any establishment worth their salt are not going to facilitate this unwanted behavior for fear that at some point they might be held legally accountable.
Yeah, he often got kicked out of the club, but that's not much of a problem for someone like him, since they can always go to another club. And the bouncers at the club aren't always the same, hard to keep track of who enters and who leaves. And there are girls who are receptive to such behaviour, he was actually very successful with women by the standards of Western society.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 04, 2018 at 15:25#1398780 likes
Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me.
NicK and I were leaving out best guy friends house at the end of a party and as we were saying goodbye and hugging as we do, our friends' brother opened his arms offering a hug to me (first time I had ever met him) and I stepped into the hug with my arms around his chest and then went to release and as I did he said to me "Oh push your body hard against mine" in a moaning drunk way and I pushed away but he wouldn't let me go. Keep in mind NicK is saying goodbye to others and not watching what is going down but my friends' sister in law saw what was happening and I mouthed to her, help me with BIG eyes and she stepped right in and broke his hug on me and took it onto herself. Why did she do this? Not because she wanted that kind of attention but she felt the need to help me and I am forever grateful. She intervened because she understood how uncomfortable I was and likely because it was her home that we were in but either way that time it ended gracefully.
So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous. Not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it.
There was once a joke I heard. Jesus, in his travels and talks, cured a blind man. A few months later, He saw the same man chasing after the women in the street. And He called him and asked him: "What are you doing? I gave you your sight back, and now you're chasing after women?!", and the man answered "What else can one use their eyes for? Before I was blind I was chasing women, when I was blind I stopped, because I couldn't chase them anymore, and now that you have restored my eyes I am enjoying them!"
The point of the joke is that some people cannot see the higher things in life. In this case, all that this man knew to do with his eyes, was to chase after women. He could see no higher use for his eyes than that. So when his eyesight was restored, what else could he do with it?
Much of the population, even in the highly developed Western countries, lives in a morally infantile state. One shouldn't even bother to mention the third world countries. When I lived at the countryside as a child, my family had to help save a woman who was our neighbour, since her husband was cutting her with the sword if she refused to have sex with him the way he wanted. You think such a man could be educated?! Not in a million years!
Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me.
NicK and I were leaving out best guy friends house at the end of a party and as we were saying goodbye and hugging as we do, our friends' brother opened his arms offering a hug to me (first time I had ever met him) and I stepped into the hug with my arms around his chest and then went to release and as I did he said to me "Oh push your body hard against mine" in a moaning drunk way and I pushed away but he wouldn't let me go. Keep in mind NicK is saying goodbye to others and not watching what is going down but my friends' sister in law saw what was happening and I mouthed to her, help me with BIG eyes and she stepped right in and broke his hug on me and took it onto herself. Why did she do this? Not because she wanted that kind of attention but she felt the need to help me and I am forever grateful. She intervened because she understood how uncomfortable I was and likely because it was her home that we were in but either way that time it ended gracefully.
So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous, not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it.
Yah a similar thing happened to my mother once with someone from our family, except worse, since that person kissed her on the lips that time (while he was meant to kiss on the cheek, as it is traditional). When my father heard, he dismissed it too. That kind of stuff is sexism that has been internalised by the culture as acceptable in my opinion. So it's very difficult to convince people who think in this manner that they are wrong.
So why should I be surprised that sexual relations are some of the most abusive relations there are? It is entirely to be expected in this cultural environment. If you went on to speak with some of those men who grab women, etc. - which is a large majority of them - they would laugh at you. They would say, "you go do that, we will keep doing what we've been doing". They will say "you have a micropenis, so you want to stop people like us, with bigger tools, because you cannot compete with us". That is how they will approach this subject. They will say that you are a woman's slave, etc. So that's how the rhetoric will go. It will be impossible to change their minds. Even if you make a law against it, and enforce it, all that you will do is make them afraid, but inside, they will be the same, completely unchanged. So how will you ever get to such people?
I see my self-deprecating humour passed by you. :D In any case, I have no clue how you arrive at sexual relations being abusive. Sex is great, flirting is great and people should revel in their sexuality. A dirty mind is a joy forever and bawdy jokes for the win.
The #metoo movement is doing a great job for women - and by women - to claim a safe space for them to talk about harassment, to lodge complaints without the victim blaming that has historically surrounded it or having to worry about reprisals (career or otherwise). For this specific goal there's in my view no need to address the legal niceties of rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances. It's not about punishment, it's about creating awareness, staking out social territory by women for women to get this addressed and hopefully getting men to stop with rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances.
As a result we finally see some transgressors punished. When it comes to punishment, the difference between a pat on the ass and rape becomes important but I don't see that as a goal of the movement itself.
Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me.
NicK and I were leaving out best guy friends house at the end of a party and as we were saying goodbye and hugging as we do, our friends' brother opened his arms offering a hug to me (first time I had ever met him) and I stepped into the hug with my arms around his chest and then went to release and as I did he said to me "Oh push your body hard against mine" in a moaning drunk way and I pushed away but he wouldn't let me go. Keep in mind NicK is saying goodbye to others and not watching what is going down but my friends' sister in law saw what was happening and I mouthed to her, help me with BIG eyes and she stepped right in and broke his hug on me and took it onto herself. Why did she do this? Not because she wanted that kind of attention but she felt the need to help me and I am forever grateful. She intervened because she understood how uncomfortable I was and likely because it was her home that we were in but either way that time it ended gracefully.
So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous. Not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it.
You don't mouth "help me" you say loudly enough for everybody to hear: "I'm done hugging, now let me go." If he continues, you knee him in the groin in self-defence. Fuck grace. If he's not being a gentleman, you can stop being a graceful lady.
For this specific goal there's in my view no need to address the legal niceties of rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances. It's not about punishment, it's about creating awareness, staking out social territory by women for women to get this addressed and hopefully getting men to stop with rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances.
Yeah, but it's precisely because you don't see the larger moral context of the problem that the issue will not be helped much by the #MeToo movement. The issues are more complicated than this. You're not addressing why men are harassing women in the first place. You just want to bully them not to, through social means. So until you solve the underlying moral issues, and adopt a culture which doesn't put sex so much on the pedestal, this issue won't be addressed adequately.
So until you solve the underlying moral issues, and adopt a culture which doesn't put sex so much on the pedestal, this issue won't be addressed adequately.
This has no relation whatsoever to harassment. Abuse was worse in Victorian times, the middle ages and modern day Saudi-Arabia where sexuality is all but banned from the public sphere. If there's a wider context then it's mostly about equality in social power.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 04, 2018 at 17:46#1399150 likes
If I may give my two cents here,
I was raised in such a way that the thought of touching someone in an inappropriate manner would have been understood by me as being out of line and wrong. I've kept that roundabout instruction with me as I've gotten older and indeed I'd be horrified if I ever thought it wise to inappropriately touch someone. Unless I am messing around with my brother, or perhaps if I were married or in a romantic relationship, everyone else is off-limits with regard to any touching outside of a hand on the shoulder or an air-kiss on the cheek in greeting or goodbye.
In other words, I keep my hands in my pockets unless it is safe for me to offer a hug or a kiss or a comforting hand on a colleague or loved one's arm, leg, or shoulder. In civilized society, this sort of bodily respect ought to be an unwritten rule, as what follows from bodily respect is emotional and intellectual respect, too.
Really? BC, you have known me for over a decade and do you honestly think that I cannot tell the difference between a pat on the ass and rape?
Such an insult to the #MeToo movement.
I'm absolutely sure that you can tell the difference. You, however, are a rational, thinking individual while #MeToo is a hashtag which is, perhaps, becoming something more complex and capable of differentiations. It's not there yet.
Two cases in particular can serve as an example of the misuse of #MeToo-ism: Al Franken and Garrison Keillor. Both men were accused of acts that hover around "bad manners" and "minor error in judgement" on the low end of the scale, not approaching sexual harassment and certainly not sexual assault. Both, however, were compelled to resign (Franken) or given the bums rush by their former employer (Keillor).
Harvey Weinstein's behavior was egregious, and lands solidly on the high end of the scale, at rape. Kevin Spacey's behavior with the 18 year old guy was in the middle, somewhere around deplorable--and actionable.
These are the sorts of distinctions that aren't being made by the #MeToo wave.
Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me.
You wrote earlier that you learned how to handle such situations. Also, you claimed that the "lower head" was MUCH easier to deal with. Upon reflection, perhaps you'd like to soften this claim.
Reply to praxisPraxis, is your avatar your lower head by any chance? >:)
I think Tiff was quite clear that she was referring to her husband, and granted what she said, that she could not reason with his top head about the issue she presented, I think it was a fair comment.
she could not reason with his top head about the issue she presented
The top head represents reason, if I'm not mistaken, therefore perhaps the conversation was impaired by... something more base. Clearly the brother's friend was a creeper, so why didn't hubby support?
The top head represents reason, if I'm not mistaken, therefore perhaps the conversation was impaired by... something more base. Clearly the brother's friend was a creeper, so why didn't hubby support?
Hmmm I think you are thinking about something... very evil >:)
But apart from that, I think many times men (1) can't be bothered with what they take to be small things (afterall, the guy didn't really have sex with her or anything of that sort), and (2) they don't want to make a big fuss as that makes them appear weak.
Krishnamurti went on to give countless talks at which he frequently implied that his audience shouldn't be wasting their time listening to spiritual talks. But perhaps the most striking was a 1977 lecture in California. "Part-way through this particular talk," writes Jim Dreaver, who was present, "Krishnamurti suddenly paused, leaned forward and said, almost conspiratorially, 'Do you want to know what my secret is?'?" (There are several accounts of this event; details vary.) Krishnamurti rarely spoke in such personal terms, and the audience was electrified, Dreaver recalls. "Almost as though we were one body we sat up… I could see people all around me lean forward, their ears straining and their mouths slowly opening in hushed anticipation." Then Krishnamurti, "in a soft, almost shy voice", said: "You see, I don't mind what happens."
Ignoring someones distress is neither emotinally supportive or cognitively helpful.
It can be, if you presume that the person in question has sufficient reason in them to realise they are wrong. Ignoring someone that way can perform the function of getting them to re-assess their emotions before having a discussion. When we're in the throes of emotion, we're not necessarily the most rational.
Basically giving someone space to cool-off, sure, that's the right thing to do in some situations. This is beside the point however because we're talking about a situation where support is being requested and there is denial long after the incident, according to the story.
Even if drunk, Tiff's brother's friend exhibited creepy behavior. It's no bother to acknowledge that so something else must be at play.
This may or may not be of interest to anyone... But how do gay men behave toward each other in gay bars, and other working-class gay socializing or meet-up situations?
It isn't too surprising that the standards of behavior are somewhat different than heterosexual settings, but they aren't a world apart. One difference is that physical contact is often a stand-in or lead-in for verbal contact. Touch then talk. Not always, but often. Much more civilized. Physical contact can range from very frank sexual contact to much more tentative gestures. Not all forays are accepted, of course, and rejection is generally expressed also through ordinary gestures. Most guys don't take offense to unsolicited, unwanted gestures. If someone persists, they are verbally set straight, so to speak. No, it's not going to happen. Forget it.
Where gay men display more open hostility to unwanted contact is where their social status seems to be 'on the line', in public places like bars or gatherings. Some presumably socially insecure men almost display a "negative force field" around themselves when persons who don't enhance their social status approach.
The social distance between personal boundaries is generally smaller for gay men than straight men. This is especially obvious in the Midwest where interpersonal boundaries are generally the length of each person's arm. A lot of midwestern men need a couple of drinks to comfortably tolerate the crowdedness of a cruisy gay bar, let alone function socially.
At times and where possible, gay men also sometimes practice 'sexual contact before social contact', something that horrifies a lot of straight people. "How could that possibly be?" It's possible and it works quite well.
I've often thought heterosexuals would be happier if they operated on the same terms that gay men operate on. Sexual objects (other gay men) are fair game for a frank approach, and a firm "no" seems to work, partly because less is invested in the approach in the first place (less to lose), partly because there are lots more possible objects to approach (more fish in the sea, even if the sea is smaller than the heterosexual ocean).
This whole style of interaction does not work well for gay men who take an "only you and nobody else" approach. In that case, rejection isn't respected, and the campaign continues, often to the point of rather awkward, socially inappropriate, and embarrassing extremes of desperation. That's when gay behavior really begins to resemble some heterosexual behavior.
Are gay men always respectful, kind, decent, sexual partners, once the deal has been closed? No, of course not. Gay men are like other people in this respect, which is that people tend to be disappointing in ever so many ways.
Isn't the difference that at a gay bar, everyone (who is actually gay, at the gay bar) has a shared interest, namely, gay sex, or at least gay experimentation/flirtation/fun, etc? Whereas, at a bar that isn't a gay bar, there's an overwhelming hormonal mix of straight women, straight men, gay women, gay men, and everything in between? And so the playing field becomes that much more complicated in that bar. And so, by degrees, the issue of harassment becomes that much more complicated in a non-gay bar.
Reply to Noble Dust
Gay bars do not have a straight-bar. Just as Straight bars do not have a gay-bar.
This means that you can have people of all sorts in all sorts of bars.
If a straight man finds himself in a gay bar then he might be more likely to attract the interests of gay men, but this does not imply harassment.
Where I live gay bars are ubiquitous and they tend to be the most civilised. I've never found any man's attention to be harassment, but on the rare occasions I've attended a gay bar I've found that gays just know you are straight, and leave you alone.
Out men tend to predict high for intelligence. Stupid gays are too stupid to come out, and pretend to be one of the boys. It takes courage, personal awareness and good reasoning to come out; or to live a gay life discretely.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 05, 2018 at 13:37#1401220 likes
You don't mouth "help me" you say loudly enough for everybody to hear: "I'm done hugging, now let me go." If he continues, you knee him in the groin in self-defence. Fuck grace. If he's not being a gentleman, you can stop being a graceful lady.
I appreciate your reminding me that I needn't tolerate unwanted sexual advances, even in the safest of places, which our friends home absolutely is. I appreciate your response Benkei, in that you reminded me that the power lay within me, even if grace be damned. But most of all, I appreciate your having a good understanding of my marriage with NicK and for not suggesting that anyone but I could have done anything that would have a lasting effect on the situation.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 05, 2018 at 13:39#1401230 likes
I was tempted to ask the same of you but I suspected it would be pointless.
Your use of quotation marks surrounding my "Point" suggest it's not a point, or rather that it's an invalid point, and that we are somehow to infer this from the fact that I didn't use my own experiences in making the point.
Just one day after Hollywood offered a show of support for the #MeToo movement on the Golden Globes red carpet and stage, a famous actress [Catherine Deneuve] on the other side of the Atlantic lent her name to a public letter denouncing the movement, as well as its French counterpart, #Balancetonporc, or “Expose Your Pig.” ...
... “The philosopher Ruwen Ogien defended the freedom to offend as essential to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a freedom to bother, indispensable to sexual freedom.” Though the writers do not draw clear lines between what constitutes sexual misconduct and what does not, they say that they are “sufficiently farseeing not to confuse a clumsy come-on and sexual assault.”
The freedom to bother is essential to sexual freedom, they claim.
I can agree that the USA is somewhat repressed sexually. Given that's the case, this would suggest that Americans are genrally not sufficiently mature sexually to not confuse clumsy come-ons and sexual assault. I tend to think this is the case. That's not a reason to denounce the movement however. To me it suggests a path to reform by pointing out what's lacking (sexual maturity).
A less favorable reception of the denouncment by Asia Argento, a woman who accused Weinstein of raping her, via tweet:
Catherine Deneuve and other French women tell the world how their interiorized misogyny has lobotomized them to the point of no return.
Every woman who criticizes the movement is condemned for "interiorized misogyny".
God forbid people just disagreeing.
As to the article, I agree with this:
NYT:which women and men have used social media as a forum to describe sexual misconduct, have gone too far by publicly prosecuting private experiences and have created a totalitarian climate.
At the same time I'm not sure most #metoo'ers are doing this and I refer to earlier comments on how I perceive what #metoo seems to stand for. Focusing on the above and dismissing the movement in its entirety is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I do think they're missing a point when they are downplaying this:
NYT: while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual
These things aren't very serious and they aren't criminal... BUT... as a man I never have to deal with these sort of things. And a lot of this isn't "clumsiness" it's accepted or even expected behaviour by men and it isn't necessary without that leading to a sexual repression. And in reverse, if these things happen and a woman does not want them to happen and they'd make a fuss about it, she's being "difficult" or "bitchy" or worse "don't wear a short skirt" because after all, it was just a hand on a knee.
So I think there's a social construct where men are allowed to misbehave regularly (even if it's just a little) but women are not allowed to complain about it. There's no equality or fairness there. So that's why I spoke earlier about women claiming a safe space to talk and complain about these things. If an incredible number of women complain then either men are doing something wrong or an alternative... In my view that alternative is that they are all just being difficult or bitchy because it isn't a big deal. That's too many women spontaneously errupting into irrationality for me to think the alternative is likely.
In the end, with a view on my daughter growing up, I'm hoping the accomplishment of the #metoo movement will be that a woman can say "don't touch my knee" and her being respected by everyone in earshot.
They contend that the #MeToo movement has led to a campaign of public accusations that have placed undeserving people in the same category as sex offenders without giving them a chance to defend themselves. “This expedited justice already has its victims, men prevented from practicing their profession as punishment, forced to resign, etc., while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual,” they write. The letter, written in French was translated here by The New York Times.
#me2, and #Balancetonporc aren't the same as the anti-free-speech practitioners of political correctness, but they have something in common:
The all want a society where individuals will not be confronted by unwanted interest or opinions with which they disagree. A desire for a safe world appropriately means not being subjected to rape or being mauled in a locked room from which they can't escape. Opposing rape is right and proper. What's not so appropriate is to confuse the stolen kiss, the proposal in the form of a hand on the knee, or a wolf whistle with rape and sexual assault. It seems akin to demanding protection from the virgin-ear piercing utterance of a disapproved political opinion, or a slur of some sort, for which "safe spaces" need to be erected.
There is a quid pro quo here: we will not have a free and open society if ordinary sexual expressions, as well as disapproved political expressions, are verboten.
And what is it about women that they should never be whistled at or touched on the knee? What is it about the female personality that requires their person to be so inviolate? Women spend a considerable amount of time and money on making themselves sexually attractive in public (so do men), but then object when their carefully constructed attractiveness is not ignored. It's crazy, ladies. Neurotic.
What's not so appropriate is to confuse the stolen kiss, the proposal in the form of a hand on the knee, or a wolf whistle with rape and sexual assault.
If you'd assume that it isn't confused and people can tell the difference then what do you think #metoo is about?
Reply to Benkei The #me2 movement includes many people who acknowledge what the difference is between a wolf whistle and rape, It also includes "lumpers" who don't. Hence the accusations against Senator Franken and Garrison Keillor that they touched a woman inappropriately (on one woman's rump, on one woman's back). Keillor was disowned by his longtime employer, Minnesota Public Radio, and also the Washington Post for something not even remotely resembling an assault. Ditto for Franken.
Harvey Weinstein represents one end of the spectrum, Keillor the other end. They are a very long ways apart, but in many people's minds, since they were deemed to be on the same continuum, they are both guilty.
Every woman who criticizes the movement is condemned for "interiorized misogyny".
The tweet takes it a ridiculous distance further by claiming the Deneuve gang have been permanently cowed into mindless submission. Disturbing in that it’s so devoid of critical thought and only serves to promote divisiveness. Maybe that’s why the twitter platform is such a handy tool for the President and his populist crap.
I watched the Opra acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards on YouTube and teared up, but in the back of my mind I couldn’t help thinking that the awards show was themed and kinda tribalistic, complete with black identifying color, and that the theme and identity would quickly fade from memory once it ran its course.
Hence the accusations against Senator Franken and Garrison Keillor that they touched a woman inappropriately (on one woman's rump, on one woman's back)
Franken was photographed grabbing a sleeping soldier's boobs too.
#metoo is about denouncing sexual misconduct. By design that spectrum is very large. What unite the people that are on it is that they are all somewhat dicks and can be shielded from just retribution by their power and position. That's why Franken got burned.
Franken was photographed grabbing a sleeping soldier's boobs too.
Leeann Tweeden wasn't a soldier. She was named the top Hooters girl of all time though, not to 'slut shame' but to point out that she's probably experienced far worse than having her chest touched while wearing a flak jacket. She should know the difference between obnoxious joke and sexual assault.
Leeann Tweeden wasn't a soldier. She was named the top Hooters girl of all time though, not to 'slut shame' but to point out that she's probably experienced far worse than having her chest touched while wearing a flak jacket. She should know the difference between obnoxious joke and sexual assault.
"Not to slut shame, but let's slut shame the fuck out of her anyway".
An obnoxious joke can be a sexual assault. "The court knows no humour".
"Not to slut shame, but let's slut shame the fuck out of her anyway".
Again, the point is that she should know better. We should all know better, in my opinion. I recognize that many in this country don't know better. A good step forward may be to move towards knowing better. That's my takeaway from the Deneuve denouncement.
That's why jokes should not be subject to rules or laws.
StreetlightJanuary 11, 2018 at 07:00#1425120 likes
[Url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-MeToo-Movement-Isn-t/242179]Excellent article[/url] by Sara Maurer on how Daphene Merkin's critique misses the dimension of labour in the me2 movement:
"Merkin may be faithfully representing the women she knows, but her picture does not reflect the concerns of most American women, almost all of whom work because they need the money and not because they are seeking sexual partners. I would like to suggest to Merkin that this majority of women sees the #MeToo movement not as about fragility but about labor.
...We also don’t want advancement at work to depend on labor not required of men. Did male comedians have to sit in a room and watch Louis C.K. jerk off in order to network? If they didn’t, why should female comedians have to do that work? Did any man working for or with the radio host John Hockenberry have to deflect multiple obsessive email solicitations, unwanted physical contact, and declarations of love? Did male graduate students of David R. Marchant have to put up with barrages of sexual insults to do field work with him?
Why should women have to do that work to get the same results? Why should we have to pretend that we don’t mind? Why should we have to be the ones to get over it? Couldn’t men just as easily self-monitor? Why not make men responsible for that labor?".
Of course not. To do so presumes that there is some universally known code of appropriate behaviour that men are simply wilfully ignoring when they make unsolicited advances and initiate unwanted contact. As there is no such code, I can't see how men could possibly self-monitor, to what would they be comparing their behaviour? If the me-too movement were saying that 'women' do not want to be approached or solicited in this way then 'men' could take that as given and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Unfortunately, one Twitter movement is not capable of speaking for the whole of women-kind and so such is not possible. I'm old enough to remember the considerable force within feminism some years back to stop calling women who expressed their sexuality 'sluts'. There was some resentment among feminists that men could sleep around and make advances and be seen as macho, but if women did the same they were discredited.
If the MeToo movement were quietly saying that a lot of women no longer appreciate this behaviour, then I would have more respect for it as a tool for social change, but it's not. It's saying that this view (somehow extended to all womenhood) is the way things always have been and men should somehow have known this all along, despite no-one having ever brought it up before.
It's odd in a society so invested in cultural relativism in other areas that such a movement is unquestioningly adopted as just 'the way things are'. Last I checked society could potentially have all sorts of attitudes to sexual advances ranging from the full-on free-love of the Bonobo's to the totally repressed Calvinist abstinence. We get to decide by talking openly about it what kind of society we want at any given time in our history, but the key thing is 'talking' about it, not throwing accusations and presuming that everyone should just agree with whatever movement happens to be fashionable at the time.
StreetlightJanuary 11, 2018 at 07:29#1425190 likes
But of course men can self-monitor. They do it with other men. The straight ones anyway. It's literally as simple as that.
You said that men could self-monitor, which requires that they 'know' what appropriate behaviour is in order to adjust theirs to it, right?
I argued that 'appropriate' behaviour was not a given thing, but something negotiated by all members of society at any given time and that such a negotiation was not taking place, but rather a series of accusations as if the negotiation had already taken place and men were simply wilfully ignoring the results.
You suggested that men did know what appropriate behaviour was because they exhibited it in their relations with other men who were not potential sexual partners.
I said that this does not constitute proof because we're talking here solely about what is appropriate behaviour in the relationship between people who are potential sexual partners. To examine this you would need to look at how gay men approach other gay men.
StreetlightJanuary 11, 2018 at 08:22#1425320 likes
The me2 movement has been the source of some of the most intense and widespread conversation regarding sexual conduct in the public sphere in a long time so I still have no idea what you are talking about. Not that this had anything to do with what I said or posted at all.
And the qualifier about gay men simply meant that the exact same thing applies to them, only obviously, with other men.
Well, if you've still no idea what I'm talking about I'm not sure I can help. I'm very interested, however, in debates about societal norms (it's kind of my job) so I'd be grateful if you could direct me to the public forums where societal attitudes to sexuality are being discussed. So far I've only been able to find ones where women are relating stories of how men have approached them in ways they did not like. That's not a conversation.
StreetlightJanuary 11, 2018 at 08:32#1425360 likes
Of course not. To do so presumes that there is some universally known code of appropriate behaviour that men are simply wilfully ignoring when they make unsolicited advances and initiate unwanted contact.
You've just provided a description of the attitude towards social contact held by one section of society. It definitely hasn't always been that way, not everyone agrees even now and I can be pretty certain it won't continue to be that way forever. So how does that have any bearing on my argument that there is no universal code?
You've just provided a description of the attitude towards social contact held by one section of society. It definitely hasn't always been that way, not everyone agrees even now and I can be pretty certain it won't continue to be that way forever. So how does that have any bearing on my argument that there is no universal code?
Demanding a universal code before making the effort to self-regulate is obvious nonsense.
By design that spectrum is very large. What unite the people that are on it is that they are all somewhat dicks and can be shielded from just retribution by their power and position. That's why Franken got burned.
But what about Keillor. Is touching a back sexual assault, or is there more to the story?
I've had women grab my ass on a few occasions. It wasn't wanted, but I didn't feel like it was assault. It was just a little awkward.
I've also had a few gay guys hit on me, and try and talk me into something I had no interest in doing. But I don't consider that harassment either. However, if that's something I had to face on a regular basis as a woman, particularly at work, but also in public places minding my own business, then I would want to speak out about it, too. That would cross over into ongoing harassment.
Edit: According to MPR, sounds like there might be more to the Keillor case that they haven't made public. So maybe it was more than a back pat.
I've also had a few gay guys hit on me, and try and talk me into something I had no interest in doing.
I had a dude insisting on giving me hand massages. After I told him I was straight, he replied: that's what they all say the first time. It makes for a funny story but fact is he ruined that party for me by stalking me the rest of the night. Another time someone grabbed me in my balls from behind.
Fascinating pile of pseudo-ethical crap in both those videos (it almost makes me wonder if YouTube might not be the best source for serious ethical debate, but hey, who am I to judge)
Fascinating pile of pseudo-ethical crap in both those videos (it almost makes me wonder if YouTube might not be the best source for serious ethical debate, but hey, who am I to judge)
What's this? An ad hominem attack on a video? Hoe does that even begin to work?
No one's confused about grabbing someone's groin. What's being argued is exactly what level of contact requires consent as you'd know full well if you'd actually taken the ethical debate seriously rather than posturing with virtue signalling.
Do we need to ask for consent before touching a back, an arm, a hand? What about shaking hands? The kiss on both cheeks as practiced all over Europe for years? What about kids, do they get to say whether they get hugged by the grandparents?
Who gets to decide all this? If I want to live in a world where people will just hug me when I need it, or put a caring hand on my shoulder without ruining it by asking first, do my wants not get to be heard in this debate without being lumped in with the perverts like Weinstein?
Like most philosophy it's a lot more complicated than a YouTube video, and if that's ad hominem the so be it.
There is a bit of a panic going on. We need to get back to due process and so forth about allegations; such things happen after a lurch in social mores. But I confess some of the remarks like these mystify me. And I'm not a monk: my last partner called me a serial philanderer, though she was smiling and touching me on the back as she said it.
No third party is going to help you here. Philosophically I think David Lewis's 'Score keeping' paper of 1979 has it right: permissibility shifts in a language-game (including body language) according to what someone does in the next moment - 'if nobody objects'. The trouble is, many people, mostly women, have long felt they couldn't object, even if they didn't like the last bodily or linguistic move in the language-game. So they conceded permissibility ground against their own wishes.
Now they're feeling empowered to object. People who in the past exploited their power, and the knowledge that the object(s) of their desire felt disempowered, are having to relearn how to act in situations.
Daily life is anarchy; no-one gets to 'decide all this' but you and your interlocutors. It is possible to cultivate sensitivity to other people. Take it from a serial philanderer.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 11, 2018 at 18:16#1427410 likes
I'm very surprised to see the number of irrational people in this discussion. Looking over the last few pages, Pseudonym seems to be the only one here who actually understands the issue. The things we're discussing are all completely subjective. There are no universal rules about what is and is not appropriate behavior. There have been times in the past when it was perfectly appropriate for men to have sex with women without their consent. It happens in nature all the time.
It baffles me that anybody on this forum could fail to see the subjectivity of the issue.
The trouble is, many people, mostly women, have long felt they couldn't object, even if they didn't like the last bodily or linguistic move in the language-game. So they conceded permissibility ground against their own wishes.
This is a ridiculous argument. It's basically saying women haven't been able to think for themselves up until now. If somebody is making unwanted advances and you don't make it clear that they are unwanted, that is your fault and nobody else's. If women have honestly felt unable to object, I would ask why they felt that way. Who made them feel that way? Because the implication in this entire movement is that men, as a whole, made them feel that way. And what does that even mean? How would a man make you feel as though you could not object to his sexual advances? What would the consequences be if you "disobeyed" this apparently implicit requirement? Something worse than having sexual interaction with someone you don't want to have sexual interaction with? I really don't see how this line of reasoning can result in anything coherent or logical.
No one's confused about grabbing someone's groin. What's being argued is exactly what level of contact requires consent as you'd know full well if you'd actually taken the ethical debate seriously rather than posturing with virtue signalling.
Oh well done, this time it's an ad hominem at me. Once you've read the entire thread and my previous comments on the matter we can continue.
If women have honestly felt unable to object, I would ask why they felt that way. Who made them feel that way? Because the implication in this entire movement is that men, as a whole, made them feel that way.
That is indeed the analysis. Men as a class, not 'as a whole', I would say. Just as the majority of people in my impoverished town, as a class, know they are hopelessly disempowered compared to, say, bankers, as a class. This is basic sociology, it's how the world works. 'Subjectivity' operates within norms of behaviour that have become established socially and historically, and which relate to relative power of different classes and groups in that society.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 11, 2018 at 20:12#1427700 likes
Just as the majority of people in my impoverished town, as a class, know they are hopelessly disempowered compared to, say, bankers, as a class.
I don't see how that example is relevant to this issue. When wealthy people disempower the lower class, it isn't through psychological means--they have created a tangible system where it is harder for lower class people to gain wealth. The prevention is due to the wealthy physically having power over the unwealthy. In the case of women being unable to deny unwanted sexual advances, we're talking about something psychological. So are you saying that men are psychologically stronger than women, and this is what allows them to have this power over them?
My whole point is really just this: how is this supposed system actually enforced?
I've read the entire thread, I always do, I'm not sure what it is you're expecting me to have gleaned from doing so, I still see no attempt in any of your posts to understand the ethical complexities of human sexuality, you just seem to repeat the same message that men should know how to behave already and are just being oppressive by not moderating themselves.
Human behaviour is significantly more complex than one dominant group deciding arbitrarily how they would like to behave and all other groups just meekly putting up with it.
Do you really think that men just spontaneously made up this kind of behaviour; that men, desperate to attract women, in their desperation somehow came up with a set of behavioural strategies that actually all women secretly hated but didn't tell anyone until Jack Dorsey was kind enough to invent Twitter.
Men, in their sexual behaviour, by and large try to do things they think women will find attractive and women will do the same for men. For men, historically, that's been to show how powerful you are, to demonstrate your dominance. If you don't agree then perhaps you could explain why rich powerful men seem to have very little trouble finding sexual partners and poor, but very kind, toilet attendants seem to struggle.
Personally, I'd rather live in a world where kindness and what I consider gentlemen like behaviour was seen as a virtue both in a friend and in a sexual partner, but we do not live in such a world and that's because men seem to like being bastards and because women seem inordinately attracted to bastards.
You read my comments and accused me of virtue signalling because...? That doesn't make sense. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt thinking you hadn't read my comments but apparently you felt the need to gratuitously insult me. Classy!
Do you really think that men just spontaneously made up this kind of behaviour; that men, desperate to attract women, in their desperation somehow came up with a set of behavioural strategies that actually all women secretly hated but didn't tell anyone until Jack Dorsey was kind enough to invent Twitter.
This is so incredibly silly I don't even understand why you even write it. It's about power and men oppressed women where they could. It never was a negotiated relationship. The fact women didn't openly complain was not tacit approval. The insinuation they liked it is inappropriate. Men didn't invent these behaviours to attract women, they invented them because it pleased themselves and women were property.
Men should know better and I've reiterated why before. Talk to five adult women and 2 of them have been sexually assaulted. 4 of them have been sexually harassed. But yeah, they love that shit. :-}
Personally, I'd rather live in a world where kindness and what I consider gentlemen like behaviour was seen as a virtue both in a friend and in a sexual partner, but we do not live in such a world and that's because men seem to like being bastards and because women seem inordinately attracted to bastards.
Whatever is that based upon? Movies? You realise what this sounds like right? The passive aggressive self described nice guy who thinks he finishes last because girls don't value the right things. Brings back memories of when I was younger. >:O good times.
StreetlightJanuary 12, 2018 at 02:02#1428440 likes
"Of course men can't control themselves".
"Women secretly like it".
"Consent is pseudo-ethical".
"It's all subjective tho lol".
Retroactive addition: "If you disagree you hate men lololol"
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 12, 2018 at 02:43#1428600 likes
Lots of self-loathing, neutered males in this thread. Gotta love the armchair historians slitting their wrists for the sins of cherry-picked examples that fit the hate spewing agendas of gender feminists.
You read my comments and accused me of virtue signalling because...?
Because you appear to be strongly defending a position popularly defined as a moral good without actually having an answer to the difficult moral issues it encompasses. That's basically the definition of virtue signalling. If you had actually answered any of my questions about the extent of physical contact that is to be self-regulated I might have re-considered my assessment, but as it is you've continued to ignore any of the difficult questions in favour of waiving your 'sensitive nice-guy' flag, so I'm quite happy to stand by my assessment.
This is so incredibly silly I don't even understand why you even write it.
Because it's based on 20 years study of social psychology and ethics. If you don't agree with it you will find plenty of support for your position in the literature, it's a very contested issue, but presuming anyone who doesn't agree with you must be 'silly' is childish.
First of all, as the psychologist Martin Daly points out in his work on the evolution of human sexual behaviour, men generally seek sexual activity as a goal for contact, women, more often will be seeking a relationship. So to understand male sexual behaviour you have to see it as a culturally evolved response, not to the majority of women, but to the small minority of women who would be likely to respond favourably to the advance. Men principally according to the theory are 'fishing' for a particular type of woman, but crucially, if that type of woman didn't exist they wouldn't have evolved such techniques. This is why we see such an odd disparity between male sexual behaviour and the behaviour women typically want to be subject to.
Studies such as Herold & Milhausen or the 2006 Li & Kenrick study, help to indicate how such responses may have evolved by showing that, in the short-term, such incentives may also be the case for women. Sexual behaviour preference differed for women looking for a brief sexual encounter and those looking for a long-term stable partner, with characteristics signifying social dominance, narcissism and physical attractiveness rating higher for short-term relationships and lower for long-term. Again, once you understand that a larger proportion of men than women are looking for short-term relationships it becomes clear why there is an incentive for men to display the types of behaviour favoured by women also seeking short-term relationships even when such preferences are unlikely to represent the majority of women.
The fact that sexual motivation was initiated by external stimuli and is reward-response driven has been known since Frank Beach back in 1956 and has scarcely been challenged since. If you are at all interested in the subject I recommend "Functional and Dysfunctional Sexual Behaviour by Anders Agmo. Chapter 8 explains all about social evolution of male dominant behaviour, but as I say, there are many who disagree with that model.
So no, in summary, it's not 'from movies', it's based on social psychological studies of human dating behaviour and some background from non-human primate studies. Yes, there's plenty of scope to disagree with these conclusions, many do, but I think it would make for a much more interesting forum if you were to raise your disagreement in logical terms, perhaps citing whatever research evidence you're using, rather than just writing various restatements of your beliefs.
Come on, I thought this was supposed to be a serious philosophy forum, have I missed something.
"Of course men can't control themselves".
No one's said anything of the sort, the argument is that the behaviour men are being asked to control themselves too has been inadequately defined and potentially oversteps the mark by removing nonverbal communication systems from human interaction.
"Women secretly like it"
No one has said this either, part of the problem with this debate is that it seems to think that 'women' could possibly like or dislike a thing as a whole. There are 3.5 billion women on the planet ranging from nuns to pole dancers, the idea that 'women' want anything as a group is insulating.
Some women may well find all sorts of behaviour attractive. I challenge you to find some universal preference.
"Consent is pseudo-ethical".
Once more, no one has said this, I said that the video was pseudo-ethical on the grounds that it did not address the complexities of nonverbal communication, or the limits of physical contact, something I note still had not been addressed. Simple question, do men have to ask before shaking a woman's hand in greeting, if not, why not?
"It's all subjective tho lol".
Of course it's all subjective, think of the alternative, that there's some externally ordained behaviour we are all obliged to stick to. Who decides on this and with what authority? (another question no one has yet had the intellectual honesty to attempt an answer to)
Because you appear to be strongly defending a position popularly defined as a moral good without actually having an answer to the difficult moral issues it encompasses. That's basically the definition of virtue signalling. If you had actually answered any of my questions about the extent of physical contact that is to be self-regulated I might have re-considered my assessment, but as it you've continued to ignore any of the difficult questions in favour of waiving you're 'sensitive nice-guy' flag, so I'm quite happy to stand by my assessment.
Repeating the accussation of virtue signalling just means this conversation is over. I don't accept it and you're crossing a line.
Repeating the accussation of virtue signalling just means this conversation is over. I don't accept it and you're crossing a line.
I haven't just repeated the accusation, I explained it, and I don't consider virtue signalling to be a wholly bad thing so my intention is not to insult you (which is more than can be said for your intimation that I'm a passive aggressive misfit with some kind of fixation).
Where I do consider virtue signalling inappropriate is on a philosophy forum. We're meant to discuss the philosophical content of issues are we not? Just repeating over and again that men know how to behave and so should do so is not addressing the issue. How do you know men know how to behave? How have you arrived at the set of bahaviours you consider appropriate? How have you justified imposing that set of behaviours on other people? Those are the interesting philosophical questions.
I'm quite prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you have some interesting answers to these, but you haven't stated any of them, hence the virtue signalling. Again, with the best will in the world you haven't exactly done anything to dissuade me from this conclusion by storming off the moment I actually ask you to deal with the complexities of psychological research and cite something in support of your argument.
StreetlightJanuary 12, 2018 at 09:18#1429530 likes
Oh right, so what you're saying is you're not talking about any of the concrete cases and real life incidents that have defined the major thrust of me2 movement so far, and are speaking entirely specutively about nothing in particular. Okay, cool.
Edit: I think I accidentally deleted my post (was trying to edit it), or it might have been deleted by someone else. Either way.
I haven't just repeated the accusation, I explained it, and I don't consider virtue signalling to be a wholly bad thing so my intention is not to insult you (which is more than can be said for your intimation that I'm a passive aggressive misfit with some kind of fixation).
I don't think it's appropriate to claim this (or explain it) when it's clear from my post I have tried to elucidate why time and again. To dismiss what I've written as mere virtue signalling to me is an indication you didn't read my posts or are being uncharitable. As to the "pseudo fixation", I'm not sure why that's interpreted as an insult as it was a quip due to the fact you used "pseudo" rather often. The stuff you pulled from those studies did read as a passive aggressive nice guy excuse but at no point did I say you were one and think you simply took that reply as personal. In fact, I disclosed I was one of those nice guys in the past. Perspectives change. I'm happy to apologise for whatever offence you took from it and I'll dial back the misfiring joking.
More generally, I don't accept that studies have established women fall for bastards (if anything, some male traits might but the trait does not have to correlate with sexual harrassment or abuse). And to the extent sociobiology and evolution play a role in sexual behaviour, they need to be relegated to the back when current actions by women quite clearly communicate that certain sexual behaviour is no longer accepted. Explanations are not justifications and therefore have no place in this ethical discussion.
In light of recent reporting, I don't understand why this is a serious question to you. Open a newspaper, watch a little video on consent for kids and you'll get the general idea. Are there grey areas? Of course. I have arabic friends. One girl slided a bit more into Islam at some point and didn't want to shake hands or kiss any more. So that was a gray area the first time she decided she didn't want to do that any more for about 1 second when I leaned in and she said: "I'm sorry, I've decided I'm not going to kiss men on the cheek any more unless I'm in a relationship with them". What I then do is respect her decision. Simple.
How have you arrived at the set of bahaviours you consider appropriate?
Through empathy. I imagine whether I'm ever confronted with the type of unwanted behaviour women are complaining about. I conclude it doesn't happen, so there's an inequality there. Then I take at face value it is unwanted because they say so. From there I develop a reasonable idea of what I consider appropriate.
How have you justified imposing that set of behaviours on other people?
Do we agree women should not acquiesce to sexual behaviour they consider unwanted? Social norms have made it difficult for women to communicate or report unwanted sexual behaviour and they should be free to do so; e.g. it needs to be taken seriously and without fear of reprisal.
EDIT: so the justification follows from agreeing to that first question.
StreetlightJanuary 12, 2018 at 09:38#1429570 likes
It's the basic reactionary conceit: when faced with real life cases of concrete harm, retreat into abstract universals and ham up intectualized ambiguity, all the better to avoid the confrontation with actual, documented, and widespread hurt.
Yes real life concrete human being Weinstein was evil, yes real life concrete human being Louie acted unconscionably, yes real life concrete human being Nassar was a child predator, but this metoo stuff is just so ambigious!
A quick note to say that this is a misleading cliché. Psychological studies and ordinary experience suggest rather that many women are attracted to men with qualities that "bastards" often happen to have, but which many non-bastards also have: confidence, independence, a lack of neediness, emotional unavailability, and so on.
To dismiss what I've written as mere virtue signalling to me is an indication you didn't read my posts or are being uncharitable.
Likewise if you think my reading of your posts had been uncharitable with regards to the exposition of your argument then I apologise. Like I said, I don't think virtue signalling is a bad thing so perhaps did not consider enough the need to give a wide margin of error to my not identifying any supporting arguments in your posts.
I don't accept that studies have established women fall for bastards
We seem to be falling, nonetheless into the same pattern. The studies do show that a certain group of women when perusing a particular partner-finding strategy fall for 'bastards', they also show that men disproportionately focus their partner-finding efforts on these women despite their being a minority. You might be able to explain these findings some other way than the psychologists who published them but I really don't see how just saying you don't 'accept' them is helpful here. Do you have some reason you don't accept them? Do you have some alternative interpretation of the data? Do you think the psychologists have just made it all up? Have I completely misunderstood the conclusions?
I'm fully prepared to take responsibility for this if I've not been clear enough but this is my entire point and no more. The 'grey areas' as you put it are exactly what I've been talking about all this time. It's just that I think they are vitally important and disagree that solving them is as easy as you make out.
Nonverbal communication is a vital part of human interaction and in the past this has included physical contact. It comes naturally to me, and many others, to put a hand on the shoulder or back of someone who is upset. I realise this might offend some people, but I'm offended by excessive swearing, others are offended by religious defamation, others by revealing clothing, why have we singled out the discomfort people might feel from physical contact and sexual language as something which requires prior consent when other ways of making people uncomfortable are not similarly addressed?
Through empathy. I imagine whether I'm ever confronted with the type of unwanted behaviour women are complaining about. I conclude it doesn't happen, so there's an inequality there. Then I take at face value it is unwanted because they say so. From there I develop a reasonable idea of what I consider appropriate.
Firstly, empathy is a process whereby you imagine you are the other person and speculate on how they may feel. It's an entirely subjective process. How do you know that the people accused of inappropriate sexual advances haven't carried out exactly the same empathy calculation but just got a different result? You're presuming that whatever you would like, must be whatever the other person in the exchange would like. This is not only flawed in that your assessment might be faulty, but in that the other person is probably different from you and has different wants.
Secondly, you're begging the question by assuming that it is a given fact that all women are happy with having to 'say so'. What about any women who like the spontaneity, who maybe want to reserve their own right to make advances on a man and recognise that this requires an equal level of tolerance on their part. Some of the backlash against metoo from people like Catherine Deneuve has clearly shown that such women at least exist, are we to take a single viral campaign on Twitter as evidence for some kind of worldwide democratic vote on the subject?
Do we agree women should not acquiesce to sexual behaviour they consider unwanted?
Again this is a complete misrepresentation of the argument against metoo, no-one is suggesting that women should 'acquiesce' to men's sexual advances, what the critics of the movement are concerned about is a climate in which men cannot even make the advances in the first place.
Social norms have made it difficult for women to communicate or report unwanted sexual behaviour and they should be free to do so; e.g. it needs to be taken seriously and without fear of reprisal.
This goes back to the point that@JustSomeGuy made. No-one has prevented these women from speaking out. When women wanted the vote, they chained themselves to the railings, there were riots against segregation when people didn't want that any more. We're talking here about women not wanting to lose their job, often a very highly paid one in the case of the Hollywood scandals. Most of what Harvey Weinstein did was actually illegal, not reporting a criminal offence is itself a criminal offence and for good reason. If anyone (man or woman) has let someone get away with a series of sexual assaults potentially even including rape, just because they didn't want to lose their job then I'm afraid I have little sympathy for that particular plight (the reluctance to report, not the assault).
As others have said before, it is deeply offensive to women to see them as these meek ineffective wimps who can't even speak out against some overweight executive who's just groped them for fear of what exactly, reprisals? What reprisals are we talking about? So they might get the sack, well that would be unfair dismissal and they could take the issue up with their union. Much progress has been made this way with child care rights at work, for example.
Essentially, it boils down to the fact that there is a movement out there which is encouraging women to speak out about behaviour that they personally found uncomfortable, some of it is serious sexual assault and some of it is not. The implications of this which I take issue are;
1. A single social media campaign over the course of less than a year can be taken to represent the permanent and universal views of all (or even the majority) of womanhood across the globe.
2. Physical communication by contact and sexual advances are a special sort of behaviour for which you require the other persons consent before engaging in, lest you make them uncomfortable. All other forms of interaction that might make people uncomfortable remain unaffected.
3. Men who engage in physical contact or sexual advances that turn out to be unwanted (other than criminal behaviour) are doing so entirely out of their own perverted desire to dominate and have been influenced in no way whatsoever by the historical responses of any women to this type of behaviour.
A quick note to say that this is a misleading cliché. Psychological studies and ordinary experience suggest rather that many women are attracted to men with qualities that "bastards" often happen to have, but which many non-bastards also have: confidence, independence, a lack of neediness, emotional unavailability, and so on.
Exactly, so men looking to attract a particular type of woman are going to attempt to display confidence (including sexual confidence) in order to make themselves seem attractive. The point wasn't to say that these qualities were the sole preserve of 'bastards' but that in some cases they are seen as attractive traits by some women and men tend to disproportionately seek out these type of women for short term relationships despite them being in a minority. Thus it is a misrepresentation to say that men have developed this sexually confident approach just to show dominance despite that fact that all women hate it. That's the point I was trying to make. The cliché was maybe a little hurried, but I did elaborate in my next post.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 12, 2018 at 12:05#1429940 likes
Exactly, so men looking to attract a particular type of woman are going to attempt to display confidence (including sexual confidence) in order to make themselves seem attractive.
Which most men or women do not have an issue with. It becomes an issue when that man "looking to attract a particular type of woman" lays his hands on my body without permission, nonverbal or verbal. The difference between the two is non-verbal MY hand moving yours on MY body and verbal permission such as asking for a kiss.
I like a confident man, I like a strong friendly hug and I have friends who are not my husband that put their arm around me in restaurant or on the boat but they are friends, friends for decades not someone I just met. By nature I am a "huggy" person and when working in the medical field, I was always open to hugging my patients, did it then and would do it now, even if the employee manual required me to get permission from the patient first. See because if someone really wants to touch you? They will laugh at the permission slip they would have to sign and think back to permission slips for field trips back in grammar school, that their PARENTS had to sign, as they signed it themselves.
There is a question asking "Is it better to ask for permission first or ask for forgiveness later?"
I would say society has made it clear to do the former rather than the latter.
"Is it better to ask for permission first or ask for forgiveness later?"
But permission for what? All forms of physical contact, anything which could possibly be construed as a sexual advance? That's the question that no-one seems to want to answer. I can't think anyone other than a sociopath would deliberately want to make someone else really uncomfortable, and I can guarantee you that sociopaths are not going to be following the MeToo debate and seriously considering changing their behaviour as a result, they're going to completely ignore it as they have completely ignored social convention in all other fields. Someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening, So to whom are we addressing these concerns? The people who are listening are ordinary men who have, at least, a moderate amount of concern for the welfare of their fellow humans, and much of what has been said has thrown them into a moral quagmire.
The difference between the two is non-verbal MY hand moving yours
So how did you get hold of my hand without asking me first? Are hands excepted from this no touching rule? If so, why not backs, knees and arms (all of which have been cited by highly publicised MeToo accusations). If you have a reason for allowing hands but dismissing backs, knees and arms, how are you arriving at that reason and justifying it's imposition on all other humans on pain of public humiliation?
In Victorian times it was common practice to ban a man from even talking to a woman without a chaperone, among the Na people there are no marriages and sex is freely given and taken between all members of the tribe, yet even mentioning sex in front of one's family is considered extremely offensive. The Guajiro people have a ceremonial dance where if a woman trips a man during the dance, they must have sex. The anthropologist John Cowan Messenger reported that people on the Irish Island of Inis Beag do not even allow married couple to see each other naked but rather have sex as fully clothed as possible, for a woman to initiate sex there is considered the height of indecency. Just the exposure of any female flesh is considered immodest in some Muslim cultures. How on earth can we presume to decide what behaviour is acceptable in the face of such massive diversity?
If a man took his shirt off in public in Inis Beag, that would be seen as an unwanted sexual advance, in our culture would be largely irrelevant but perhaps close proximity to another person in that condition would be too much, among the Na or the Guajiro, it would be actually expected of them to do that and much more.
I have no problem with us , as a culture, having a discussion about what we find to be acceptable, and trying to find solutions which minimise the harm done to people who feel uncomfortable whilst still allowing those who do not the freedom to express themselves. The problem with MeToo is that this is not a conversation. It is a particular group, largely of one gender, at one particular moment in time suggesting that some behaviours not only are universally unwanted, but always have been and men should have known better.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 12, 2018 at 13:30#1430070 likes
But permission for what? All forms of physical contact, anything which could possibly be construed as a sexual advance? That's the question that no-one seems to want to answer. I can't think anyone other than a sociopath would deliberately want to make someone else really uncomfortable, and I can guarantee you that sociopaths are not going to be following the MeToo debate and seriously considering changing their behaviour as a result, they're going to completely ignore it as they have completely ignored social convention in all other fields. Someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening, So to whom are we addressing these concerns? The people who are listening are ordinary men who have, at least, a moderate amount of concern for the welfare of their fellow humans, and much of what has been said has thrown them into a moral quagmire.
I beg to differ with you in that someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening because as of yesterday, Harvey Weinstein who is seeking "help" up the road from our ranch got slapped across the face by a fellow male customer at the establishment so the non verbal communication is blunt and clear.
Whose concerns are we addressing? Well mine as a female if I get to express it. I thought as a grown woman with a family that I would be able to fend off an unwanted sexual advances yet in the life of this thread alone, I have encountered another situation where I felt pressured. I am not a weak woman and yet I found myself feeling vulnerable to what was happening. It wasn't until I was able to talk here that I was reminded that there is a time for grace and a time to not be graceful and yes sometimes it takes reflection to figure out how to handle it in the future.
So how did you get hold of my hand without asking me first? Are hands excepted from this no touching rule? If so, why not backs, knees and arms (all of which have been cited by highly publicised MeToo accusations). If you have a reason for allowing hands but dismissing backs, knees and arms, how are you arriving at that reason and justifying it's imposition on all other humans on pain of public humiliation?
How did my hands get ahold of yours without asking you first?
Gosh, I wish I could say that I have encountered that but I haven't. I have always been the one sliding the hands of males back to neutral zones such as the shoulder, the cheek, the hips, the waist or the knee. I can only think of one guy that asked if he could hold my hand and I was swept off my feet but it was also in the 8th grade on a field trip.
I have no problem with us , as a culture, having a discussion about what we find to be acceptable, and trying to find solutions which minimise the harm done to people who feel uncomfortable whilst still allowing those who do not the freedom to express themselves. The problem with MeToo is that this is not a conversation. It is a particular group, largely of one gender, at one particular moment in time suggesting that some behaviours not only are universally unwanted, but always have been and men should have known better.
There is a spectrum and not all of them are Harvey Weinstein's but he is an extreme which is what most movements start with, an extreme. I don't think that it is fair to treat all the 'trespasses' the same but understand that many people that have experienced sexual harassment/ sexual abuse haven't really worked through what they have been hiding in not speaking up sooner about such trespasses.
Hopefully we can learn together, that way men know the boundaries and women know how to speak up to make it clear and give consent.
I realize as I read what I have written how backward this all seems to be moving but in the era of PC, it is about the best we can do.
I'm sorry, I can't really understand the argument in your response.
I get that you think creeps like Weinstein are listening, we'll have to just agree to differ on that front. Personally, I see him getting out of therapy and trying exactly the same thing but now getting even more of a kick out of it because this time doing what he does has become even more of a social taboo, even more thrill to be had from breaking it.
What I don't understand is what your response to the rest of my post means. You seem firstly to be suggesting that the really crucial question of what physical contact should require consent simply doesn't matter because you personally have never had to deal with it. That seems a strangely short-sighted attitude, I'm sure that's not what you mean but I can't figure out what you're saying here.
Hopefully we can learn together, that way men know the boundaries and women know how to speak up to make it clear and give consent.
I could not agree more with this sentiment, I'd go further to say that this should be a constant process, people change, new generations have new attitudes and they don't always fit with the attitudes of previous generations, but we all have to get along anyway. What I don't see is how you think MeToo is helping this learning process. It seems incredibly one-way, and the vast majority of the sentiment is that men should have known this all along, not that we're learning together what the boundaries are for this particular generation in this particular culture.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 12, 2018 at 17:33#1430420 likes
How did my hands get ahold of yours without asking you first?
Gosh, I wish I could say that I have encountered that but I haven't. I have always been the one sliding the hands of males back to neutral zones such as the shoulder, the cheek, the hips, the waist or the knee.
You avoided the actual question. Your initial statement implied that men need consent to touch you, but you do not need consent to touch them. That inconsistency is at the heart of this whole issue. Had the hypocrisy of that sentiment even occurred to you before it was pointed out? It seems obvious to me that there aren't clear guidelines being proposed by anybody in this MeToo group. All that is being said is that unwanted physical contact from a man to a woman is wrong. Not only is this hypocritical, as has just been made clear, but "unwanted physical contact" hasn't even been clearly defined, and every woman I have heard speak about this seems to have a different idea about what constitutes it.
If the only claim being made is "rape is wrong", then it seems to me you aren't actually saying anything at all. We all know rape is wrong, and those who don't aren't going to suddenly see the light now. It really appears as if the MeToo movement is simply saying:
"There's a problem. Now somebody else fix it."
When wealthy people disempower the lower class, it isn't through psychological means--they have created a tangible system where it is harder for lower class people to gain wealth. The prevention is due to the wealthy physically having power over the unwealthy. In the case of women being unable to deny unwanted sexual advances, we're talking about something psychological. So are you saying that men are psychologically stronger than women, and this is what allows them to have this power over them?
My whole point is really just this: how is this supposed system actually enforced?
This is neither my experience of life nor my understanding of things I have read over the years. The shift from talking about 'men as a whole' to 'men as a class' is to say that systems of power aren't always a deliberate rational structure. It is difficult to move from poor to rich when your ability is equal, for instance, not merely because of a tangible system, but because there are multiple obstacles in your way - education, networks, purported 'manners', wider knowledge of the world. When I left a poor home to go to a posh university, many years ago, it was a fearful social experience that wounded me for life, even though it also liberated me into learning and the fellowship of other smart people.
All manner of people in power operate in complex fashions. Bullies in both childhood and adulthood operate through gangs and punish people who inform on them. Abusers create a world where the abused often feel responsible for what has happened to them. The unwilling are manipulated by the cunning. Repetition and exemplary punishment frighten others into silence. And the rational claim equality exists when incomes remain unequal, and labour remains unequal, and there is still a backlog of problems to be remedied: the incidence of domestic violence, for example.
None of this is a totalising system. The bullied, the abused, feminists, the racially-harassed break through, and norms shift. Lots of people - like me - move among egalitarian groups and learn different mores. Good women and good men get together and there's no hassle.
I can only tell you, as far as the sexual arena is concerned, I've lived 69 years now, and many women I've known have told me how deeply things like this have affected them. For others, it's been a pinprick they've brushed off. I'd be amazed if anyone doesn't know instances of male misbehaviour towards women that the men got away with.
This is an embarrassing discussion for a philosophy forum. Pseudonym is the only one taking it seriously. I'm deeply disappointed by the tone and content on Streetlight's part (often a careful thinker). This is an uncomfortable chime in on my part, but the PC game being played has grown very tiresome and I won't be part of the silent crowd that enables a false notion of consensus.
Edit - I don't want to be unfair to mcdoodle, his posts have also been of reasonable quality here.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 12, 2018 at 19:21#1430610 likes
education, networks, purported 'manners', wider knowledge of the world.
These are all part of the tangible system, though. These things help you gain wealth, but in order to utilize these things you need to already have wealth.
when incomes remain unequal, and labour remains unequal, and there is still a backlog of problems to be remedied: the incidence of domestic violence, for example.
The "gender wage gap" is one of the most intellectually dishonest concepts today, and yet people continue to perpetuate the lie. There are laws that prohibit pay discrimination based on gender. The true reasons for the average difference between male and female income have been analyzed by many, and are readily available online. You cannot have looked into the issue in any significant way if you believe there is gender discrimination in salary.
As for the other "inequality" problems you cite, males have their fair share of problems they deal with in society, as well. That's not to say we cannot talk about only one or the other at a time, but it has very clearly become the common sentiment that women are worse off than men, and it is men's fault.
I've lived 69 years now, and many women I've known have told me how deeply things like this have affected them. For others, it's been a pinprick they've brushed off. I'd be amazed if anyone doesn't know instances of male misbehaviour towards women that the men got away with.
I, myself, before I was 25 years old, had been a victim of female misbehavior at least a couple dozen times. On multiple occasions I had my genitals rubbed or grabbed through my pants, my butt slapped or squeezed, my chest and legs rubbed inappropriately, and had been forcefully kissed on the mouth while trying to resist. I understand what it feels like to experience unwanted and forceful sexual assault. I do not blame females as a class for allowing this to happen, I blame the individual females who committed the acts. Much more importantly, I do not equate these experiences with actual rape.
The biggest issue I have with this movement is that it lumps together men who touched a female's leg or back, or men who allegedly masturbated while on the phone with a woman, with actual rapists. This is absolutely insane, and a terrible insult to true rape victims.
So, to summarize:
Females are not worse off than men in society, and this movement completely ignores all of the things men deal with.
Women do not have more problems; they have different problems, but there is still plenty of overlap.
Men experience sexual assault all the time, as well.
Equating sexual assault with actual rape is detrimental to this entire discussion.
Reply to JustSomeGuy Well, I've explained how I see things, and you see them differently. I have my opinions about these matters, but I'm more interested in philosophy on this forum, so having explained my views, I'll see you in other threads no doubt :)
I'm deeply disappointed by the tone and content on Streetlight's part (often a careful thinker).
I've been intentionally callous, but then, there's so little here worth taking seriously. Pseudonym reels off so many words, all the better to not talk about the me2 movement at all. The essential complaint being that the conversation occuring is not the one he'd like to have. How irrelevant.
And to criticize a movement built off of calling out actual, concrete instances of harassment involving named individuals as being too ambiguous? Snake oil undeserving of anything but contempt.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 13, 2018 at 02:07#1431990 likes
I stopped going to bars, which was where most of it took place, and just generally have become less social. Things happened a few times when I was a younger teenager, and a couple other times in my 20s with girls or women I knew through other people and we were hanging out somewhere in a group. But for the most part it was in college, at bars, and the women were strangers. Sometimes they were my age, sometimes older. Obviously most of them were likely drinking, but that shouldn't matter because it doesn't matter when it comes to men doing inappropriate things.
None of the assaults were pleasant, but I honestly feel strange even calling them assaults. It's too strong a word, I think, but that's how interactions of this nature have come to be described. Most of them just irritated me, though a few shook me up worse and took a while to fully get over. I understand what it feels like for women to experience this, and I absolutely understand that it generally happens more often to women than men. It's not a pleasant thing, sometimes it can be a bit traumatizing, and depending on your mental health it could potentially have a more serious effect psychologically. But all that being said, people who are victims of such interactions should not be put into the same group as rape victims. That's really the point I've been trying to make with all this.
The worst story I can remember my wife telling was of a guy running her to the side of the road with his car while she was riding a bike and then masturbating in front of her. Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about.
Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about.
I did have a guy at a park who was staring me down when I went into bathroom, enter it and come to my stall. But at least he backed off when he saw I was taking a dump. I do get that uncomfortable feeling from gay guys at parks staring me down that women might feel on a regular basis. Only rarely, but I do get this feeling they strongly want action and they're trying to assess my interest.
I don't like it because I'm a total stranger, but maybe I'd feel different if it was an attractive female? Of course I'm not innocent in this matter either. I'm just not attracted to guys, particularly at parks. It's not harassment, but it does help empathize with what women might go through, for a brief moment.
More generally, I don't accept that studies have established women fall for bastards
Of course some women fall for bastards. I don't know why they do, but some women gravitate towards abusive men, and when they find an abuser, it is difficult to pry them loose. Sometimes. Childhood abuse sometimes accounts for this tendency, but not always.
I have no problem with women calling out the bastards, the crude abusers, the beaters, and so forth. It is proper that these men should be identified as assaulters. This is not the kind of behavior that is difficult to understand
I'm as gay as June 21st is long, so I have no expertise in relating sexually to women, or even romantically. But...
Is it not the case that men are usually expected by women to be the initiator of romantic activity, of sexual activity, and so on? Women can and do also initiate amorous, romantic sexual activity, but it seems like men are expected to prosecute the case, so to speak. Clearly, the beginning of an assault could be similar to the beginning of an exceedingly pleasant interlude.
If sex is about power (it is only to some extent, frequently not very much) then there are power games women can play as well. There also seems to be a long tradition of women taking the task of controlling male sexuality to suit the needs and wants of women and child rearing.
[Straight men don't behave (sexually) like gay men because straight women don't let them, I have heard. Gay men amongst themselves tend to put up few barriers to sex with each other.]
I can see women (or men) in a relationship (or marriage) fending off advances from an interloper in order to avoid conflict. But the same fending off of advances seems to occur just as often when there is no relationship to defend. It appears to be a power game, I hear references to women repelling advances from someone in an ordinary social situation, but it seems like there is a certain amount of 'gate keeping' about it. "I'm free of any commitments, but male approaches have to be metered so I stay in control."
So that hand on the knee is ok, moving 2 inches up the thigh is ok, but 3 inches exceeds the allowable loss of control.
It isn't assault and battery that is disruptive about #me2, it's the power game playing that is confusing and annoying, and the power game is one women do and can play along with men. Women aren't defenseless, powerless, ineffectual agents; they never have been, and they aren't now.
It isn't aggression; the intense stare is invitational. It's a silent signal of interest; staring back is likely to be taken as confirmation of interest. for a full discussion of signaling in park restrooms, see Laud Humphrey's Tearoom Trade, 1971, Aldine-Atherton, publisher.
Tastes vary, but what's not to like about sex in a park? (Maybe not in the shithole, unless it's really well maintained. But if it's that well maintained, it's probably never unattended. It might as well be locked.)
The worst story I can remember my wife telling was of a guy running her to the side of the road with his car while she was riding a bike and then masturbating in front of her. Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about.
But such routines are so damned complicated! I just don't get it. Rococo perversity.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 13, 2018 at 18:56#1434450 likes
Is it not the case that men are usually expected by women to be the initiator of romantic activity, of sexual activity, and so on? Women can and do also initiate amorous, romantic sexual activity, but it seems like men are expected to prosecute the case, so to speak. Clearly, the beginning of an assault could be similar to the beginning of an exceedingly pleasant interlude.
This is exactly correct. I've never been an assertive person, and I've never been great at reading body language. Because of this, every sexual encounter I've had with a woman was initiated much later than it could have been, because I always had a hard time gauging if she was actually receptive to it. I know this because they would always tell me that they had been waiting so long for me "make a move" or say something to the effect of "it's about damn time!" My response to this, both internal and sometimes verbal, was "why didn't you just make the first move, then?" The ones I did actually say this to responded with "it's sexier when a man makes the first move" or something to that effect. Personally I find that to be irritating as hell and a complete load of shit, even more so now that this MeToo movement has taken off. It seems this is just another case of women wanting to have things both ways, without actually thinking about the implications or the reality of the things they want.
I love women, I absolutely respect women, and I consider myself a true feminist in the sense I that I believe in equality between genders. Sexism is stupid and ignorant, but that doesn't mean there aren't general differences between sexes. One difference I have personally observed to be true is that women are more irrational, and there is a biological basis for this involving hormones. This isn't to put women down or anything like that, men have their fair share of problems, as well. But you cannot expect to have men make the first move to initiate sexual encounters, with the requirement that it's only the men you want to have sexual encounters with. People don't know what you want until you make it explicit. Men cannot read minds, and body language is not even close to sufficient since it can be so easily misinterpreted.
Personally, I'm all for changing the dynamic so that women are expected to initiate or make the first move. They would soon see how stressful and uncertain a game that truly is, how difficult it is to read people, and how often you can get shot down or downright humiliated. But that's not what women seem to want. They want to, as they say, "have their cake and eat it too."
But you cannot expect to have men make the first move to initiate sexual encounters, with the requirement that it's only the men you want to have sexual encounters with. People don't know what you want until you make it explicit. Men cannot read minds, and body language is not even close to sufficient since it can be so easily misinterpreted.
This is more than a little akward. You don't have to read minds. You can always talk to your prospective sexual partner. If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is.
I love women, I absolutely respect women, and I consider myself a true feminist in the sense I that I believe in equality between genders. Sexism is stupid and ignorant, but that doesn't mean there aren't general differences between sexes. One difference I have personally observed to be true is that women are more irrational, and there is a biological basis for this involving hormones.
Females are not worse off than men in society, and this movement completely ignores all of the things men deal with.
Women do not have more problems; they have different problems, but there is still plenty of overlap.
Men experience sexual assault all the time, as well.
*Doubt about creepiness settles into sad, resignated certainty*
It happened years ago and I don't know if she reported it. I'd ask but she's out. If I recall, she told the story in the general context of it being an example of what women have to deal with. She had other stories but that was the worst.
I was at a nude beach with a woman once and we noticed, to our astonishment, a guy walking down the shoreline towards us nude and masturbating. Either he got a thrill out of doing that or it was some sort of invitation. Fortunately, he didn't get too close before turning around. Though technically illegal, he could have been fined and put on a sex offender list, to my mind this falls under 'the right to bother', as referred to in the Deneuve letter on page 7 of this topic. The former example with the guy in the car, that's force and assault, even though he didn't touch her.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 13, 2018 at 19:50#1434570 likes
You don't have to read minds. You can always talk to your prospective sexual partner. If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is.
Are you a woman? I cannot see a man saying something like this because it's just plain inaccurate. It shows a complete lack of experience in regards to interacting with potential romantic or sexual female partners. In other words: that's just not how things work.
*Doubt about creepiness settles into sad, resignated certainty*
A few things:
1. I don't think you know what "creepy" means. It does not mean "people who disagree with me."
2. Personal attacks against one's character are not a substitute for an argument. In fact, you are committing one of the most basic logical fallacies.
3. If you have any actual counterpoints to anything I said, feel free to share them, though I can't guarantee anything you say from now on will be taken seriously after your initial response.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 13, 2018 at 19:59#1434670 likes
If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is.
Also, I'd like to add that this statement seems to ignore everything I actually said. I explained that I have always waited far longer than necessary to attempt to initiate sexual/romantic encounters in order to be absolutely certain that this is what the women wanted. How exactly is that "creepy"? It seems exactly the opposite, to me.
You really seem to have read into my statements only what you wanted to read, having decided prematurely that I am a "creep" simply because you disagree with me on certain points.
I suggest reading the article, as well as the comments below. You will see a number of women attest to this by sharing their personal experiences.
I understand that the modern social environment disparages anybody who says anything that could be interpreted as being the least bit negative about women (and other groups), but the social environment does not change the facts, biology, or science.
And as I said, men have their fair share of unique problems, as well. Many of which are also due to various hormones and biological processes. Tendency towards violence is an obvious one.
Are you a woman? I cannot see a man saying something like this because it's just plain inaccurate. It shows a complete lack of experience in regards to interacting with potential romantic or sexual female partners. In other words: that's just not how things work.
This is chuckle-worthy. You only display your own inadequacies. This is how things have not worked for you in the past. It has pretty much only ever worked for me. Engaging women you are interested in verbally and leading to your attraction for them as a subject shows confidence and extroversion.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 13, 2018 at 22:57#1435600 likes
Engaging women you are interested in verbally and leading to your attraction for them as a subject shows confidence and extroversion.
So you're saying you tell women "I am attracted to you" and then ask women if you can touch their leg or their hand? You ask women if you can kiss them?
How romantic.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 13, 2018 at 23:02#1435680 likes
I'd also like to point out that you are displaying another negative characteristic that is generally more prominent in men. I'll call it "macho-ness", for lack of a better term. You are implying, with everything you have said to me so far, that you are "more of a man" than I am; that I am "inadequate" in comparison to you. And you're doing this to a complete stranger. Talk about chuckle-worthy.
So you're saying you tell women "I am attracted to you" and then ask women if you can touch their leg or their hand? You ask women if you can kiss them?
How romantic.
I have a French accent. I could ask someone to pluck a chicken and it would still be more naturally romantic than all the artifice you can summon.
'd also like to point out that you are displaying another negative characteristic that is generally more prominent in men. I'll call it "macho-ness", for lack of a better term. You are implying, with everything you have said to me so far, that you are "more of a man" than I am; that I am "inadequate" in comparison to you.
Well, that's how you are perceiving our interaction. You say women expect men to do the first move, and that they also expect this first move to be physical, and that these incompatible expectations are at the source of the negative dynamics between the sexes. You then lay an icing of "women are emotional and not rational" with the cherry of "women don't have more problems than man".
We are all free to form our own perceptions from this interaction, but you'll have a hard time passing as anything else than a frustrated MRA-type with this type of setup. And, relatively, I'll have a hard time passing as anything else than a macho.
So you're saying you tell women "I am attracted to you" and then ask women if you can touch their leg or their hand? You ask women if you can kiss them?
You don't ask a woman if you can kiss her. You ask her if she wants to kiss you. Or tell her that she can, if she wants.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 00:18#1436520 likes
You say women expect men to do the first move, and that they also expect this first move to be physical, and that these incompatible expectations are at the source of the negative dynamics between the sexes.
That's not at all what I claimed. What I said was that women cannot want men to make the first move spontaneously,while simultaneously wanting them to ask consent first.
You then lay an icing of "women are emotional and not rational" with the cherry of "women don't have more problems than man"
I did not say "women are emotional and not rational," I said that women are biologically predisposed to more frequent irrationality. This is a scientific fact; political correctness doesn't negate science.
I did say that women don't have more problems than men, they have different problems, though obviously with some overlap.
I'm curious, do you live in the U.S.? And if so, for hour long have you resided here? If not, then much of or disagreement is likely due to cultural differences. France has a very different culture than the U.S., and especially when it comes to sexuality they seem to be much more advanced than we are here.
You don't ask a woman if you can kiss her. You ask her if she wants to kiss you. Or tell her that she can, if she wants.
That doesn't sound any less un-romantic. Maybe the culture is just different where I grew up, but I have it on good authority from multiple women I've had relationships with that women do not want you to ask, they want you to act.
That doesn't sound any less romantic. Maybe the culture is just different where I grew up, but I have it on good authority from multiple women I've had relationships with that women do not want you to ask, they want you to act.
You say women expect men to do the first move, and that they also expect this first move to be physical, and that these incompatible expectations are at the source of the negative dynamics between the sexes. You then lay an icing of "women are emotional and not rational" with the cherry of "women don't have more problems than man".
You both are wrong.
I am unsure whether you are aware of this, but all women are different and the only problem here is you both - as men - trying to rationale hasty generalisations of approaching and eventually soliciting sexual intercourse or intimacy. The problem of the OP is this solicitation, this subjective intent. Would you like it if you were approached only because of the value you have as an object to the person approaching you? That my history, my thoughts and opinions, my skills in the workplace and talent are all irrelevant as long as I have a vagina?
Perhaps you should change your attitude and have a discussion about how to solicit friendship. That may alleviate your problem.
but I have it on good authority from multiple women I've had relationships with that women do not want you to ask, they want you to act.
Women generally don't want weak partners. They aren't really different from men in that regard, a lot of us would also very much dislike overly meek partners. Asking for permission can be seen as submissive, especially when it is done over and over again. It can also be seen as authoritative, as a statement of fact and a subtle, implied occasion for the other to desist. My experience is that it is well received when it is well led up to. Like Micheal said, don't ask her "can I kiss you now", tell her, "I will kiss you now, yes?". Don't say "Can we sleep together/" (lol), say, "I want to take you".
France has a very different culture than the U.S., and especially when it comes to sexuality they seem to be much more advanced than we are here.
That's a trope, and a very false one at that. In many regards France gender norms are still much closer to that portrayed in Mad Men than anything else.
the only problem here is you both - as men - trying to rationale hasty generalisations of approaching and eventually soliciting sexual intercourse or intimacy
Women generally don't want weak partners. They aren't really different from men in that regard, a lot of us would also very much dislike overly meek partners. Asking for permission can be seen as submissive, especially when it is done over and over again.
I think I am justified to question whether you understood what hasty generalisations are.
Hadn't seen your answer yet, and I wasn't replying to you anyhow... so... Care to dial down the aggressivity? :s
In any case, do you really find so insulting "women generally don't want weak undecisive partners, just like man"? As far as hasty generalisation goes, I feel it's a fairly well balanced one.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 01:24#1437100 likes
I am unsure whether you are aware of this, but all women are different and the only problem here is you both - as men - trying to rationale hasty generalisations of approaching and eventually soliciting sexual intercourse or intimacy.
You make a very good point. I'll admit, looking over my previous posts, I've been unfair with the way I've been speaking about these things. I should have made it more clear that I'm only speaking of my own personal experience, I didn't mean for any of this to sound as though I'm claiming all women are the same or want the same things. My intention has actually been to show that women are not all the same by sharing these experiences and things that women I've known personally have told me. But it's nobody's fault but mine for not making my point more explicit and choosing my words more carefully.
That being said, your point seems to apply to the MeToo movement itself, or at the very least many of it's "members". The articles I've read on it have also been claiming that all women want the same thing, which is for men to ask consent before making any sexual advances.
Perhaps you should change your attitude and have a discussion about how to solicit friendship. That may alleviate your problem.
For the record, every woman I've had a romantic relationship with began as friendship, and the vast majority of my closest friends throughout my life have been women.
Would you like it if you were approached only because of the value you have as an object to the person approaching you? That my history, my thoughts and opinions, my skills in the workplace and talent are all irrelevant as long as I have a vagina?
So you're saying that this is what MeToo is truly about? Because I was under the impression it was about unwanted sexual advances from men in general, not sexist discrimination in the workplace. I don't use Twitter, though. Everything I know about this is from third party sources.
In my experience it's more about women, and men, not wanting their other partner to be more powerful than they are. So, the concern ought to be about equity, not equality.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 14, 2018 at 01:39#1437220 likes
Reply to Michael You could swap "kiss me" with "blow me" and you'd still be taking a gamble if you're unsure about the other person's will.
I'll also share some evidence for my claim that women are, in general, more irrational than men due to certain biological processes and hormones.
The article reminds me of a joke:
Why do they call it "pre-menstrual syndrome"?
Because "mad cow" was already taken.
I'm not sure that the menstrual cycle makes women more irrational; it might, don't know. I think that at least many women in the world are socialized to be less rational, more irrational, or something similar.
It seems like women in other countries are much more rational/mature than Anglo-American-Australian women. But that's not based on first hand knowledge. Rational men are all alike; irrational women are all different in their craziness, as Tolstoy said.
In any case, do you really find so insulting "women generally don't want weak undecisive partners, just like man"? As far as hasty generalisation goes, I feel it's a fairly well balanced one.
The one thing that I do know all women like and that is respect. Not such a difficult thing to grasp. Hasty generalisations are insufficient, irrational and fallacious. Pretty simple.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 02:16#1437470 likes
Me: Are you fun?
Her: Yes
Me: Adventurous?
Her: Yes
Me: Show me
Her: How?
Me: Kiss me
Absolutely cringe-worthy.
If it has worked for you, more power to you, but this is like one of those horrible pickup lines you'd hear in some YouTube video on how to attract women, hosted by some greasy douche.
Maybe where I differ most is that I have never had any desire to engage with women who would fall for dumb pickup lines like that. I've always just been genuine, actually gotten to know her, had a conversation; treated her like a person first and foremost. I know there are many girls who respond to and even enjoy when guys use pickup lines such as that, but as I said, those generally aren't the kind of girls I would want to get to know anyway.
Absolutely cringe-worthy.
If it has worked for you, more power to you, but this is like one of those horrible pickup lines you'd hear in some YouTube video on how to attract women, hosted by some greasy douche.
Maybe where I differ most is that I have never had any desire to engage with women who would fall for dumb pickup lines like that.
It isn't a pickup line. It's a flirty conversation.
I know there are many girls who respond to and even enjoy when guys use pickup lines such as that, but as I said, those generally aren't the kind of girls I would want to get to know anyway.
"Those" kind of girls? I think it telling that you seem to think less of women who respond well to this kind of talk.
The one thing that I do know all women like and that is respect.
By your own standard, this very statement is a hasty generalisation. Still, I guess you won't be willing to see my point, so I'll leave you to your indignation.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 02:25#1437560 likes
"Those" kind of girls? I think it telling that you seem to think less of women who respond well to this kind of talk.
I never said I think less of them, you're reading into my words things that aren't there. I said that girls who respond favorably to dumb pickup lines are not the kind of girls I am interested in. Is it wrong for me to have preferences in my romantic partners?
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 14, 2018 at 02:26#1437580 likes
The point is you are using a myth of generalisation to relate to a context of an individual women.
If a woman is attracted to decisiveness, then it is her own. It isn't some sort or rule by which to obtain sex. In thinking about women in this way, you disrespect all of them.
Instead of understanding any instance of attraction in terms of the individual person involved, you relate to in terms of a generalisation which supposedly reflects a own you might come across. You've failed to understand and recognise someone else, with their own thoughts and desires is involved.
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 14, 2018 at 02:29#1437600 likes
Not wrong to have preferences, but you are using interest in pick-up lines as a measure of social standing, competence and slut-shaming-- i.e. those women who would be interested in pick-up lines are dumb and shallow.
My intention has actually been to show that women are not all the same by sharing these experiences and things that women I've known personally have told me.
Actually, you are probably the only person here I have some respect for and I appreciate your clarity around your personal experience - which you have clearly stated previously upon perusal - but it serves as a warning for those who are incapable of articulating the difference between isolated experiences and "women" in general and would respond accordingly.
That being said, your point seems to apply to the MeToo movement itself, or at the very least many of it's "members". The articles I've read on it have also been claiming that all women want the same thing, which is for men to ask consent before making any sexual advances.
I don't know if the members here are generally moronic, but it is quite clear when a woman does not want to engage in sexual activity and so attempting to articulate what this consent would look like is a failure of any form of philosophical reasoning. The problem here is the intent that men may have to try and solicit sexual intercourse and to do this with little or no respect to the personhood of the woman in question. The problem is the intent here in men that enables bad men to behave badly by viewing women as merely an object for sexual gratification. This then means that in the workplace, their skills, their qualifications, their history of employment is all irrelevant. Who they are, what they like, the things that they do are irrelevant. They are just a sexual object and when a man has that in mind, the person does not exist. At university, same thing. Even in the home or even entrenched in cultures.
For the record, every woman I've had a romantic relationship with began as friendship, and the vast majority of my closest friends throughout my life have been women.
My point isn't to use pick-up lines. I have never seen them work, and wouldn't really want a girl on who they would work.
My point is to place the blame squarely where it is deserved. You are responsible for engaging women in a manner that doesn't portray you as a creep. Engaging in polite conversation, having clear goals and mostly being good-humoured is, imho, the best policy.
By your own standard, this very statement is a hasty generalisation. Still, I guess you won't be willing to see my point, so I'll leave you to your indignation.
Respect? You need to learn more before engaging in discussions with people.
So you're saying you tell women "I am attracted to you" and then ask women if you can touch their leg or their hand? You ask women if you can kiss them?
Me: Are you fun?
Her: Yes
Me: Adventurous?
Her: Yes
Me: Show me
Her: How?
Me: Kiss me
My first comment was explaining to JustSomeGuy that waiting for consent to kiss someone doesn't have to take the form of the possibly unromantic (and 'submissive') "may kiss you?"
My second comment was letting dog know specifically how I used to do it as he seemed interested.
So what I'm trying to convey is that it's a false dichotomy to argue that if we don't just act on our interest (and risk possible harassment) then we're somehow failing to be romantic or failing to be the sort of man that women want (as JustSomeGuy keeps claiming).
The idea that waiting for consent conflicts with proper dating etiquette is absurd, but it seems to be the sort of idea that so many are pushing.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 02:37#1437670 likes
you are using interest in pick-up lines as a measure of social standing, competence and slut-shaming-- i.e. those women who would be interested in pick-up lines are dumb and shallow.
Wow, and I thought Michael was reading too much into it. Do you not realize how huge of a leap it is to assert those things based on what I actually said? Nothing about what I said implied any of that bullshit you just attributed to me.
In my experience, if women are receptive to dumb pickup lines, it says something about their personality that I believe would likely mean we were incompatible. Again, this is based on my experience. If I find something completely stupid, and she finds it endearing, I feel like we wouldn't be off to a very good start. Say what you want about my reasoning in that regard, but you do me a huge disservice to put such strong words in my mouth which were never there.
This is the type of behaviour and aggressivity that is tolerated in a Mod here?
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 14, 2018 at 02:44#1437690 likes
JustSomeGuy:So you're saying that this is what MeToo is truly about? Because I was under the impression it was about unwanted sexual advances from men in general, not sexist discrimination in the workplace. I don't use Twitter, though. Everything I know about this is from third party sources.
It's not about asking for consent. It's about respecting women and whether they consent. Rather than about what a man might say, it is about whether a woman wants to be involved in some sort of sexual act or context.
The act of asking for consent is only an action taken in some circumstances to aid communication. In quite a number of instances, the act of asking for consent would actually constitute sexual harassment-- e.g. walking up to a stranger in the street and asking: "Do you consent have sex with me?"
This is the great irony of those who complain about "consent contracts" making counting stuffy and uncool. No amount of prior verbal or written agreement amounts to consent. It's about whether someone wants to have sex, a question of not of a stated agreement, but rather of someone's thoughts, feelings and wishes. Consent isn't about whether a man has asked. It's about if a woman wants to. (of course, this is true of everyone, but I'll keep the gendered aspect consider the context of this discussion).
Reply to Akanthinos If you consider that aggressive behaviour, than you only serve to prove my point. The suggestions that you have been making, the generalisations against women and the lack of respect is what I would consider 'aggressive' and using the method of trying to justify your behaviour by purporting my misdemeanor as a mod is coy and pointless.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 02:50#1437720 likes
The problem here is the intent that men may have to try and solicit sexual intercourse and to do this with little or no respect to the personhood of the woman in question. The problem is the intent here in men that enables bad men to behave badly by viewing women as merely an object for sexual gratification. This then means that in the workplace, their skills, their qualifications, their history of employment is all irrelevant. Who they are, what they like, the things that they do are irrelevant. They are just a sexual object and when a man has that in mind, the person does not exist. At university, same thing. Even in the home or even entrenched in cultures.
I understand now, and completely agree with your point. I do still think this is being clumsily handled by the MeToo movement, and a big part of that is likely the media's fault, but I absolutely understand that these issues are real and serious and much more widespread than many people have thought, up until recently. I was thinking the other day about how this recent sort of resurgence in women's rights activism and awareness began, and from what I can tell it really took off as a result of Trump running for president. It's ironic, and somewhat sad, that it took a sexist pig running for office to make our society acknowledge all of the problems women still face with regard to sexism and sexuality in general. It can also be seen as inspiring, though, that in the face of this adversity we're experiencing with him leading our country, people have decided to use it in a very positive way to bring up these issues and have these discussions. I should probably stop before this starts to come off as virtue-signaling, though. Point just being, despite my nitpicks with how some of these things are being handled, I do think we're heading in a good direction by airing out all of this "dirty laundry".
Point just being, despite my nitpicks with how some of these things are being handled, I do think we're heading in a good direction by airing out all of this "dirty laundry".
Precisely, and I think the most important part of this movement is how it serves young women -particularly from cultures or environments that are very paternalistic and where gender violence and discrimination is at epidemic levels - by giving them a sense of solidarity and empowerment. In addition to this, it also acknowledges the problematic views that men have in general about women, about them being biologically irrational for instance.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 03:00#1437750 likes
No amount of prior verbal or written agreement amounts to consent. It's about whether someone wants to have sex, a question of not of a stated agreement, but rather of someone's thoughts, feelings and wishes. Consent isn't about whether a man has asked. It's about if a woman wants to.
Now that I absolutely agree with, and I'm sure you'll agree that a key aspect of this is that a woman wants to at that moment. I cannot believe the number of men I have heard complain that a woman was about to have sex with him and then changed her mind before they began, or even in the middle of it. Obviously these things can be frustrating, I have experienced it myself, but for so many men to disparage or place blame on the woman, to act as though they are "owed" sex from her for whatever reason...it's just so ignorant and ridiculous, and it's another one of these bad attitudes that need to change.
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 14, 2018 at 03:02#1437760 likes
In my experience, if women are receptive to dumb pickup lines, it says something about their personality that I believe would likely mean we were incompatible. Again, this is based on my experience. If I find something completely stupid, and she finds it endearing, I feel like we wouldn't be off to a very good start. Say what you want about my reasoning in that regard, but you do me a huge disservice to put such strong words in my mouth which were never there.
It's all implied by the way you are using "the sort of woman" in question as some sort of rule which defines what an individual woman thinks. You are objectifying such women as necessarily shallow and stupid on account of being attracted to someone who used a pick-up line. It's a status judgment which has nothing to do with anyone you might b involved with.
With respect to who you might be interested or compatible with, the argument doesn't make any sense. If you were to be with anyone who liked pick-up lines, you would be around them, encountering their wonder behaviours and personality. At no point will you be in a situation of measuring whether someone is worthwhile or interesting based on whether they are fine with pick up lines. It makes no sense to use this as a measure of someone's character.
The idea that waiting for consent conflicts with proper dating etiquette is absurd, but it seems to be the sort of idea that so many are pushing.
If you are on a date, you are clearly moving in the direction of mutual consent. The movement is not about this. It started because of Harvey Weinstein' bad behaviour and not while he was on a date.
In addition to this, it also acknowledges the problematic views that men have in general about women, about them being biologically irrational for instance
What I said was that women have a biological predisposition to more frequent irrationality. The article I shared involved a medical doctor explaining why this is, and as I said it contained many comments from women confirming their own experiences. I never meant for it to sound like women are always irrational, or that all women are more irrational than all men. As I have point out in other comments here, men have their own hormonal and biological issues that are unique to them, as well.
It is a fact that women, for approximately one week every month, are subject to hormonal changes in their body which cause many unpleasant symptoms, one of which being irrationality. And this itself varies from woman to woman in intensity, obviously. But aside from these changes during menstruation, women in general are no more or less rational than men in general. I have known many very rational women and many very irrational men, and vice versa.
The suggestions that you have been making, the generalisations against women and the lack of respect is what I would consider 'aggressive'
Again, just to be clear, the lack of respect comes from my claiming that women, in the same way as men, tend not to value weakness in partners. This is what you claim amount to disrespect.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 03:13#1437810 likes
You are objectifying such women as necessarily shallow and stupid on account of being attracted to someone who used a pick-up line. It's a status judgment which has nothing to do with anyone you might b involved with.
No, I'm not. I explained exactly what I meant by what I said, so you have no reason to continue misinterpreting it.
With respect to who you might be interested or compatible with, the argument doesn't make any sense. If you were to be with anyone who liked pick-up lines, you would be around them, encountering their wonder behaviours and personality. At no point will you be in a situation of measuring whether someone is worthwhile or interesting based on whether they are fine with pick up lines. It makes no sense to use this as a measure of someone's character.
As I said, my reasoning is based on my own experience. I don't claim it is 100% accurate, only that it is one of the many observations I have made in my relationships with women. Generally the women I have gotten along best with agreed with me about the ridiculousness of such pickup lines, and generally the women I haven't gotten along as well disagreed with me. It seems silly to single it out like this, but I can assure you this is a minor factor in my reasoning when it comes to potential relationships. The only reason it is being given so much light is because it applied to the conversation, so I mentioned it. There are many more important factors I consider in regards to the personalities of women who are potential romantic partners.
What I said was that women have a biological predisposition to more frequent irrationality. The article I shared involved a medical doctor explaining why this is, and as I said it contained many comments from women confirming their own experiences. I never meant for it to sound like women are always irrational, or that all women are more irrational than all men. As I have point out in other comments here, men have their own hormonal and biological issues that are unique to them, as well.
These hormonal shifts are cyclical and irrespective of gender in as much as it is irrelevant to a person' decision-making process; being irritable can be caused by a number of other stressors including not getting a good nights sleep, or not eating the right thing, or having a bad day at work. To indicate that somehow women frequent this more than men is not correct, particularly if we take into consideration the statistics of gender-based violence against women where clearly men are behaving irrationally irrespective of hormones. Would it be justifiable if I were to say that men are biologically pre-dispositioned to act violently?
I've been saying (all along >:o ) that, in general, statements like "women like assertive men who act and do not talk" are meaningless by ways of being trite. Most people, men or women, do not like unassertive individuals. And contrarily to what JustSomeGuy claimed previously, the "assertive move" doesn't have to be made physically, blind of any verbal consent.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 03:39#1437890 likes
And as I said, men have their fair share of unique problems, as well. Many of which are also due to various hormones and biological processes. Tendency towards violence is an obvious one.
These hormonal shifts are cyclical and irrespective of gender in as much as it is irrelevant to a person' decision-making process; being irritable can be caused by a number of other stressors including not getting a good nights sleep, or not eating the right thing, or having a bad day at work.
Men do not menstruate, and therefore do not experience the same hormonal cycles as women. Men may have a tendency to be more aggressive in general, and both men and women obviously have fluctuations in various physiological and psychological things that result in varying levels of rationality from moment to moment, but only women experience the monthly cycle of hormonal changes which cause higher levels of irrationality. This is not a negative thing, this is not an insult, this is a biological fact. It does not discredit the opinions of women in any way. I only ever brought it up to highlight that there are, indeed, biological differences between men and women that allow for certain generalizations to be within reason. The generalization was not that all women are irrational, it was that it can be predicted with a high level of accuracy that during these specific times, women will be less rational, completely against their own will, due biological processes.
I don't find it insulting to say that men are biologically more prone to violence, and it shouldn't be insulting when it is said that menstrual cycles generally make women less rational during specific time frames. It's science.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 03:41#1437900 likes
That's not at all what I claimed. What I said was that women cannot want men to make the first move spontaneously,while simultaneously wanting them to ask consent first.
It isn't a pickup line. It's a flirty conversation.
That would be a workable flirty conversation only if you had already engaged in sexually exploitative behavior and were in the eager queue to take off on runway # 1, like, she facing you, your arms around her waist, she pressing herself against you, her lips a tongue flick from yours, and so on.
Men do not have the innate predisposition to be violent against woman, JSG, otherwise gender-based violence would not be a crime. Patterns of violent behaviour are largely the product of the structure of any given society or culture and permission to be violent to your wife or children or women in general (violence needn't be physical) together with the physical power that enables some men to act in an effective way does not make it innate. There are many men that do not like violence but feel obligated as part of the social views of masculinity that either physical or monetary power and strength somehow gives you worth.
Men may have a tendency to be more aggressive in general, and both men and women obviously have fluctuations in various physiological and psychological things that result in varying levels of rationality from moment to moment, but only women experience the monthly cycle of hormonal changes which cause higher levels of irrationality.
First of all, potential symptoms of PMS are not the same. I get sleepy, for instance. All I want to do is sleep. I also find fried potato cakes smothered in thick tomato sauce somehow appealing. That is not being 'irrational' and so when you bring up this suggestion, you are implying something false. Indeed, we - as in men and women - are completely different biologically, but how this effects our rationality is irrelevant whether it is monthly or seasonal.
I've been saying (all along >:o ) that, in general, statements like "women like assertive men who act and do not talk" are meaningless by ways of being trite. Most people, men or women, do not like unassertive individuals.
You contradict yourself in that statement, because if you think that people - whether men or women - do not like unassertive people, then you are claiming that women do not like unassertive people. It does not change the nature of your generalisation by simply adding everyone into the equation. That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though it justifies the initial comment.
This is tangentially off-topic, but then again it isn't. Remember worker A's story? The one who assaulted the cleaning lady in the bus?
Just learned she wasn't fired because of that. In fact the corporation didn't care at all. She was fired because she slapped a newly hired dude on the bum. I mean, I'm just glad she's gone, and slapping dudes on the ass is unacceptable... But no one cared that she assaulted a coworker???
Just learned she wasn't fired because of that. In fact the corporation didn't care at all. She was fired because she slapped a newly hired dude on the bum. I mean, I'm just glad she's gone, and slapping dudes on the ass is unacceptable... But no one cared that she assaulted a coworker???
Can the cooperation care if the cleaning lady did not make any complaints (whereas it sounds likely the man made a complaint)? In addition, the cleaning lady was assaulted outside of work, although you did clarify that she experienced harassment - mostly by her way of using methods where she would not get caught like intentionally spilling drink - which is what bullies do.
That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though justified the initial comment.
I really doubt the validity of this analogy. If you wanted to push it, it could be "guy from culture A claims racist thing about culture A but says it's fine because he's from culture A".
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 04:53#1438110 likes
Men do not have the innate predisposition to be violent against woman
I never said men are prone to violence against women, only to be more violent in general. Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking. Were you asking if men's higher biological predisposition to violence justified the rate of violence against women? If so, that wasn't how I understood it. I thought you were just asking if it was justifiable to say men have a biological tendency to be more violent than women.
There are many men that do not like violence but feel obligated as part of the social views of masculinity that either physical or monetary power and strength somehow gives you worth.
I can only speak for myself, but have always been a very non-violent person. I never fought back against bullies when I was young, never wanted to participate in the "play-fighting" my friends would do. I don't like pain, so why would I want to inflict that on others? Even as a child, I understood that boys were "supposed" to be violent (because of the culture) and yet I still refused to participate because I felt that violence was stupid and unpleasant and primitive. I was called every name in the book--pussy, faggot, loser, wimp, etc.--but I didn't let any of it change my mind. So, I have a hard time blaming society for any violence that men commit. We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to.
Indeed, we - as in men and women - are completely different biologically, but how this effects our rationality is irrelevant whether it is monthly or seasonal.
It is absolutely not irrelevant how things affect our rationality, but other than that, what you say here is the exact sentiment I was trying to convey. Men and women are different biologically, and this results in various effects that each sex has to deal with more or differently than the other. To deny that the hormonal changes during a specific period of the menstrual cycle do not generally make women more irrational is a denial of science. Ironically, it is itself an irrational claim.
As I made explicit earlier, I never claimed women were more irrational than men. I never claimed men weren't irrational. I never claimed any of the things you seem to have inferred from my simple statement. But I have made my points very clear, so there's nothing more I can do. If you want to continue believing I said or meant something which I have told you I did not say or mean, I cannot stop you.
Can the cooperation care if the cleaning lady did not make any complaints (whereas it sounds likely the man made a complaint)?
As far as I know, she did make a complaint. And her boss too. I figured that since it's a cleaning service footed by the building in which we rent our office space, that it was taking its sweet time to resolve because of the go-between of both HR departements, and technically, the police. Maybe that was the case, and the pat on the ass just allowed my boss a good excuse to put an early end to it? I'll hope that was the case.
mostly by her way of using methods where she would not get caught like intentionally spilling drink - which is what bullies do.
Yeah. She was something. We once had a fire alarm at work, and she refused to leave work. I was alone with her as her supervisor, it was late at night, and she was convinced it was fake. So I waited by her for half an hour until her shift was over, and the second we exited our office, we started smelling smoke. I directed her to the fire exit stairs, and once we were both down a bit, I ran down to make sure that the whole stairwell was clear of fire, which is was. I then ran back up 16 floors to get to her, bring her down to the exit, where we met the firemen and the building security which were completely furious at us. I explained it all to them, took me about 3 hours of filing paperworks, she left immediatly.
The next day, I came into work to get pulled by my boss for a complaint that I had abandonned worker A in the stairway shaft, endangering her, and that I was lucky that I wasn't facing disciplinary measures and possibly legal damages. I was absolutely furious. Luckily, for some other reason, both of my bosses got fired that very same day, so when the new boss came in weeks later, I had a chance to explain my point.
Whew. Once again, oddly therapeutic. Sorry about being so off-topic.
And the worse... I have literally dozens of such stories.
We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to.
Not if we aren't predisposed to it. Ever since I turned 18, the question 'what do I want' has been followed by 'why do I want what I want'. Not to pat myself on the back, but this level of critical introspection, while probably common to most philosopher-types, doesn't seem to be generalised. A hell of a lot of people seems to be comfortable at stopping themselves at the first line of motive inquiry : 'what do I want', 'what should I do', 'what is good', etc...
Even the ones who end up going against the norms rarely seem to do so out of a conscious choice, but rather through a process of internalized and perhaps inversed values. Changing yourself truly demand clarity of introspection, something which I would be quick to add I do not have... Perhaps once I get in the habit of asking myself consistently "why do I think that this is why I think that this is what I want?". I'll give myself at least another decade.
Reply to Bitter Crank The primary source of my nausea lies in the fact that you felt a response was even required. I am unsure whether it is just a laziness of mind or if you genuinely felt it necessary but the content was so profoundly sophomoric that I was disgusted it was even taking place by you. Probably a strong adjective upon reflection, blame it on my hormones. That's what people do when women speak with force.
As far as I know, she did make a complaint. And her boss too. I figured that since it's a cleaning service footed by the building in which we rent our office space, that it was taking its sweet time to resolve because of the go-between of both HR departements, and technically, the police. Maybe that was the case, and the pat on the ass just allowed my boss a good excuse to put an early end to it? I'll hope that was the case.
I think so, but you know HR is an important part of this discussion because they are often responsible for undermining bullying victims and fail to enforce the rights of employees. The psychological, physical and emotional impact of workplace bullying and harassment - including sexual harassment - is actually quite profound and rather than addressing the actual problem, HR can demotivate the victim, ignore the complaints or are unresponsive to reports and even potentially pressure the victim to leave because their role is to protect the organisation from liability and thus protect the hierarchical chain of command. This leads to the prevalence of workplace bullying and harassment particularly by those abusing their authority and while things are starting to change because people are becoming aware of this problem, so many cases of sexual harassment could be prevented by developing better procedural and cultural practices.
If so, that wasn't how I understood it. I thought you were just asking if it was justifiable to say men have a biological tendency to be more violent than women.
I disagree with this; men are more capable of inflicting physical violence and not that they are more violent. Violence can also include bullying and harassment, gossip and slander, ostracising and even getting others to do physical harm for them and it makes women just as capable of being aggressive as it can men. We often assume that since men are biologically stronger that it somehow equates to biologically likely to be aggressive but again, aggression is not physical. It is a subjective disposition and if men act on this, they do so for mostly social and environmental reasons and not because they are genetically predisposed.
I was called every name in the book--pussy, faggot, loser, wimp, etc.--but I didn't let any of it change my mind. So, I have a hard time blaming society for any violence that men commit. We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to.
You are exactly right that violence is both unpleasant and primitive, but it is used as a form of power and when reflecting on statements relating to assertiveness and how women apparently respond to this, it is all really just socially constructed nonsense, automatons behaving in ways that they think they are required to in order to be categorised into a fixed archetype. When I think of power, I think of someone who can go against the norms despite the pressure, who can identify with what they actually want and not follow because it pleases others, who stands above the herd; to turn the other cheek requires more greatness in character, when most would assume it to be a form of weakness.
It is absolutely not irrelevant how things affect our rationality, but other than that, what you say here is the exact sentiment I was trying to convey. Men and women are different biologically, and this results in various effects that each sex has to deal with more or differently than the other. To deny that the hormonal changes during a specific period of the menstrual cycle do not generally make women more irrational is a denial of science. Ironically, it is itself an irrational claim.
The word 'irrational' is a strong word to use for fluctuations in hormones that - depending on the woman - has a minor or temporary affect, just as much as a bad night sleep can have. Can you show me this scientific evidence that women become 'irrational' because of their menstrual cycle?
That would be a workable flirty conversation only if you had already engaged in sexually exploitative behavior and were in the eager queue to take off on runway # 1, like, she facing you, your arms around her waist, she pressing herself against you, her lips a tongue flick from yours, and so on.
Well, yes. I didn't mean to suggest that I just walked up to someone and these were the first things I said.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 14, 2018 at 13:05#1438820 likes
Me: Are you fun?
Her: Yes
Me: Adventurous?
Her: Yes
Me: Show me
Her: How?
Me: Kiss me
If I was single and I was approached with these exact words I would have one of three responses depending on the level of attraction:
1) Oo you do have good moves but Thank you I am not interested. Sweet smile~
2) I would kiss him and continue on with conversation. Coy smile with intrigued eyes~
3) I would ask him where he wanted me to kiss him. Lick of the lips and sultry drop in the eyes~
Does that help? Non-verbal communication can be misconstrued but coupled with verbal confirmation it can still be very flirty and it seems like both parties can figure out what is being said.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 14, 2018 at 13:06#1438830 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 14, 2018 at 14:34#1439070 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank As a Mother I would suggest not within ear shot. I would say you should ask Timmy about it but Timmy is in the well at the moment. lololol
If BC does not flag this reply, moderators kindly please delete, thank you.
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 15:41#1439210 likes
You are free to--science is not absolute and can always be proven wrong--but we have strong evidence that more testosterone does indeed cause more aggression or tendency towards violence.
"Atavistic residues of aggressive behavior prevailing in animal life determined by testosterone remain in man, attenuated and suppressed by familial and social inhibitions, but still manifesting in various intensities and forms from thoughts, anger, verbal aggressiveness, competition, dominance to physical violence. Testosterone plays a significant role in the arousal of these behavioral manifestations in the brain centers involved in aggression and on the development of the muscular system that effects their realization."
"The action of testosterone on the brain begins in embryonic life. During the fourth to fifth month of pregnancy a surge of fetal testosterone occurs reaching adult testosterone levels which induces anatomical and organizational changes in the male embryos brain. Even earlier at the DNA level, the number of CAG repeats in the genes of the androgen receptors appear to play a role in the expression of aggressive behavior. Men with fewer CAG repeats have more active androgen receptors and enhanced testosterone action."
We often assume that since men are biologically stronger that it somehow equates to biologically likely to be aggressive but again, aggression is not physical. It is a subjective disposition and if men act on this, they do so for mostly social and environmental reasons and not because they are genetically predisposed
This, too, goes against our current understanding of human biology, as explained in the quotation I just cited.
The word 'irrational' is a strong word to use for fluctuations in hormones that - depending on the woman - has a minor or temporary affect, just as much as a bad night sleep can have. Can you show me this scientific evidence that women become 'irrational' because of their menstrual cycle?
While I think comparing the hormonal changes that happen during this stage of the menstrual cycle with a bad night's sleep is disingenuous, you're probably right that my word choice wasn't quite fitting. Irrationality isn't technically a very scientific term.
However, as I have already said, my only point in bringing this up was as an example of biological differences between males and females. I did not say or imply that men are more rational than women. I wasn't meaning to comment on women's rationality at all, only at one of the many biological differences between men and women.
For what it's worth, though, I've had long-term romantic relationships with 4 women in my life who I have lived with for varying amounts of time, and every one of them displayed what I would characterize--and what they also referred to--as irrational behavior.
I also grew up with a mother and three sisters, and every one of them have many times addressed the fact that when they have PMS, they are irrational. Their words.
This is not scientific evidence, this is anecdotal. But seeing as how eight out of eight or 100% of the women I have been closest to in my life have both clearly displayed what I would characterize as irrational behavior, and verbally confirmed on multiple occasions that they, too, view themselves as being irrational during this time, I feel confident concluding that it is a common occurrence among females during this stage of their menstrual cycle. I will not try to argue that there is scientific evidence for irrationality, since I personally don't believe that is possible due to irrationality being a fairly subjective term. I also won't try to argue that my experience with these 8 women applies to all women. But I find it perfectly reasonable for someone with my experiences to conclude that the biological/hormonal changes that happen during the pre-menstrual stage often cause women to be more irrational during this time.
In my experience, if women are receptive to dumb pickup lines, it says something about their personality that I believe would likely mean we were incompatible. Again, this is based on my experience.
That is often true - disqualifying is an important aspect of looking for the right people. And if you disqualify someone as not right for you, there's nothing wrong with that. There are many people in God's garden... Some like to ride on the town bicycles, and others look for more expensive & exclusive ones ;)
JustSomeGuyJanuary 14, 2018 at 16:05#1439300 likes
Reply to Agustino
I appreciate your treating my statements reasonably, without reading your own prejudices into them as others have done. But based on previous interactions in this discussion, I would brace yourself for incoming "slut-shaming" accusations. Some here seem to believe that men aren't allowed to have a preference against women who sleep around, because it implies you are "shaming" them. I have male friends who prefer women who do sleep around, does that mean they are shaming women who don't? I also prefer women with a good sense of humor, does that mean I'm shaming women who don't have a good sense of humor? Obviously not. It's not about shame or respect, it's about preference and compatibility.
You are free to--science is not absolute and can always be proven wrong--but we have strong evidence that more testosterone does indeed cause more aggression or tendency towards violence.
What I am attempting to convey is that this aggression can also be influenced by oestrogen. While I agree that testosterone can be a mediator for male aggression, oestrogen and its metabolites can also stimulate or inhibit neurons that make one more or less sensitive to stimuli from other neurons and thus can change ones mood (what you have referred to as 'irrational' whereas the word you probably should be saying is 'irritable'). It actually remains unknown as to the extent of the effect between either physiological/biological and social on our aggressive behaviour. Poor sleeping patterns can also amplify aggression through fatigue and even depression/anxiety. While molecular mechanisms can underlie aggressive behaviour, my concern is sociological and not biological.
Just as much as drugs and alcohol can exasperate the symptoms of someone who has pre-existing mental health condition, both men and women are impacted by hormonal and other physiological fluctuations because of defective neural circuits psychologically; regions like the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus, ventral striatum and other areas of the brain that regulate emotions are not male only or female only. Any functional abnormalities increase the susceptibility for impulsive aggression and violence and this is gender-neutral considering both men and women have the same brains. How these brains develop - our childhood, upbringing, diet/health etc - together with the social and environmental impact can influence or moderate our aggressive behaviour. A man who punches a man is no different to a woman who slanders a woman; both are forms of aggression.
My problem is how this aggression can manifest and that latter is largely social. Men somehow appear justified for being aggressive and women are justified for being irrational and it is this that I have a problem with. First of all, I believe the word we should be using to justify women' behavioural changes due to menstrual cycle as irritable and not irrational, as per the following definitions:
Irrational: Not logical or reasonable.
Irritable: Having or showing a tendency to be easily annoyed or made angry.
But this is not a linguistic problem in my opinion, it is a cultural one where people generally respond to women' emotional changes as lacking any rational 'ought to be' behaviour. Women are not supposed to present themselves as feeling agitated in as much as men are supposed to; it is not the way women are supposed to behave (so unlady-like) just as much as men are feminine and weak if they are pacifists. So aggressive women can appear - socially - to be calm, respectful and lady-like but underlying their behaviour is nasty, vicious and aggressive because the social conditions allow it (office gossips, for instance). Conversely - and more problematic - is when you look at clusters of behaviour in demographics where women experience hysteria where the prevalence of somatization disorders tend to be aligned with high levels of domestic violence, both of which are 'normalised' behaviour. These pathological symptoms and even other concepts like masochism or neurosis become attributed exclusively to women rather than as a result of other culturally entrenched behaviours such as discrimination, violence, lack of education, restrictions of movement etc. So, the woman is temporarily 'irrational' which is merely a way of silencing her way of attempting to articulate her frustrations.
For what it's worth, though, I've had long-term romantic relationships with 4 women in my life who I have lived with for varying amounts of time, and every one of them displayed what I would characterize--and what they also referred to--as irrational behavior.
I also grew up with a mother and three sisters, and every one of them have many times addressed the fact that when they have PMS, they are irrational. Their words.
You said it yourself, 1 in 4 of your partners have behaved differently and while it can certainly be biological; i.e. that girlfriend could have had endometriosis and so her hormonal fluctuations could have been extreme, this is not the case in general. Also, note the following quote:
"Listen to people when they are angry. Because that is when the real truth comes out."
Although, I kind of saw an image of you with a quizzical look being surrounded and sandwiched by so many ladies. :P
But based on previous interactions in this discussion, I would brace yourself for incoming "slut-shaming" accusations.
I think that your preferences should remain isolated from such discussions for this reason, because it can easily be interpreted as suggesting how women ought to be. I have chosen - independent and irrespective of religious or social determinants - to voice my own decision to not have sex until I fall in love and so am waiting to find the right person I am compatible with, but there is no morality there, nothing that makes me 'pure' or better than other women who choose to be promiscuous. It is just my independent choice and so I should refrain from bringing this up in discussions especially ones like this unless, for instance, the topic is about whether there is morality in decisions like promiscuity or monogamy. What would be the point if I were to say that I prefer men who exhibit strength by showing kindness and friendship over those that exhibit strength physically because the latter is brute and lacks intelligence? None.
I think that your preferences should remain isolated from such discussions for this reason, because it can easily be interpreted as suggesting how women ought to be
So I shouldn't share my opinions because it's possible someone might misinterpret my words and become offended? That's ridiculous.
I have chosen - independent and irrespective of religious or social determinants - to voice my own decision to not have sex until I fall in love and so am waiting to find the right person I am compatible with, but there is no morality there, nothing that makes me 'pure' or better than other women who choose to be promiscuous.
Of course there isn't; I never claimed anything of the sort. I never even implied it. The fact that a few of you took what little I said and made such huge leaps and assumptions about my meaning says a lot about you, not me.
What would be the point if I were to say that I prefer men who exhibit strength by showing kindness and friendship over those that exhibit strength physically because the latter is brute and lacks intelligence? None.
You are more than welcome to say that whenever and wherever you want to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing personal tastes in romantic partners (or anything else, for that matter). If a person gets offended by something like that, that's their own fault. You're reinforcing one of the biggest problems in our society today, which is that everybody feels they have the right not to be offended. You don't. Nobody does. And for the record, what you said is much more "offensive" than what I said. You're insulting someone's intelligence, while all I did was comment about different personality types and compatibility. Like I said, anything you took from what I said beyond that was your own responsibility, not mine. It would be like if I were to accuse you of saying you think men who lift weights are all idiots. Clearly, that's not what you said. I would be twisting your words and reading into them something that you didn't actually say. This is exactly the same as what you have done.
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2018 at 13:56#1467890 likes
The FT is not in the forefront of radical leftist feminist political correctness, so its seeming disquiet about this latest exposure of what I hope I can be excused for calling institutional sexual harassment might be worth some consideration and analysis.
"The gathering’s official purpose is to raise money for worthy causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, the world-renowned children’s hospital ..."
"It is for men only. "
"... the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.
All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned."
There is more... Ignoring the multiple claims of shock, ignorance, zero tolerance, and so on, it is clear from the get go, that 'charity' is being used as a justification for - well let's say 'a boys' night out.'
(a) no wives, but one of the auction items is plastic surgery for a wife-upgrade, another a ticket to host a lap-dancing party.
(b)Men, or rather companies, pay, and women are hired to 'entertain'.
(c) the women were obliged to sign non-disclosure agreements.
Now one does not need to pretend that the women were entirely innocent, in order to feel that the deliberately contrived power and gender alignment is wrong, and that the whole way the event is organised could hardly have been better arranged to elicit sexual harassment. And this is what it takes to make a couple of million quid 'trickle down' from the movers and shakers to sick children.
Reply to unenlightened This isn't a problem just for women, it's a problem for anyone who is in a vulnerable position. There is abuse everywhere where people are vulnerable - for example, homeless children are more likely to become involved in prostitution, child-trafficking, etc. than those who have a family to care for them.
So how can you fix the problem without seeking to make people invulnerable? Because we all know what kind of totalitarianism we end up with when we seek to be invulnerable.
Reply to unenlightened The law is useless actually for such things. If people want to do something in the first place, then they will do it, whether it's legal or not. That's why education is necessary, so they don't want to do it in the first place, and they look down on it and oppose it when they see it happening. But, let me tell you, most men I have met, would have no problem, if they could, to attend such parties, and even worse. The only thing that holds them back is that they lack the power.
So then, the only way to fix the issue, seems to be, that we ourselves become the kind of people that, even if we were made absolute dictators of the whole world, would not engage in such activities. There is no other way.
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2018 at 14:34#1467940 likes
Reply to Agustino I broadly agree, and I think this is what the 'me too' movement, at its best, is doing - educating. And that is why I think Germaine Greer, for instance is entirely wrong to focus on 'consent':
Acknowledging to the Sydney Morning Herald that “what makes it different is when the man has economic power, as Harvey Weinstein has”, Greer said that “if you spread your legs because he said ‘be nice to me and I’ll give you a job in a movie’ then I’m afraid that’s tantamount to consent, and it’s too late now to start whingeing about that”.
It's not about the innocence of women being the measure of the guilt of men, it's about the structures and institutions that we, men and women, have created and found acceptable.
it's about the structures and institutions that we, men and women, have created and found acceptable.
But society is just man writ large. So we have created those social structures because they represent who we are.
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2018 at 14:43#1467960 likes
Reply to Agustino Yeah but, no but... the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'. The way the event was structured educated the participants as to the acceptability of the values and behaviours that it produced. It is teaching young women and powerful men how to behave, not passively reflecting how they already behave. And that is where the light needs to be shone.
the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'.
Yes and no. It produces "who we are" in children and young adults, but not in those who have already formed and crystalised their personality. So those grown-up men, there pretty much is no changing for most of them.
Well that's not true. Fear of breaking the law is a pretty good motivator.
Don't be naive. Someone is not afraid of the law if they understand the procedures, they have (or can make) connections with the decision makers, and can influence them. The law doesn't implement itself, it needs people to be implemented. Things need to pass through certain procedures, and through multiple hands, in order for the law to do things. These are social matters.
For example, someone may go to their local police station and file an accusation that, for example, you hit them. That accusation then needs to be passed onto a decision-maker who will decide if an investigation needs to be started, or there is no basis for it. If an investigation is started, then that will need to be passed onto the courts as well.
At every step of the way, there is an opportunity for something to go wrong. At the person who takes the accusation first and sends it over to his boss, if there is corruption, the papers will get lost. If the papers pass from that person to his boss, and there is corruption, his boss can find a reason for not starting an investigation into your case. And so on across the entire chain, to the highest levels.
So society is more important than the law - society governs how the law is implemented. If a homeless child from the street gets kidnapped, who is there to start an investigation into his case? If someone from a regular but stable family gets kidnapped, on the other hand, there will be a lot of people to report it, follow up, and make sure that an investigation is started and pursued to the end.
So society is more important than the law. These social structures determine the very possibilities for someone to use the law in the first place.
If you have a guys’ place, you have a guys place. I have a hard time letting go of that. Maybe I’m not gonna have a choice.
If you can’t handle some of the basic stuff that’s become a problem in the workforce today, then you don’t belong in the workforce. Like, you should go maybe teach kindergarten. I think it’s a respectable position.
Donald Trump Jr. on SiriusXM radio program The Opie & Anthony Show back in 2013.
The acorn does not fall far from the tree.
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2018 at 15:59#1468040 likes
the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'.
— unenlightened
Yes and no. It produces "who we are" in children and young adults, but not in those who have already formed and crystalised their personality. So those grown-up men, there pretty much is no changing for most of them.
No and no. Those grown-up men would not have behaved like that if there had been a good sprinkling of wives and significant others present, (oh and possibly some powerful women guests) and the auction items would have been different, and the uniforms would have been different, and...
Because they and we already know better. It was set up to indulge and legitimise foul behaviour, and everyone involved knew it, hence the non-disclosure agreements.
Those grown-up men would not have behaved like that if there had been a good sprinkling of wives and significant others present, (oh and possibly some powerful women guests) and the auction items would have been different, and the uniforms would have been different, and...
So you're telling me those grown-up men would not have behaved like that, if they did not wish the organizer to set up a party like that? :s That's silly beyond belief - of course not! When they themselves told that organizer, do a party like this, if you want our money, how would it be possible for there to have been a "good sprinkling of wives" etc.?
Reply to unenlightened It's like telling someone "you would not have had sex with a hooker, if your wife was with you" - well of course! But the reason the wife wasn't with that person, was because they wanted to have sex with a hooker.
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2018 at 20:32#1468320 likes
Yeah, they set it up for themselves as they wanted to. If the organizer wouldn't agree, they'd find someone who would, and so on so forth.
On the one hand it has been set up that way by people who want it that way, on the other hand most of the people who attended were probably not involved in the set up. Again you take a simplistic, absolutist position, when the reality is more complex. There is feedback and feedforward. Nobody brings a wife, because it is instituted as men only. It is instituted as men only to ensure that nobody brings their wife. There is thus no unified 'they'.
But it is not men only, because girls are provided. But not enough girls for even one each. So the set up also involves by plan, 'non harassing men' who are probably there for the charitable kudos, and certainly there to add to the legitimacy.
Anyway, I'm happy to report that the organisation is winding itself up, there has already been one resignation from a government committee, and the general outrage and disapproval is such that it will be difficult to repeat this in the immediate future. We might even get some legislation out of it.
I am becoming concerned there is nothing resembling "due process" in the #metoo movement.
I am also concerned there is no proportionality, where telling off color jokes or touching someone on the shoulder gets mixed in with requesting sexual favors for promotion or trapping someone in a hotel room and forcing them to have sex.
I doubt if there was ever a wish for due process by the #me2 phenomena. Due process is slow and might be quite public. The court doesn't reliably find all of the accused guilty. Cases may be thrown out. I doubt also that there was any wish for proportional claims. If there is proportionality, where does one draw the line among rude and/or tasteless behavior, sexual misconduct, and sexual assault? What happens to solidarity if women who have been raped outrank, in an aristocracy of suffering, those who have been subjected only to repeated requests to have sex?
Besides, if offending men get fired on the basis of reports alone, why bother with due process? Who cares about proportionality if one can get results by making accusations which are likely to result in a firing or costly resignation? It's an all women for every woman free for all.
Who cares about proportionality if one can get results by making accusations which are likely to result in a firing or costly resignation? It's an all women for every woman free for all.
Last I saw, the determining factor in winning cases of sexual harassment in the workplace was who made the first complaint, regardless of what happened. Not gender. Then again, things could have changed since then...
Sometimes what we want is not fully known to us in advance. The details of desire and satisfaction are often discovered, and produced, in the sexual moment. Rather than a question of individual will, sexual autonomy can be expressed through the interaction of two (or more) partners. Sex can be a uniquely utopian experience, in that the act of sexually relating creates novel ways of being together socially.
Women’s sexual pleasure is often viewed as more complicated and less predictable than men’s. Historically, this assumption has contributed to the over-regulation of female sexual and reproductive capacities. Rather than the exception, ambiguity about exactly what is desired, and how that desire should be expressed, is the sexual norm. Women’s emancipatory projects should therefore focus on ways of incorporating this fact, rather than shunning it.
This is not to say that there are no limits in sex, but rather to propose that we devise limits that align with the erotic potential of the sexual encounter. Liminal trust is a space in which partners can explore the value of sexual experiences precisely because they directly engage the line between permissibility and impermissiblity. Both affirmative and enthusiastic consent cast this kind of sexuality as deviant and criminal. That is a mistake.
#MeToo explicitly relies on patriarchy as both cultural context and target. It sees women as objects of sexualised male domination. Men, we are told, have an interest in furthering, or at least maintaining, misogynistic forms of social control over women. They are assumed to want to go ‘as far’ as they can before being confronted with a woman’s expression of non-consent to sex. This picture provides, at best, an idiosyncratic and regressive picture of human sexuality. At worst, it encourages us to police sexuality in conservative ways.
And if you have no idea what she's talking about, well, you're doing it wrong. :wink:
No doubt she'll be cast as a rape apologist by the mob.
#MeToo explicitly relies on patriarchy as both cultural context and target. It sees women as objects of sexualised male domination. Men, we are told, have an interest in furthering, or at least maintaining, misogynistic forms of social control over women. They are assumed to want to go ‘as far’ as they can before being confronted with a woman’s expression of non-consent to sex. This picture provides, at best, an idiosyncratic and regressive picture of human sexuality. At worst, it encourages us to police sexuality in conservative ways.
Western society has only recently gone from banning of explicit sexual constants and practices to celebrating them. The practices that put Oscar Wilde in prison, are now celebrated in marriage. Society in the process of liberating sex, and its associated practices, has created a moral (& a legal) maze for all genders.
Van Badham in her Globe piece (2/1/2018) quotes an "eloquent truth":
“The only sexual rule today is ‘consent’, and men have been taught that women are potentially always sexually available because that is what ‘liberation’ means.”
Van Badham points to the generational issues surrounding various feminist claims. The freedom of agency that older feminists sought so long and hard to achieve, younger feminists now want to circumscribe. Lili Loofbourow cultural critic for The Week interestingly states:
The Aziz Ansari case hit a nerve because, as I've long feared, we're only comfortable with movements like #MeToo so long as the men in question are absolute monsters we can easily separate from the pack. Once we move past the "few bad apples" argument and start to suspect that this is more a trend than a blip, our instinct is to normalize. To insist that this is is just how men are, and how sex is.
Perhaps it is "our instinct is to normalize", the control that society puts over agency, that is shaping what 'consent' entails, which is worrying from a feminist position because the Male view is dominant in Western Culture.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. As far as I am aware very few of those #MeToo has called out are under legal indictment and I wonder how it will pan out for those "monsters" who have been charged. Cosby's trail has gone on and on and picks up again next month. Remember OJ was exonerated of murder because of the force of his legal defense and I wonder if many public prosecutors or victims will be able to withstand the legal force that those 'monsters' will employ to defend themselves.
I agree with the article but I haven't read the following in the #MeToo movement, which probably explains my earlier inability of understanding the situations you were referring to:
The law, in other words, should be adapted to track the cultural shifts demanded by #MeToo. Proponents of affirmative consent argue that sexual partners should actively seek clear signs of consent throughout a sexual encounter. ‘Consent is sexy,’ we are told. When a woman alleges an assault, we should believe her. The burden should shift to the defendant to show that he took reasonable steps in the circumstances to ascertain her consent.
Of course, if you read the above in the #MeToo movement, we should worry about the fluidity and ambiguity surrounding sexual encounters, the danger and fun accompanying it. I never interpreted the movement like that though. I understood the #MeToo movement as a wake-up call to take seriously the social assumptions on a lot of sexual encounters; the reality that 40% of Dutch women have been sexually assaulted and 80% sexually harassed with no similar figures for men. A woman's fear of speaking out due to effects on their careers, social ostracization etc.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 11, 2018 at 12:54#1774200 likes
So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous. Not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it.
disturbing update: NicK shared with me that he now in fact believes what I said about his friends brothers' actions and that it was not me that was "over-reacting". Shocked I turned to him and asked him what exactly changed his mind about what I SAID happened?
I am having trouble with his response as he said that when the group of guys went out to the range, the brother (offender) stayed behind at the house with another brothers wife. Apparently when the other brother got home, he got a earful from his wife about what had just happened to her. HE got pissed at his brother and is still not talking to him and THAT is what made NicK believe me. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I expressed that to NicK and he once again said that "You are quite capable of taking care of yourself" and I informed him that I was well aware of that but a spousal backup didn't seem unreasonable and expressed that to him.
I wonder how extreme of a situation I would need to be in when he would consider backing me up. It is not a comforting wonder by any means but I do wonder... :worry:
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Did Nick literally say he didn't believe you or did he say "you're overreacting" or something similar?
In any case, I'd go for entrapment. Next time you meet with this guy you tell Nick beforehand that if he touches you inappropriately again you will loudly say something about it and knee him in the groin if he doesn't listen and that you demand he's behind you 100% if and when that happens. Possibly involving him kicking the shit out of that guy to defend your honour.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 25, 2018 at 18:24#2223130 likes
Reply to Benkei Thank you dear friend for believing in defending my honor.
However, I was mistaken in looking for someone to defend my honor when I am the only one that can or will.
Once again it came down to my error of placing an "expectation" on someone other than myself.
Comments (313)
Then why all the #MeToo's?
Well I was answering Agustinos' question: "Which head is nicer to deal with do you think?"
So my answer is whatI think and becauseI prefer to only deal with my partners heads, either one. Not some fool that pushes himself on me after I make it clear that I am in no way interested.
Make sense?
Unwelcome sexual advances have never been a problem for you? I can’t really say it’s been an issue for me, unfortunately.
Yes unwelcome sexual advances were a problem for me but I learned how to handle them.
I still don't understand why my answer to Agustino was insufficient for you.
I might be reading this wrong, but why is it unfortunate that unwelcome sexual advances have never been a problem for you?
It's a joke; like, "I am still a virgin, unfortunately." The preceding example is also a joke, fortunately.
If it's an attempt at humour then it's pretty damn tone deaf (and still nonsensical).
Explaining a joke always makes me feel dirty afterwards.
More evidence confirming diagnosis.
NOTE TO MICHEL: References to your diagnosis and lack of treatment options are mostly a joke, which, of course, you don't, won't, can't get, owing to your funny-bone impairment.
Here are three more jokes, cartoons. Please describe your cognitive processing of these cartoons.
You call it humourless, I call it being decent.
If at this point you get all po-faced about it, I give up.
I'm always disapproving.
That is the insulting conflation.
Tell that to the #MeToo movement, which is what @praxis was referring to.
Me too. But I like movements with attitude. Reasonable movements always look like square-bashing.
The request was truly unwanted, but I did enjoy the attention, but I'm disappointed it wasn't Baden, and you're jelly.
No go back to enforcing your decency standards in your humorless cubicle where no one sexually expresses themselves in entirely inappropriate ways that ought to lead to immediate termination, but instead ended in me laughing because I have a sense of humor, although it was very fucked up even by my "standards." Know your audience I guess.
You have to admit the thought of a hetero dude on the #MeToo list is a bit funny.
No, I don't think it is. Straight men can be victims of assault to, and it's not something to laugh about.
Jelly.
Yeah, well, you just have to be careful and not drop the soap.
They are a part of life, and people with normal cognitive processing are able to distinguish between "a sexual advance", wanted or unwanted, and rape.
A feature of the #me2 movement is that they are unwilling to distinguish between a pat on a woman's derriere and rape. The former can not be worse than annoying, and has nothing in common with the latter. Similarly, verbal requests for sex are not the same as rape. By collapsing all undesired sexual suggestion, touching, innuendo, humor, and so on into "assault" along with forced sodomy and rape, and then "catastrophizing" a joke of which a woman might disapprove, #metoo has created a movement which will burn out on flimsy grievances.
Some attempted groping at a party give this guy PTSD?
In this particular case, we should take into account the deep pockets and pending lawsuits, I think.
Well this seems like a strawman. Saying that both are wrong isn't to be unwilling to draw a distinction.
"It's not rape, therefore it's OK" is obviously a non sequitur.
I doubt these me2-people are unable to tell the difference between rape and unwanted sexual advances. So I suspect you misunderstand the movement. One possible view is that both stem from the fact that society has for too long relegated women to second class citizens. Almost no one would think to slap a guy's ass (ok, ok, I'm telling the wrong guy now, but on average!)
It's not the slap that's the problem but the society that considers this acceptable. It shouldn't be. So it's all commentary on those social norms and the acts being an expression of that aren't really the issue here.
Oh? One of my female teachers did that, and I was even underage back then.
Here's the deal - society is hypocritical. If grabbing isn't okay, then it should never be okay, not in some circumstances okay, and in others not okay. There are situations in society when such behaviours are even expected - and that's a problem when you're trying to say that society shouldn't consider it acceptable because you must also eliminate those situations. I mean, if you go in a nightclub in a developed country like the UK, I can guarantee you, 100%, that there will be a lot of unsolicited grabbing going around. What do you do about that? Because people even expect it to happen in such places.
Matt Damon would beg to differ, lol.
Jesus fucking Christ what the hell is wrong with you that you think this is an acceptable statement to ever make? Of course it could be worse than annoying.
For fuck's sake what the hell is wrong with this fucking planet that this is even in question?
This is oddly logical.
Currently a lot of people don't know what unwanted sexual advances are and I think the me2-movement is great for awareness, which is a start. The solution is really quite simple. You should pay attention to the person you're interested in and read their actions and hear their words. I've misread flirtation in the past but that became clear before I even touched her. It really isn't that hard and I'm not even good at reading people or moods. That fact makes the problem even more egregious as it takes very little effort to avoid this shit. It really boils down to respecting people instead of seeing them as objects to conquer or use.
The problem with these sentiments, which I've seen all over the place recently, is that they don't take account of the richness of life. Thus they amount to an acceptance of new social restrictions surrounding sex, an impoverishment of sexual interaction and a degradation of individual autonomy, decades after the freedoms gained in the sexual liberation of the sixties.
Everyone is different, and even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks.
Quoting Benkei
But sometimes people want to be treated like that. Sometimes people want to be conquered and used. People play games. It's part of the fun, and inevitably it will often misfire. But it's ok to make a mistake; it becomes harassment only if you keep on doing it, and that's where respect comes in.
I think if your risky "advance" is some sort of sexual touching then you're doing it wrong. Is it so hard to ask/wait for verbal confirmation?
It is indeed and should be a social restriction on how a lot men behave towards women because women don't want to be treated that way. They can't be much clearer about that than they have been recently. That isn't a problem. That's a solution to the problem.
Can you perhaps give a clear example of what sort of behaviour you think men are afraid to show that will be a problematic restriction on sex, impoverishment of sexual interaction or degradation of autonomy? Just so we get a good idea because I might not be "manly" enough to think of it since I don't see whatever it is you seem to be alluding to.
Well, that's not true for all women. I mean, you'd be hardpressed to show that there are no women out there who like to be objectified for example. I've met some, and they will outright tell you that they have no problem with that, and they even desire it.
Now, obviously I disagree with such treatments of women for religious & moral reasons, but it doesn't mean that they're not present in society. Good luck trying to convince your average guy in the Western world not to pat a woman's bottom in what they take to be the "right" social settings.
Sure, and there are people out there who like BDSM. But you don't use that to try to justify acting on the assumption that maybe the person you're with likes that sort of thing.
That's what the #MeToo movement is drawing attention to.
That's what the #MeToo movement is trying to do. It might be futile (or it might not), but it's an admirable effort all the same.
Quoting Benkei
Note that it's not really--or not only--about "manliness", because what I'm saying goes both ways.
So yeah, I admit I'm reluctant to give an example. You go first...
Quoting Benkei
Treated what way? And who is "they"? All women? And note that I'm not arguing against the metoo movement as such, but with some of the attitudes that have come out of it, from some campaigners and commentators.
Quoting Michael
So, no verbal confirmation?
As in "can we now has sex?" as If that's how it ever happens. When did verbal communication become more reliable than any other form? A robotic "yes, have sex with me" response is less convincing than her physical expressions may be. I'd find it more troubling if she signed a consent form than if she didn't.
No. I don't force a woman into a position that she might not want. I just present the opportunity. So hold out my hand rather than just take hers; ask her if she wants to kiss me rather than just try to kiss her. And, of course, don't take a dance as an invitation to cop a feel.
That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The point of the #MeToo movement is that this shouldn't be accepted as the norm. Yes, there are times where people might be receptive to it, but given how often people aren't receptive to it and the fact that it's worse to be harassed than to be left waiting for someone else to make the first move, it's proper to err on the side of caution.
Since so many people seem to think that being smiled at is an invitation to grab a woman's arse?
I wasn't exactly referring to the situation where you might be in bed with a woman, kissing, and rubbing against each other. I'm referring to the sort of situation where a woman hugs you and you think it's OK to have a feel of her breasts.
It's revealing that you describe sexual advances with sordid expressions such as "cop a feel", and "grab an arse". What I think it reveals is the prudishness and regressiveness of the movement. Sexual advances do not always have the character of a grab, a grope or a lunge.
Sure, it might be pushing the language to call it harassment, but if it's "totally unacceptable" then surely it shouldn't be accepted as the norm?
Quoting jamalrob
Does it matter what you call it? If I'm having my photo taken with someone, it would be wrong of them to take the opportunity to sensually caress my genitals with one of their hands.
It's unacceptable to pounce on a stranger, put your hand down his trousers and feel his balls, and it shouldn't be acceptable. That doesn't go against my point. Not all sexual advances are like that.
Quoting Michael
It matters here because my point was that what you call it is revealing.
What kind of advances are you talking about then? Feeling them from outside his trousers? Feeling his arse? Kissing him?
No, it doesn't justify making random assumptions about people. But maybe the assumption isn't random - maybe I've seen them watching BDSM, maybe they told me they tried it and liked it in the past, etc.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Michael
If my way, and the way of these #MeToo people are the same, then let them follow me and my rules. If a woman goes scantily dressed and is grabbed, 3 months in jail for both the woman and the man who grabbed her. If you, and the #MeToo movement disagree with that, then you're not trying to do the same thing as I am.
EDIT: But I imagine the response to this might be to ask if I think the only unacceptable sexual advance is a sexual assault, and this shows why I don't want to get bogged down in details and definitions.
Well this came out of nowhere. I was just saying that the #MeToo movement is "trying to convince your average guy in the Western world not to pat a woman's bottom in what they take to be the 'right' social settings."
Is that sort of interaction the sort that the #MeToo movement is condemning? Because it seems to me that they're condemning the sort that I'm describing.
Yes they can. How about they stop going to clubs, they stop dressing almost naked, etc. Then they will really make a point. Can you imagine it? Only men in the clubs? Then even the clubs will go out of business! What will the men grab? Each other's bottoms? Grabbing keeps happening precisely because of complicity in sharing in a morally corrupt culture.
Quoting Michael
No, it's not worth trying to stop it in a stupid & hypocritical way. It's a systematic problem that emerges out of the cultural understanding and lack of moral values that Western man (and woman) have about sex.
So 90% of the male population in jail? I don't think we have enough space.
Yes, I see what you mean. But this is where I want to stand up for the ability of people to negotiate these difficulties themselves. I'm not the only one who believes that some of the attitudes of MeToo represent an increasing infantilization of women.
Currently, there are two regimes for flirtation. One invented by men that women are expected to acquiesce to and another that women also like that is readily available for anyone to understand by paying attention. I've never had problem navigating the second one. Did I try to slip my hand under a girl's bra when we were kissing? Yes. And then she stopped me and I didn't try again. I've been fully undressed together with a girl and she changed her mind as it would've been her first time and she wasn't really in love with me (and I have a micropenis, sue me). Men and women both make mistakes and even may regret things (especially when alcohol is involved). There is still room for error and mistakes here. So I don't think your fear is founded and I'm sincerely not being obtuse. I really don't understand what sort of situations you're thinking of that become problematic all of a sudden.
Again, I think it's the underlying norms that are at issue here. A female colleague is afraid to complain about an unwanted sexual advance as it might damage her career. Outside banking relationships are uncomfortably chummy with my female colleagues. The women are expected, as part of their job, to accept the hugs and continuous hands on shoulders, backs and arms from people they might see once a year. I'm sure there are women out there that think "protecting" these women is an infantilisation as they imagine they would stand up to that shit. They might. The reality is that the three female colleagues I've discussed this with haven't and won't despite #metoo.
As a man, I don't have those fears to speak up about unwanted sexual advances because first off, I'm butt ugly so the chance of this happening is 0.0001% of that of an ugly woman. For her it's about 20% a year. Second, I can be assertive, because I'm a guy. Setting a boundary is fucking manly you know but if a woman does it she's just being bitchy.
I live in a country where 75% of women have been confronted with sexual harassment, 45% of women have been confronted with sexual or physical assault (2014). Higher than most other European countries due to the fact Dutch women are much more likely to report to the police. Let that sink in: in a reportedly progressive society with assertive women who have no qualms about reporting this sort of thing to the police, 75% and 45% are huge numbers.
Yeah, but that's hardly ever the case, and I can't imagine a "hey, now that we've hugged, can I grab your breasts?" would be in order. I suppose it's better than just reaching out and seeing what happens, but the question itself is fairly rude and inappropriate in itself. And from there I'd go on to say that if you are of the 99% of the population that understands when a sexual advance has become appropriate, you don't need all this instruction and you don't need rules imposed upon you that were motivated by the behavior of the socially retarded or criminally inclined.
The truth is that all this asking "can I kiss you" or "can I touch you now" is in itself socially inappropriate behavior from a romantic perspective, and it tends not to show respect as much as it does inexperience, uncertainty, insecurity, and awkwardness. It's also a standard I seriously doubt you ever adhered to, probably considering yourself sophisticated enough not to be burdened with it, which is sort of the reaction you're getting from others when you say that standard ought be standardized.
What you're describing is a very prescriptive language system where communication is dictated by political considerations without allowing the communication to occur naturally, as would be the case if you allowed gestures, behaviors, and non-verbal cues to determine meaning. Although I like the idea of giving more work to lawyers, I can't accompany people on dates to make certain proper legal consent has been obtained, although I could be swayed given the right compensation.
First, it was in response to jamalrob saying "even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks". If you're in a situation where it isn't clear, you shouldn't take the risk and be proactive with sexual touching. I may have been too rash in specifying verbal confirmation, but the general point is that I don't think it right to risk inappropriateness on the chance that it might be wanted and seen as romantic.
Second, clearly it isn't "hardly ever the case", given that there's a pretty big movement out there right now that's trying to shine light on such inappropriate behaviour (and, just so we're clear again, I'm commenting on the types of behaviour that are being condemned by the #MeToo movement, not some hypothetical example where the welcomeness of further sexuality is obvious). Whatever you say, it's wrong for men to be patting their waitress on the ass as they're walking away from the table.
If your "fellow colleague" had done such a thing with my group of friends, he wouldn't have made it past one friend without a verbal confrontation, two friends before he was confronted PHYSICALLY, a firm grab on the forearm along with the same verbal confrontation. We are choosing not to be quiet, not because we can't hold our own but because there are people out here, in the club scene that respect another enough to find out what is going on.
Two thoughts:
@Agustino I can understand your not getting into the middle of customs in another country on the first night but why would YOU condone that behavior by returning to the club with him time after time? Do you remove some cloak of morality when you leave your home country?
The second thought is that if "your colleague" had behaved that way in the states on the first night he might not have been tossed out by the establishments' management but by the second night and women were NOT receptive to his behavior, he would be escorted out. Any establishment worth their salt are not going to facilitate this unwanted behavior for fear that at some point they might be held legally accountable.
Really? BC, you have known me for over a decade and do you honestly think that I cannot tell the difference between a pat on the ass and rape?
Such an insult to the #MeToo movement.
Wise words.
I agree, but the problem is the underlying sexual culture of Western society. On the one hand, this culture has made sex into a matter of self-esteem. That is why comments such as these:
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
even make sense. That is why we - as a culture - speak with great admiration for the Don Juans of our society. If you can get in bed with lots of women you are respected and admired. So why is it a mystery that most of the uneducated (the majority of the population) men will do whatever it takes to attain to that position? And similarly, if you are a woman, and you can attract a lot of men, you are given high status - suddenly you are someone to look up to, someone whom other women should emulate.
So why should I be surprised that sexual relations are some of the most abusive relations there are? It is entirely to be expected in this cultural environment. If you went on to speak with some of those men who grab women, etc. - which is a large majority of them - they would laugh at you. They would say, "you go do that, we will keep doing what we've been doing". They will say "you have a micropenis, so you want to stop people like us, with bigger tools, because you cannot compete with us". That is how they will approach this subject. They will say that you are a woman's slave, etc. So that's how the rhetoric will go. It will be impossible to change their minds. Even if you make a law against it, and enforce it, all that you will do is make them afraid, but inside, they will be the same, completely unchanged. So how will you ever get to such people?
I did not go with him to the club, he was there, and he knew me, so he came to me to do what every man wants to do - impress the other with his skills. And I did not return to the club that often, but he did.
And I did not condone the behaviour, I didn't oppose it, since nothing could be done. You think I could have stopped him? He would have done it anyway, he didn't need me. It was very rare that he failed to get a girl - that was one of the nights when he would complain that "all the pussies suck tonight". And he wasn't alone actually doing this, he had a group of guys who were all doing this.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yeah, he often got kicked out of the club, but that's not much of a problem for someone like him, since they can always go to another club. And the bouncers at the club aren't always the same, hard to keep track of who enters and who leaves. And there are girls who are receptive to such behaviour, he was actually very successful with women by the standards of Western society.
NicK and I were leaving out best guy friends house at the end of a party and as we were saying goodbye and hugging as we do, our friends' brother opened his arms offering a hug to me (first time I had ever met him) and I stepped into the hug with my arms around his chest and then went to release and as I did he said to me "Oh push your body hard against mine" in a moaning drunk way and I pushed away but he wouldn't let me go. Keep in mind NicK is saying goodbye to others and not watching what is going down but my friends' sister in law saw what was happening and I mouthed to her, help me with BIG eyes and she stepped right in and broke his hug on me and took it onto herself. Why did she do this? Not because she wanted that kind of attention but she felt the need to help me and I am forever grateful. She intervened because she understood how uncomfortable I was and likely because it was her home that we were in but either way that time it ended gracefully.
So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous. Not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it.
The point of the joke is that some people cannot see the higher things in life. In this case, all that this man knew to do with his eyes, was to chase after women. He could see no higher use for his eyes than that. So when his eyesight was restored, what else could he do with it?
Much of the population, even in the highly developed Western countries, lives in a morally infantile state. One shouldn't even bother to mention the third world countries. When I lived at the countryside as a child, my family had to help save a woman who was our neighbour, since her husband was cutting her with the sword if she refused to have sex with him the way he wanted. You think such a man could be educated?! Not in a million years!
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yah a similar thing happened to my mother once with someone from our family, except worse, since that person kissed her on the lips that time (while he was meant to kiss on the cheek, as it is traditional). When my father heard, he dismissed it too. That kind of stuff is sexism that has been internalised by the culture as acceptable in my opinion. So it's very difficult to convince people who think in this manner that they are wrong.
I see my self-deprecating humour passed by you. :D In any case, I have no clue how you arrive at sexual relations being abusive. Sex is great, flirting is great and people should revel in their sexuality. A dirty mind is a joy forever and bawdy jokes for the win.
The #metoo movement is doing a great job for women - and by women - to claim a safe space for them to talk about harassment, to lodge complaints without the victim blaming that has historically surrounded it or having to worry about reprisals (career or otherwise). For this specific goal there's in my view no need to address the legal niceties of rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances. It's not about punishment, it's about creating awareness, staking out social territory by women for women to get this addressed and hopefully getting men to stop with rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances.
As a result we finally see some transgressors punished. When it comes to punishment, the difference between a pat on the ass and rape becomes important but I don't see that as a goal of the movement itself.
You don't mouth "help me" you say loudly enough for everybody to hear: "I'm done hugging, now let me go." If he continues, you knee him in the groin in self-defence. Fuck grace. If he's not being a gentleman, you can stop being a graceful lady.
Yeah, but it's precisely because you don't see the larger moral context of the problem that the issue will not be helped much by the #MeToo movement. The issues are more complicated than this. You're not addressing why men are harassing women in the first place. You just want to bully them not to, through social means. So until you solve the underlying moral issues, and adopt a culture which doesn't put sex so much on the pedestal, this issue won't be addressed adequately.
This has no relation whatsoever to harassment. Abuse was worse in Victorian times, the middle ages and modern day Saudi-Arabia where sexuality is all but banned from the public sphere. If there's a wider context then it's mostly about equality in social power.
I was raised in such a way that the thought of touching someone in an inappropriate manner would have been understood by me as being out of line and wrong. I've kept that roundabout instruction with me as I've gotten older and indeed I'd be horrified if I ever thought it wise to inappropriately touch someone. Unless I am messing around with my brother, or perhaps if I were married or in a romantic relationship, everyone else is off-limits with regard to any touching outside of a hand on the shoulder or an air-kiss on the cheek in greeting or goodbye.
In other words, I keep my hands in my pockets unless it is safe for me to offer a hug or a kiss or a comforting hand on a colleague or loved one's arm, leg, or shoulder. In civilized society, this sort of bodily respect ought to be an unwritten rule, as what follows from bodily respect is emotional and intellectual respect, too.
I'm absolutely sure that you can tell the difference. You, however, are a rational, thinking individual while #MeToo is a hashtag which is, perhaps, becoming something more complex and capable of differentiations. It's not there yet.
Two cases in particular can serve as an example of the misuse of #MeToo-ism: Al Franken and Garrison Keillor. Both men were accused of acts that hover around "bad manners" and "minor error in judgement" on the low end of the scale, not approaching sexual harassment and certainly not sexual assault. Both, however, were compelled to resign (Franken) or given the bums rush by their former employer (Keillor).
Harvey Weinstein's behavior was egregious, and lands solidly on the high end of the scale, at rape. Kevin Spacey's behavior with the 18 year old guy was in the middle, somewhere around deplorable--and actionable.
These are the sorts of distinctions that aren't being made by the #MeToo wave.
You wrote earlier that you learned how to handle such situations. Also, you claimed that the "lower head" was MUCH easier to deal with. Upon reflection, perhaps you'd like to soften this claim.
I think Tiff was quite clear that she was referring to her husband, and granted what she said, that she could not reason with his top head about the issue she presented, I think it was a fair comment.
The top head represents reason, if I'm not mistaken, therefore perhaps the conversation was impaired by... something more base. Clearly the brother's friend was a creeper, so why didn't hubby support?
Hmmm I think you are thinking about something... very evil >:)
>:O
But apart from that, I think many times men (1) can't be bothered with what they take to be small things (afterall, the guy didn't really have sex with her or anything of that sort), and (2) they don't want to make a big fuss as that makes them appear weak.
(1) Clearly it bothered Tiff. That alone is a reason to bother.
(2) Sounds pretty base to me.
If your wife is bothered by something it's not necessarily a reason for you to bother. She may be bothered by something irrationally for example.
From here.
That would especially be a time for support or to help inject reason. And you suggest I'm a dick?
Yeah, you inject reason by not doing anything about it, and having her reconsider.
Ignoring someones distress is neither emotinally supportive or cognitively helpful.
It can be, if you presume that the person in question has sufficient reason in them to realise they are wrong. Ignoring someone that way can perform the function of getting them to re-assess their emotions before having a discussion. When we're in the throes of emotion, we're not necessarily the most rational.
Basically giving someone space to cool-off, sure, that's the right thing to do in some situations. This is beside the point however because we're talking about a situation where support is being requested and there is denial long after the incident, according to the story.
Even if drunk, Tiff's brother's friend exhibited creepy behavior. It's no bother to acknowledge that so something else must be at play.
>:) oh dear... >:O seems very conspiratorial
This may or may not be of interest to anyone... But how do gay men behave toward each other in gay bars, and other working-class gay socializing or meet-up situations?
It isn't too surprising that the standards of behavior are somewhat different than heterosexual settings, but they aren't a world apart. One difference is that physical contact is often a stand-in or lead-in for verbal contact. Touch then talk. Not always, but often. Much more civilized. Physical contact can range from very frank sexual contact to much more tentative gestures. Not all forays are accepted, of course, and rejection is generally expressed also through ordinary gestures. Most guys don't take offense to unsolicited, unwanted gestures. If someone persists, they are verbally set straight, so to speak. No, it's not going to happen. Forget it.
Where gay men display more open hostility to unwanted contact is where their social status seems to be 'on the line', in public places like bars or gatherings. Some presumably socially insecure men almost display a "negative force field" around themselves when persons who don't enhance their social status approach.
The social distance between personal boundaries is generally smaller for gay men than straight men. This is especially obvious in the Midwest where interpersonal boundaries are generally the length of each person's arm. A lot of midwestern men need a couple of drinks to comfortably tolerate the crowdedness of a cruisy gay bar, let alone function socially.
At times and where possible, gay men also sometimes practice 'sexual contact before social contact', something that horrifies a lot of straight people. "How could that possibly be?" It's possible and it works quite well.
I've often thought heterosexuals would be happier if they operated on the same terms that gay men operate on. Sexual objects (other gay men) are fair game for a frank approach, and a firm "no" seems to work, partly because less is invested in the approach in the first place (less to lose), partly because there are lots more possible objects to approach (more fish in the sea, even if the sea is smaller than the heterosexual ocean).
This whole style of interaction does not work well for gay men who take an "only you and nobody else" approach. In that case, rejection isn't respected, and the campaign continues, often to the point of rather awkward, socially inappropriate, and embarrassing extremes of desperation. That's when gay behavior really begins to resemble some heterosexual behavior.
Are gay men always respectful, kind, decent, sexual partners, once the deal has been closed? No, of course not. Gay men are like other people in this respect, which is that people tend to be disappointing in ever so many ways.
Isn't the difference that at a gay bar, everyone (who is actually gay, at the gay bar) has a shared interest, namely, gay sex, or at least gay experimentation/flirtation/fun, etc? Whereas, at a bar that isn't a gay bar, there's an overwhelming hormonal mix of straight women, straight men, gay women, gay men, and everything in between? And so the playing field becomes that much more complicated in that bar. And so, by degrees, the issue of harassment becomes that much more complicated in a non-gay bar.
Gay bars do not have a straight-bar. Just as Straight bars do not have a gay-bar.
This means that you can have people of all sorts in all sorts of bars.
If a straight man finds himself in a gay bar then he might be more likely to attract the interests of gay men, but this does not imply harassment.
Where I live gay bars are ubiquitous and they tend to be the most civilised. I've never found any man's attention to be harassment, but on the rare occasions I've attended a gay bar I've found that gays just know you are straight, and leave you alone.
Out men tend to predict high for intelligence. Stupid gays are too stupid to come out, and pretend to be one of the boys. It takes courage, personal awareness and good reasoning to come out; or to live a gay life discretely.
I appreciate your reminding me that I needn't tolerate unwanted sexual advances, even in the safest of places, which our friends home absolutely is. I appreciate your response Benkei, in that you reminded me that the power lay within me, even if grace be damned. But most of all, I appreciate your having a good understanding of my marriage with NicK and for not suggesting that anyone but I could have done anything that would have a lasting effect on the situation.
I am glad to read that you know that many of us know the difference, even if all of us don't.
Wow. If that is what your "Point" has been all along why not just say that about your own experiences?
Council advises that I not discuss the cases publicly until after litigation.
Oh wow >:O >:O >:O
Please explain this cryptic comment
I was tempted to ask the same of you but I suspected it would be pointless.
Your use of quotation marks surrounding my "Point" suggest it's not a point, or rather that it's an invalid point, and that we are somehow to infer this from the fact that I didn't use my own experiences in making the point.
Now do you see the point?
The freedom to bother is essential to sexual freedom, they claim.
I can agree that the USA is somewhat repressed sexually. Given that's the case, this would suggest that Americans are genrally not sufficiently mature sexually to not confuse clumsy come-ons and sexual assault. I tend to think this is the case. That's not a reason to denounce the movement however. To me it suggests a path to reform by pointing out what's lacking (sexual maturity).
A less favorable reception of the denouncment by Asia Argento, a woman who accused Weinstein of raping her, via tweet:
Every woman who criticizes the movement is condemned for "interiorized misogyny".
God forbid people just disagreeing.
As to the article, I agree with this:
At the same time I'm not sure most #metoo'ers are doing this and I refer to earlier comments on how I perceive what #metoo seems to stand for. Focusing on the above and dismissing the movement in its entirety is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I do think they're missing a point when they are downplaying this:
These things aren't very serious and they aren't criminal... BUT... as a man I never have to deal with these sort of things. And a lot of this isn't "clumsiness" it's accepted or even expected behaviour by men and it isn't necessary without that leading to a sexual repression. And in reverse, if these things happen and a woman does not want them to happen and they'd make a fuss about it, she's being "difficult" or "bitchy" or worse "don't wear a short skirt" because after all, it was just a hand on a knee.
So I think there's a social construct where men are allowed to misbehave regularly (even if it's just a little) but women are not allowed to complain about it. There's no equality or fairness there. So that's why I spoke earlier about women claiming a safe space to talk and complain about these things. If an incredible number of women complain then either men are doing something wrong or an alternative... In my view that alternative is that they are all just being difficult or bitchy because it isn't a big deal. That's too many women spontaneously errupting into irrationality for me to think the alternative is likely.
In the end, with a view on my daughter growing up, I'm hoping the accomplishment of the #metoo movement will be that a woman can say "don't touch my knee" and her being respected by everyone in earshot.
#me2, and #Balancetonporc aren't the same as the anti-free-speech practitioners of political correctness, but they have something in common:
The all want a society where individuals will not be confronted by unwanted interest or opinions with which they disagree. A desire for a safe world appropriately means not being subjected to rape or being mauled in a locked room from which they can't escape. Opposing rape is right and proper. What's not so appropriate is to confuse the stolen kiss, the proposal in the form of a hand on the knee, or a wolf whistle with rape and sexual assault. It seems akin to demanding protection from the virgin-ear piercing utterance of a disapproved political opinion, or a slur of some sort, for which "safe spaces" need to be erected.
There is a quid pro quo here: we will not have a free and open society if ordinary sexual expressions, as well as disapproved political expressions, are verboten.
And what is it about women that they should never be whistled at or touched on the knee? What is it about the female personality that requires their person to be so inviolate? Women spend a considerable amount of time and money on making themselves sexually attractive in public (so do men), but then object when their carefully constructed attractiveness is not ignored. It's crazy, ladies. Neurotic.
If you'd assume that it isn't confused and people can tell the difference then what do you think #metoo is about?
Harvey Weinstein represents one end of the spectrum, Keillor the other end. They are a very long ways apart, but in many people's minds, since they were deemed to be on the same continuum, they are both guilty.
The tweet takes it a ridiculous distance further by claiming the Deneuve gang have been permanently cowed into mindless submission. Disturbing in that it’s so devoid of critical thought and only serves to promote divisiveness. Maybe that’s why the twitter platform is such a handy tool for the President and his populist crap.
I watched the Opra acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards on YouTube and teared up, but in the back of my mind I couldn’t help thinking that the awards show was themed and kinda tribalistic, complete with black identifying color, and that the theme and identity would quickly fade from memory once it ran its course.
Franken was photographed grabbing a sleeping soldier's boobs too.
#metoo is about denouncing sexual misconduct. By design that spectrum is very large. What unite the people that are on it is that they are all somewhat dicks and can be shielded from just retribution by their power and position. That's why Franken got burned.
Leeann Tweeden wasn't a soldier. She was named the top Hooters girl of all time though, not to 'slut shame' but to point out that she's probably experienced far worse than having her chest touched while wearing a flak jacket. She should know the difference between obnoxious joke and sexual assault.
"Not to slut shame, but let's slut shame the fuck out of her anyway".
An obnoxious joke can be a sexual assault. "The court knows no humour".
Again, the point is that she should know better. We should all know better, in my opinion. I recognize that many in this country don't know better. A good step forward may be to move towards knowing better. That's my takeaway from the Deneuve denouncement.
That's why jokes should not be subject to rules or laws.
"Merkin may be faithfully representing the women she knows, but her picture does not reflect the concerns of most American women, almost all of whom work because they need the money and not because they are seeking sexual partners. I would like to suggest to Merkin that this majority of women sees the #MeToo movement not as about fragility but about labor.
...We also don’t want advancement at work to depend on labor not required of men. Did male comedians have to sit in a room and watch Louis C.K. jerk off in order to network? If they didn’t, why should female comedians have to do that work? Did any man working for or with the radio host John Hockenberry have to deflect multiple obsessive email solicitations, unwanted physical contact, and declarations of love? Did male graduate students of David R. Marchant have to put up with barrages of sexual insults to do field work with him?
Why should women have to do that work to get the same results? Why should we have to pretend that we don’t mind? Why should we have to be the ones to get over it? Couldn’t men just as easily self-monitor? Why not make men responsible for that labor?".
Of course not. To do so presumes that there is some universally known code of appropriate behaviour that men are simply wilfully ignoring when they make unsolicited advances and initiate unwanted contact. As there is no such code, I can't see how men could possibly self-monitor, to what would they be comparing their behaviour? If the me-too movement were saying that 'women' do not want to be approached or solicited in this way then 'men' could take that as given and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Unfortunately, one Twitter movement is not capable of speaking for the whole of women-kind and so such is not possible. I'm old enough to remember the considerable force within feminism some years back to stop calling women who expressed their sexuality 'sluts'. There was some resentment among feminists that men could sleep around and make advances and be seen as macho, but if women did the same they were discredited.
If the MeToo movement were quietly saying that a lot of women no longer appreciate this behaviour, then I would have more respect for it as a tool for social change, but it's not. It's saying that this view (somehow extended to all womenhood) is the way things always have been and men should somehow have known this all along, despite no-one having ever brought it up before.
It's odd in a society so invested in cultural relativism in other areas that such a movement is unquestioningly adopted as just 'the way things are'. Last I checked society could potentially have all sorts of attitudes to sexual advances ranging from the full-on free-love of the Bonobo's to the totally repressed Calvinist abstinence. We get to decide by talking openly about it what kind of society we want at any given time in our history, but the key thing is 'talking' about it, not throwing accusations and presuming that everyone should just agree with whatever movement happens to be fashionable at the time.
Exactly, so its about attitudes to sexuality, not women, which is exactly what I said.
You said that men could self-monitor, which requires that they 'know' what appropriate behaviour is in order to adjust theirs to it, right?
I argued that 'appropriate' behaviour was not a given thing, but something negotiated by all members of society at any given time and that such a negotiation was not taking place, but rather a series of accusations as if the negotiation had already taken place and men were simply wilfully ignoring the results.
You suggested that men did know what appropriate behaviour was because they exhibited it in their relations with other men who were not potential sexual partners.
I said that this does not constitute proof because we're talking here solely about what is appropriate behaviour in the relationship between people who are potential sexual partners. To examine this you would need to look at how gay men approach other gay men.
And the qualifier about gay men simply meant that the exact same thing applies to them, only obviously, with other men.
Well, if you've still no idea what I'm talking about I'm not sure I can help. I'm very interested, however, in debates about societal norms (it's kind of my job) so I'd be grateful if you could direct me to the public forums where societal attitudes to sexuality are being discussed. So far I've only been able to find ones where women are relating stories of how men have approached them in ways they did not like. That's not a conversation.
Are they strong on social commentary then, I can't say I've heard of them!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+internet&gws_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=PyVXWsqTDM2TsAeAj7Ao
Like citing the entire Internet in support of an argument?
and then:
And?
You've just provided a description of the attitude towards social contact held by one section of society. It definitely hasn't always been that way, not everyone agrees even now and I can be pretty certain it won't continue to be that way forever. So how does that have any bearing on my argument that there is no universal code?
Demanding a universal code before making the effort to self-regulate is obvious nonsense.
But what about Keillor. Is touching a back sexual assault, or is there more to the story?
I've had women grab my ass on a few occasions. It wasn't wanted, but I didn't feel like it was assault. It was just a little awkward.
I've also had a few gay guys hit on me, and try and talk me into something I had no interest in doing. But I don't consider that harassment either. However, if that's something I had to face on a regular basis as a woman, particularly at work, but also in public places minding my own business, then I would want to speak out about it, too. That would cross over into ongoing harassment.
Edit: According to MPR, sounds like there might be more to the Keillor case that they haven't made public. So maybe it was more than a back pat.
I had a dude insisting on giving me hand massages. After I told him I was straight, he replied: that's what they all say the first time. It makes for a funny story but fact is he ruined that party for me by stalking me the rest of the night. Another time someone grabbed me in my balls from behind.
2 stories in 39 years. My wife has a zillion.
Fascinating pile of pseudo-ethical crap in both those videos (it almost makes me wonder if YouTube might not be the best source for serious ethical debate, but hey, who am I to judge)
Quoting Benkei
So what behaviour do men strive for without a universal code? Who gets to decide?
What's this? An ad hominem attack on a video? Hoe does that even begin to work?
Quoting Pseudonym
I grab you in the groin. Who decides whether that's OK? You or me?
Considering his name he probably has a pseudo fixation.
No one's confused about grabbing someone's groin. What's being argued is exactly what level of contact requires consent as you'd know full well if you'd actually taken the ethical debate seriously rather than posturing with virtue signalling.
Do we need to ask for consent before touching a back, an arm, a hand? What about shaking hands? The kiss on both cheeks as practiced all over Europe for years? What about kids, do they get to say whether they get hugged by the grandparents?
Who gets to decide all this? If I want to live in a world where people will just hug me when I need it, or put a caring hand on my shoulder without ruining it by asking first, do my wants not get to be heard in this debate without being lumped in with the perverts like Weinstein?
Like most philosophy it's a lot more complicated than a YouTube video, and if that's ad hominem the so be it.
There is a bit of a panic going on. We need to get back to due process and so forth about allegations; such things happen after a lurch in social mores. But I confess some of the remarks like these mystify me. And I'm not a monk: my last partner called me a serial philanderer, though she was smiling and touching me on the back as she said it.
No third party is going to help you here. Philosophically I think David Lewis's 'Score keeping' paper of 1979 has it right: permissibility shifts in a language-game (including body language) according to what someone does in the next moment - 'if nobody objects'. The trouble is, many people, mostly women, have long felt they couldn't object, even if they didn't like the last bodily or linguistic move in the language-game. So they conceded permissibility ground against their own wishes.
Now they're feeling empowered to object. People who in the past exploited their power, and the knowledge that the object(s) of their desire felt disempowered, are having to relearn how to act in situations.
Daily life is anarchy; no-one gets to 'decide all this' but you and your interlocutors. It is possible to cultivate sensitivity to other people. Take it from a serial philanderer.
It baffles me that anybody on this forum could fail to see the subjectivity of the issue.
Quoting mcdoodle
This is a ridiculous argument. It's basically saying women haven't been able to think for themselves up until now. If somebody is making unwanted advances and you don't make it clear that they are unwanted, that is your fault and nobody else's. If women have honestly felt unable to object, I would ask why they felt that way. Who made them feel that way? Because the implication in this entire movement is that men, as a whole, made them feel that way. And what does that even mean? How would a man make you feel as though you could not object to his sexual advances? What would the consequences be if you "disobeyed" this apparently implicit requirement? Something worse than having sexual interaction with someone you don't want to have sexual interaction with? I really don't see how this line of reasoning can result in anything coherent or logical.
Oh well done, this time it's an ad hominem at me. Once you've read the entire thread and my previous comments on the matter we can continue.
That is indeed the analysis. Men as a class, not 'as a whole', I would say. Just as the majority of people in my impoverished town, as a class, know they are hopelessly disempowered compared to, say, bankers, as a class. This is basic sociology, it's how the world works. 'Subjectivity' operates within norms of behaviour that have become established socially and historically, and which relate to relative power of different classes and groups in that society.
I suppose that is more accurate.
Quoting mcdoodle
I don't see how that example is relevant to this issue. When wealthy people disempower the lower class, it isn't through psychological means--they have created a tangible system where it is harder for lower class people to gain wealth. The prevention is due to the wealthy physically having power over the unwealthy. In the case of women being unable to deny unwanted sexual advances, we're talking about something psychological. So are you saying that men are psychologically stronger than women, and this is what allows them to have this power over them?
My whole point is really just this: how is this supposed system actually enforced?
I've read the entire thread, I always do, I'm not sure what it is you're expecting me to have gleaned from doing so, I still see no attempt in any of your posts to understand the ethical complexities of human sexuality, you just seem to repeat the same message that men should know how to behave already and are just being oppressive by not moderating themselves.
Human behaviour is significantly more complex than one dominant group deciding arbitrarily how they would like to behave and all other groups just meekly putting up with it.
Do you really think that men just spontaneously made up this kind of behaviour; that men, desperate to attract women, in their desperation somehow came up with a set of behavioural strategies that actually all women secretly hated but didn't tell anyone until Jack Dorsey was kind enough to invent Twitter.
Men, in their sexual behaviour, by and large try to do things they think women will find attractive and women will do the same for men. For men, historically, that's been to show how powerful you are, to demonstrate your dominance. If you don't agree then perhaps you could explain why rich powerful men seem to have very little trouble finding sexual partners and poor, but very kind, toilet attendants seem to struggle.
Personally, I'd rather live in a world where kindness and what I consider gentlemen like behaviour was seen as a virtue both in a friend and in a sexual partner, but we do not live in such a world and that's because men seem to like being bastards and because women seem inordinately attracted to bastards.
Quoting Pseudonym
This is so incredibly silly I don't even understand why you even write it. It's about power and men oppressed women where they could. It never was a negotiated relationship. The fact women didn't openly complain was not tacit approval. The insinuation they liked it is inappropriate. Men didn't invent these behaviours to attract women, they invented them because it pleased themselves and women were property.
Men should know better and I've reiterated why before. Talk to five adult women and 2 of them have been sexually assaulted. 4 of them have been sexually harassed. But yeah, they love that shit. :-}
Quoting Pseudonym
Whatever is that based upon? Movies? You realise what this sounds like right? The passive aggressive self described nice guy who thinks he finishes last because girls don't value the right things. Brings back memories of when I was younger. >:O good times.
"Women secretly like it".
"Consent is pseudo-ethical".
"It's all subjective tho lol".
Retroactive addition: "If you disagree you hate men lololol"
Because you appear to be strongly defending a position popularly defined as a moral good without actually having an answer to the difficult moral issues it encompasses. That's basically the definition of virtue signalling. If you had actually answered any of my questions about the extent of physical contact that is to be self-regulated I might have re-considered my assessment, but as it is you've continued to ignore any of the difficult questions in favour of waiving your 'sensitive nice-guy' flag, so I'm quite happy to stand by my assessment.
Quoting Benkei
Because it's based on 20 years study of social psychology and ethics. If you don't agree with it you will find plenty of support for your position in the literature, it's a very contested issue, but presuming anyone who doesn't agree with you must be 'silly' is childish.
First of all, as the psychologist Martin Daly points out in his work on the evolution of human sexual behaviour, men generally seek sexual activity as a goal for contact, women, more often will be seeking a relationship. So to understand male sexual behaviour you have to see it as a culturally evolved response, not to the majority of women, but to the small minority of women who would be likely to respond favourably to the advance. Men principally according to the theory are 'fishing' for a particular type of woman, but crucially, if that type of woman didn't exist they wouldn't have evolved such techniques. This is why we see such an odd disparity between male sexual behaviour and the behaviour women typically want to be subject to.
Studies such as Herold & Milhausen or the 2006 Li & Kenrick study, help to indicate how such responses may have evolved by showing that, in the short-term, such incentives may also be the case for women. Sexual behaviour preference differed for women looking for a brief sexual encounter and those looking for a long-term stable partner, with characteristics signifying social dominance, narcissism and physical attractiveness rating higher for short-term relationships and lower for long-term. Again, once you understand that a larger proportion of men than women are looking for short-term relationships it becomes clear why there is an incentive for men to display the types of behaviour favoured by women also seeking short-term relationships even when such preferences are unlikely to represent the majority of women.
The fact that sexual motivation was initiated by external stimuli and is reward-response driven has been known since Frank Beach back in 1956 and has scarcely been challenged since. If you are at all interested in the subject I recommend "Functional and Dysfunctional Sexual Behaviour by Anders Agmo. Chapter 8 explains all about social evolution of male dominant behaviour, but as I say, there are many who disagree with that model.
So no, in summary, it's not 'from movies', it's based on social psychological studies of human dating behaviour and some background from non-human primate studies. Yes, there's plenty of scope to disagree with these conclusions, many do, but I think it would make for a much more interesting forum if you were to raise your disagreement in logical terms, perhaps citing whatever research evidence you're using, rather than just writing various restatements of your beliefs.
Come on, I thought this was supposed to be a serious philosophy forum, have I missed something.
"Of course men can't control themselves".
No one's said anything of the sort, the argument is that the behaviour men are being asked to control themselves too has been inadequately defined and potentially oversteps the mark by removing nonverbal communication systems from human interaction.
"Women secretly like it"
No one has said this either, part of the problem with this debate is that it seems to think that 'women' could possibly like or dislike a thing as a whole. There are 3.5 billion women on the planet ranging from nuns to pole dancers, the idea that 'women' want anything as a group is insulating.
Some women may well find all sorts of behaviour attractive. I challenge you to find some universal preference.
"Consent is pseudo-ethical".
Once more, no one has said this, I said that the video was pseudo-ethical on the grounds that it did not address the complexities of nonverbal communication, or the limits of physical contact, something I note still had not been addressed. Simple question, do men have to ask before shaking a woman's hand in greeting, if not, why not?
"It's all subjective tho lol".
Of course it's all subjective, think of the alternative, that there's some externally ordained behaviour we are all obliged to stick to. Who decides on this and with what authority? (another question no one has yet had the intellectual honesty to attempt an answer to)
Repeating the accussation of virtue signalling just means this conversation is over. I don't accept it and you're crossing a line.
I haven't just repeated the accusation, I explained it, and I don't consider virtue signalling to be a wholly bad thing so my intention is not to insult you (which is more than can be said for your intimation that I'm a passive aggressive misfit with some kind of fixation).
Where I do consider virtue signalling inappropriate is on a philosophy forum. We're meant to discuss the philosophical content of issues are we not? Just repeating over and again that men know how to behave and so should do so is not addressing the issue. How do you know men know how to behave? How have you arrived at the set of bahaviours you consider appropriate? How have you justified imposing that set of behaviours on other people? Those are the interesting philosophical questions.
I'm quite prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you have some interesting answers to these, but you haven't stated any of them, hence the virtue signalling. Again, with the best will in the world you haven't exactly done anything to dissuade me from this conclusion by storming off the moment I actually ask you to deal with the complexities of psychological research and cite something in support of your argument.
Edit: I think I accidentally deleted my post (was trying to edit it), or it might have been deleted by someone else. Either way.
I don't think it's appropriate to claim this (or explain it) when it's clear from my post I have tried to elucidate why time and again. To dismiss what I've written as mere virtue signalling to me is an indication you didn't read my posts or are being uncharitable. As to the "pseudo fixation", I'm not sure why that's interpreted as an insult as it was a quip due to the fact you used "pseudo" rather often. The stuff you pulled from those studies did read as a passive aggressive nice guy excuse but at no point did I say you were one and think you simply took that reply as personal. In fact, I disclosed I was one of those nice guys in the past. Perspectives change. I'm happy to apologise for whatever offence you took from it and I'll dial back the misfiring joking.
More generally, I don't accept that studies have established women fall for bastards (if anything, some male traits might but the trait does not have to correlate with sexual harrassment or abuse). And to the extent sociobiology and evolution play a role in sexual behaviour, they need to be relegated to the back when current actions by women quite clearly communicate that certain sexual behaviour is no longer accepted. Explanations are not justifications and therefore have no place in this ethical discussion.
Quoting Pseudonym
In light of recent reporting, I don't understand why this is a serious question to you. Open a newspaper, watch a little video on consent for kids and you'll get the general idea. Are there grey areas? Of course. I have arabic friends. One girl slided a bit more into Islam at some point and didn't want to shake hands or kiss any more. So that was a gray area the first time she decided she didn't want to do that any more for about 1 second when I leaned in and she said: "I'm sorry, I've decided I'm not going to kiss men on the cheek any more unless I'm in a relationship with them". What I then do is respect her decision. Simple.
Quoting Pseudonym
Through empathy. I imagine whether I'm ever confronted with the type of unwanted behaviour women are complaining about. I conclude it doesn't happen, so there's an inequality there. Then I take at face value it is unwanted because they say so. From there I develop a reasonable idea of what I consider appropriate.
Quoting Pseudonym
Do we agree women should not acquiesce to sexual behaviour they consider unwanted? Social norms have made it difficult for women to communicate or report unwanted sexual behaviour and they should be free to do so; e.g. it needs to be taken seriously and without fear of reprisal.
EDIT: so the justification follows from agreeing to that first question.
Yes real life concrete human being Weinstein was evil, yes real life concrete human being Louie acted unconscionably, yes real life concrete human being Nassar was a child predator, but this metoo stuff is just so ambigious!
A quick note to say that this is a misleading cliché. Psychological studies and ordinary experience suggest rather that many women are attracted to men with qualities that "bastards" often happen to have, but which many non-bastards also have: confidence, independence, a lack of neediness, emotional unavailability, and so on.
Likewise if you think my reading of your posts had been uncharitable with regards to the exposition of your argument then I apologise. Like I said, I don't think virtue signalling is a bad thing so perhaps did not consider enough the need to give a wide margin of error to my not identifying any supporting arguments in your posts.
Quoting Benkei
We seem to be falling, nonetheless into the same pattern. The studies do show that a certain group of women when perusing a particular partner-finding strategy fall for 'bastards', they also show that men disproportionately focus their partner-finding efforts on these women despite their being a minority. You might be able to explain these findings some other way than the psychologists who published them but I really don't see how just saying you don't 'accept' them is helpful here. Do you have some reason you don't accept them? Do you have some alternative interpretation of the data? Do you think the psychologists have just made it all up? Have I completely misunderstood the conclusions?
Quoting Benkei
I'm fully prepared to take responsibility for this if I've not been clear enough but this is my entire point and no more. The 'grey areas' as you put it are exactly what I've been talking about all this time. It's just that I think they are vitally important and disagree that solving them is as easy as you make out.
Nonverbal communication is a vital part of human interaction and in the past this has included physical contact. It comes naturally to me, and many others, to put a hand on the shoulder or back of someone who is upset. I realise this might offend some people, but I'm offended by excessive swearing, others are offended by religious defamation, others by revealing clothing, why have we singled out the discomfort people might feel from physical contact and sexual language as something which requires prior consent when other ways of making people uncomfortable are not similarly addressed?
Quoting Benkei
Firstly, empathy is a process whereby you imagine you are the other person and speculate on how they may feel. It's an entirely subjective process. How do you know that the people accused of inappropriate sexual advances haven't carried out exactly the same empathy calculation but just got a different result? You're presuming that whatever you would like, must be whatever the other person in the exchange would like. This is not only flawed in that your assessment might be faulty, but in that the other person is probably different from you and has different wants.
Secondly, you're begging the question by assuming that it is a given fact that all women are happy with having to 'say so'. What about any women who like the spontaneity, who maybe want to reserve their own right to make advances on a man and recognise that this requires an equal level of tolerance on their part. Some of the backlash against metoo from people like Catherine Deneuve has clearly shown that such women at least exist, are we to take a single viral campaign on Twitter as evidence for some kind of worldwide democratic vote on the subject?
Quoting Benkei
Again this is a complete misrepresentation of the argument against metoo, no-one is suggesting that women should 'acquiesce' to men's sexual advances, what the critics of the movement are concerned about is a climate in which men cannot even make the advances in the first place.
Quoting Benkei
This goes back to the point that@JustSomeGuy made. No-one has prevented these women from speaking out. When women wanted the vote, they chained themselves to the railings, there were riots against segregation when people didn't want that any more. We're talking here about women not wanting to lose their job, often a very highly paid one in the case of the Hollywood scandals. Most of what Harvey Weinstein did was actually illegal, not reporting a criminal offence is itself a criminal offence and for good reason. If anyone (man or woman) has let someone get away with a series of sexual assaults potentially even including rape, just because they didn't want to lose their job then I'm afraid I have little sympathy for that particular plight (the reluctance to report, not the assault).
As others have said before, it is deeply offensive to women to see them as these meek ineffective wimps who can't even speak out against some overweight executive who's just groped them for fear of what exactly, reprisals? What reprisals are we talking about? So they might get the sack, well that would be unfair dismissal and they could take the issue up with their union. Much progress has been made this way with child care rights at work, for example.
Essentially, it boils down to the fact that there is a movement out there which is encouraging women to speak out about behaviour that they personally found uncomfortable, some of it is serious sexual assault and some of it is not. The implications of this which I take issue are;
1. A single social media campaign over the course of less than a year can be taken to represent the permanent and universal views of all (or even the majority) of womanhood across the globe.
2. Physical communication by contact and sexual advances are a special sort of behaviour for which you require the other persons consent before engaging in, lest you make them uncomfortable. All other forms of interaction that might make people uncomfortable remain unaffected.
3. Men who engage in physical contact or sexual advances that turn out to be unwanted (other than criminal behaviour) are doing so entirely out of their own perverted desire to dominate and have been influenced in no way whatsoever by the historical responses of any women to this type of behaviour.
Exactly, so men looking to attract a particular type of woman are going to attempt to display confidence (including sexual confidence) in order to make themselves seem attractive. The point wasn't to say that these qualities were the sole preserve of 'bastards' but that in some cases they are seen as attractive traits by some women and men tend to disproportionately seek out these type of women for short term relationships despite them being in a minority. Thus it is a misrepresentation to say that men have developed this sexually confident approach just to show dominance despite that fact that all women hate it. That's the point I was trying to make. The cliché was maybe a little hurried, but I did elaborate in my next post.
Which most men or women do not have an issue with. It becomes an issue when that man "looking to attract a particular type of woman" lays his hands on my body without permission, nonverbal or verbal. The difference between the two is non-verbal MY hand moving yours on MY body and verbal permission such as asking for a kiss.
I like a confident man, I like a strong friendly hug and I have friends who are not my husband that put their arm around me in restaurant or on the boat but they are friends, friends for decades not someone I just met. By nature I am a "huggy" person and when working in the medical field, I was always open to hugging my patients, did it then and would do it now, even if the employee manual required me to get permission from the patient first. See because if someone really wants to touch you? They will laugh at the permission slip they would have to sign and think back to permission slips for field trips back in grammar school, that their PARENTS had to sign, as they signed it themselves.
There is a question asking "Is it better to ask for permission first or ask for forgiveness later?"
I would say society has made it clear to do the former rather than the latter.
But permission for what? All forms of physical contact, anything which could possibly be construed as a sexual advance? That's the question that no-one seems to want to answer. I can't think anyone other than a sociopath would deliberately want to make someone else really uncomfortable, and I can guarantee you that sociopaths are not going to be following the MeToo debate and seriously considering changing their behaviour as a result, they're going to completely ignore it as they have completely ignored social convention in all other fields. Someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening, So to whom are we addressing these concerns? The people who are listening are ordinary men who have, at least, a moderate amount of concern for the welfare of their fellow humans, and much of what has been said has thrown them into a moral quagmire.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
So how did you get hold of my hand without asking me first? Are hands excepted from this no touching rule? If so, why not backs, knees and arms (all of which have been cited by highly publicised MeToo accusations). If you have a reason for allowing hands but dismissing backs, knees and arms, how are you arriving at that reason and justifying it's imposition on all other humans on pain of public humiliation?
In Victorian times it was common practice to ban a man from even talking to a woman without a chaperone, among the Na people there are no marriages and sex is freely given and taken between all members of the tribe, yet even mentioning sex in front of one's family is considered extremely offensive. The Guajiro people have a ceremonial dance where if a woman trips a man during the dance, they must have sex. The anthropologist John Cowan Messenger reported that people on the Irish Island of Inis Beag do not even allow married couple to see each other naked but rather have sex as fully clothed as possible, for a woman to initiate sex there is considered the height of indecency. Just the exposure of any female flesh is considered immodest in some Muslim cultures. How on earth can we presume to decide what behaviour is acceptable in the face of such massive diversity?
If a man took his shirt off in public in Inis Beag, that would be seen as an unwanted sexual advance, in our culture would be largely irrelevant but perhaps close proximity to another person in that condition would be too much, among the Na or the Guajiro, it would be actually expected of them to do that and much more.
I have no problem with us , as a culture, having a discussion about what we find to be acceptable, and trying to find solutions which minimise the harm done to people who feel uncomfortable whilst still allowing those who do not the freedom to express themselves. The problem with MeToo is that this is not a conversation. It is a particular group, largely of one gender, at one particular moment in time suggesting that some behaviours not only are universally unwanted, but always have been and men should have known better.
I beg to differ with you in that someone like Harvey Weinstein is not listening because as of yesterday, Harvey Weinstein who is seeking "help" up the road from our ranch got slapped across the face by a fellow male customer at the establishment so the non verbal communication is blunt and clear.
Whose concerns are we addressing? Well mine as a female if I get to express it. I thought as a grown woman with a family that I would be able to fend off an unwanted sexual advances yet in the life of this thread alone, I have encountered another situation where I felt pressured. I am not a weak woman and yet I found myself feeling vulnerable to what was happening. It wasn't until I was able to talk here that I was reminded that there is a time for grace and a time to not be graceful and yes sometimes it takes reflection to figure out how to handle it in the future.
Quoting Pseudonym
How did my hands get ahold of yours without asking you first?
Gosh, I wish I could say that I have encountered that but I haven't. I have always been the one sliding the hands of males back to neutral zones such as the shoulder, the cheek, the hips, the waist or the knee. I can only think of one guy that asked if he could hold my hand and I was swept off my feet but it was also in the 8th grade on a field trip.
Quoting Pseudonym
There is a spectrum and not all of them are Harvey Weinstein's but he is an extreme which is what most movements start with, an extreme. I don't think that it is fair to treat all the 'trespasses' the same but understand that many people that have experienced sexual harassment/ sexual abuse haven't really worked through what they have been hiding in not speaking up sooner about such trespasses.
Hopefully we can learn together, that way men know the boundaries and women know how to speak up to make it clear and give consent.
I realize as I read what I have written how backward this all seems to be moving but in the era of PC, it is about the best we can do.
I'm sorry, I can't really understand the argument in your response.
I get that you think creeps like Weinstein are listening, we'll have to just agree to differ on that front. Personally, I see him getting out of therapy and trying exactly the same thing but now getting even more of a kick out of it because this time doing what he does has become even more of a social taboo, even more thrill to be had from breaking it.
What I don't understand is what your response to the rest of my post means. You seem firstly to be suggesting that the really crucial question of what physical contact should require consent simply doesn't matter because you personally have never had to deal with it. That seems a strangely short-sighted attitude, I'm sure that's not what you mean but I can't figure out what you're saying here.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I could not agree more with this sentiment, I'd go further to say that this should be a constant process, people change, new generations have new attitudes and they don't always fit with the attitudes of previous generations, but we all have to get along anyway. What I don't see is how you think MeToo is helping this learning process. It seems incredibly one-way, and the vast majority of the sentiment is that men should have known this all along, not that we're learning together what the boundaries are for this particular generation in this particular culture.
You avoided the actual question. Your initial statement implied that men need consent to touch you, but you do not need consent to touch them. That inconsistency is at the heart of this whole issue. Had the hypocrisy of that sentiment even occurred to you before it was pointed out? It seems obvious to me that there aren't clear guidelines being proposed by anybody in this MeToo group. All that is being said is that unwanted physical contact from a man to a woman is wrong. Not only is this hypocritical, as has just been made clear, but "unwanted physical contact" hasn't even been clearly defined, and every woman I have heard speak about this seems to have a different idea about what constitutes it.
If the only claim being made is "rape is wrong", then it seems to me you aren't actually saying anything at all. We all know rape is wrong, and those who don't aren't going to suddenly see the light now. It really appears as if the MeToo movement is simply saying:
"There's a problem. Now somebody else fix it."
This is neither my experience of life nor my understanding of things I have read over the years. The shift from talking about 'men as a whole' to 'men as a class' is to say that systems of power aren't always a deliberate rational structure. It is difficult to move from poor to rich when your ability is equal, for instance, not merely because of a tangible system, but because there are multiple obstacles in your way - education, networks, purported 'manners', wider knowledge of the world. When I left a poor home to go to a posh university, many years ago, it was a fearful social experience that wounded me for life, even though it also liberated me into learning and the fellowship of other smart people.
All manner of people in power operate in complex fashions. Bullies in both childhood and adulthood operate through gangs and punish people who inform on them. Abusers create a world where the abused often feel responsible for what has happened to them. The unwilling are manipulated by the cunning. Repetition and exemplary punishment frighten others into silence. And the rational claim equality exists when incomes remain unequal, and labour remains unequal, and there is still a backlog of problems to be remedied: the incidence of domestic violence, for example.
None of this is a totalising system. The bullied, the abused, feminists, the racially-harassed break through, and norms shift. Lots of people - like me - move among egalitarian groups and learn different mores. Good women and good men get together and there's no hassle.
I can only tell you, as far as the sexual arena is concerned, I've lived 69 years now, and many women I've known have told me how deeply things like this have affected them. For others, it's been a pinprick they've brushed off. I'd be amazed if anyone doesn't know instances of male misbehaviour towards women that the men got away with.
Edit - I don't want to be unfair to mcdoodle, his posts have also been of reasonable quality here.
These are all part of the tangible system, though. These things help you gain wealth, but in order to utilize these things you need to already have wealth.
This isn't comparable to the issue at hand.
Quoting mcdoodle
The "gender wage gap" is one of the most intellectually dishonest concepts today, and yet people continue to perpetuate the lie. There are laws that prohibit pay discrimination based on gender. The true reasons for the average difference between male and female income have been analyzed by many, and are readily available online. You cannot have looked into the issue in any significant way if you believe there is gender discrimination in salary.
As for the other "inequality" problems you cite, males have their fair share of problems they deal with in society, as well. That's not to say we cannot talk about only one or the other at a time, but it has very clearly become the common sentiment that women are worse off than men, and it is men's fault.
Quoting mcdoodle
I, myself, before I was 25 years old, had been a victim of female misbehavior at least a couple dozen times. On multiple occasions I had my genitals rubbed or grabbed through my pants, my butt slapped or squeezed, my chest and legs rubbed inappropriately, and had been forcefully kissed on the mouth while trying to resist. I understand what it feels like to experience unwanted and forceful sexual assault. I do not blame females as a class for allowing this to happen, I blame the individual females who committed the acts. Much more importantly, I do not equate these experiences with actual rape.
The biggest issue I have with this movement is that it lumps together men who touched a female's leg or back, or men who allegedly masturbated while on the phone with a woman, with actual rapists. This is absolutely insane, and a terrible insult to true rape victims.
So, to summarize:
Females are not worse off than men in society, and this movement completely ignores all of the things men deal with.
Women do not have more problems; they have different problems, but there is still plenty of overlap.
Men experience sexual assault all the time, as well.
Equating sexual assault with actual rape is detrimental to this entire discussion.
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose it stoped after 25? You moved to a better neighborhood? Started working out?
I've been intentionally callous, but then, there's so little here worth taking seriously. Pseudonym reels off so many words, all the better to not talk about the me2 movement at all. The essential complaint being that the conversation occuring is not the one he'd like to have. How irrelevant.
And to criticize a movement built off of calling out actual, concrete instances of harassment involving named individuals as being too ambiguous? Snake oil undeserving of anything but contempt.
I stopped going to bars, which was where most of it took place, and just generally have become less social. Things happened a few times when I was a younger teenager, and a couple other times in my 20s with girls or women I knew through other people and we were hanging out somewhere in a group. But for the most part it was in college, at bars, and the women were strangers. Sometimes they were my age, sometimes older. Obviously most of them were likely drinking, but that shouldn't matter because it doesn't matter when it comes to men doing inappropriate things.
None of the assaults were pleasant, but I honestly feel strange even calling them assaults. It's too strong a word, I think, but that's how interactions of this nature have come to be described. Most of them just irritated me, though a few shook me up worse and took a while to fully get over. I understand what it feels like for women to experience this, and I absolutely understand that it generally happens more often to women than men. It's not a pleasant thing, sometimes it can be a bit traumatizing, and depending on your mental health it could potentially have a more serious effect psychologically. But all that being said, people who are victims of such interactions should not be put into the same group as rape victims. That's really the point I've been trying to make with all this.
The worst story I can remember my wife telling was of a guy running her to the side of the road with his car while she was riding a bike and then masturbating in front of her. Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about.
That's two criminal offenses in one incident. Did she get his license plate and report him?
Quoting praxis
I did have a guy at a park who was staring me down when I went into bathroom, enter it and come to my stall. But at least he backed off when he saw I was taking a dump. I do get that uncomfortable feeling from gay guys at parks staring me down that women might feel on a regular basis. Only rarely, but I do get this feeling they strongly want action and they're trying to assess my interest.
I don't like it because I'm a total stranger, but maybe I'd feel different if it was an attractive female? Of course I'm not innocent in this matter either. I'm just not attracted to guys, particularly at parks. It's not harassment, but it does help empathize with what women might go through, for a brief moment.
Of course some women fall for bastards. I don't know why they do, but some women gravitate towards abusive men, and when they find an abuser, it is difficult to pry them loose. Sometimes. Childhood abuse sometimes accounts for this tendency, but not always.
I have no problem with women calling out the bastards, the crude abusers, the beaters, and so forth. It is proper that these men should be identified as assaulters. This is not the kind of behavior that is difficult to understand
I'm as gay as June 21st is long, so I have no expertise in relating sexually to women, or even romantically. But...
Is it not the case that men are usually expected by women to be the initiator of romantic activity, of sexual activity, and so on? Women can and do also initiate amorous, romantic sexual activity, but it seems like men are expected to prosecute the case, so to speak. Clearly, the beginning of an assault could be similar to the beginning of an exceedingly pleasant interlude.
If sex is about power (it is only to some extent, frequently not very much) then there are power games women can play as well. There also seems to be a long tradition of women taking the task of controlling male sexuality to suit the needs and wants of women and child rearing.
[Straight men don't behave (sexually) like gay men because straight women don't let them, I have heard. Gay men amongst themselves tend to put up few barriers to sex with each other.]
I can see women (or men) in a relationship (or marriage) fending off advances from an interloper in order to avoid conflict. But the same fending off of advances seems to occur just as often when there is no relationship to defend. It appears to be a power game, I hear references to women repelling advances from someone in an ordinary social situation, but it seems like there is a certain amount of 'gate keeping' about it. "I'm free of any commitments, but male approaches have to be metered so I stay in control."
So that hand on the knee is ok, moving 2 inches up the thigh is ok, but 3 inches exceeds the allowable loss of control.
It isn't assault and battery that is disruptive about #me2, it's the power game playing that is confusing and annoying, and the power game is one women do and can play along with men. Women aren't defenseless, powerless, ineffectual agents; they never have been, and they aren't now.
It isn't aggression; the intense stare is invitational. It's a silent signal of interest; staring back is likely to be taken as confirmation of interest. for a full discussion of signaling in park restrooms, see Laud Humphrey's Tearoom Trade, 1971, Aldine-Atherton, publisher.
Quoting Marchesk
Tastes vary, but what's not to like about sex in a park? (Maybe not in the shithole, unless it's really well maintained. But if it's that well maintained, it's probably never unattended. It might as well be locked.)
But such routines are so damned complicated! I just don't get it. Rococo perversity.
This is exactly correct. I've never been an assertive person, and I've never been great at reading body language. Because of this, every sexual encounter I've had with a woman was initiated much later than it could have been, because I always had a hard time gauging if she was actually receptive to it. I know this because they would always tell me that they had been waiting so long for me "make a move" or say something to the effect of "it's about damn time!" My response to this, both internal and sometimes verbal, was "why didn't you just make the first move, then?" The ones I did actually say this to responded with "it's sexier when a man makes the first move" or something to that effect. Personally I find that to be irritating as hell and a complete load of shit, even more so now that this MeToo movement has taken off. It seems this is just another case of women wanting to have things both ways, without actually thinking about the implications or the reality of the things they want.
I love women, I absolutely respect women, and I consider myself a true feminist in the sense I that I believe in equality between genders. Sexism is stupid and ignorant, but that doesn't mean there aren't general differences between sexes. One difference I have personally observed to be true is that women are more irrational, and there is a biological basis for this involving hormones. This isn't to put women down or anything like that, men have their fair share of problems, as well. But you cannot expect to have men make the first move to initiate sexual encounters, with the requirement that it's only the men you want to have sexual encounters with. People don't know what you want until you make it explicit. Men cannot read minds, and body language is not even close to sufficient since it can be so easily misinterpreted.
Personally, I'm all for changing the dynamic so that women are expected to initiate or make the first move. They would soon see how stressful and uncertain a game that truly is, how difficult it is to read people, and how often you can get shot down or downright humiliated. But that's not what women seem to want. They want to, as they say, "have their cake and eat it too."
This is more than a little akward. You don't have to read minds. You can always talk to your prospective sexual partner. If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
*Doubt about creepiness intensifies*
Quoting JustSomeGuy
*Doubt about creepiness settles into sad, resignated certainty*
It happened years ago and I don't know if she reported it. I'd ask but she's out. If I recall, she told the story in the general context of it being an example of what women have to deal with. She had other stories but that was the worst.
I was at a nude beach with a woman once and we noticed, to our astonishment, a guy walking down the shoreline towards us nude and masturbating. Either he got a thrill out of doing that or it was some sort of invitation. Fortunately, he didn't get too close before turning around. Though technically illegal, he could have been fined and put on a sex offender list, to my mind this falls under 'the right to bother', as referred to in the Deneuve letter on page 7 of this topic. The former example with the guy in the car, that's force and assault, even though he didn't touch her.
Are you a woman? I cannot see a man saying something like this because it's just plain inaccurate. It shows a complete lack of experience in regards to interacting with potential romantic or sexual female partners. In other words: that's just not how things work.
Quoting Akanthinos
So the paragraph you quoted made you doubt my creepiness? I have a feeling that's not what you meant to say.
Quoting Akanthinos
A few things:
1. I don't think you know what "creepy" means. It does not mean "people who disagree with me."
2. Personal attacks against one's character are not a substitute for an argument. In fact, you are committing one of the most basic logical fallacies.
3. If you have any actual counterpoints to anything I said, feel free to share them, though I can't guarantee anything you say from now on will be taken seriously after your initial response.
Also, I'd like to add that this statement seems to ignore everything I actually said. I explained that I have always waited far longer than necessary to attempt to initiate sexual/romantic encounters in order to be absolutely certain that this is what the women wanted. How exactly is that "creepy"? It seems exactly the opposite, to me.
You really seem to have read into my statements only what you wanted to read, having decided prematurely that I am a "creep" simply because you disagree with me on certain points.
Vague concept. Can you clarify.
I'll also share some evidence for my claim that women are, in general, more irrational than men due to certain biological processes and hormones.
Here
I suggest reading the article, as well as the comments below. You will see a number of women attest to this by sharing their personal experiences.
I understand that the modern social environment disparages anybody who says anything that could be interpreted as being the least bit negative about women (and other groups), but the social environment does not change the facts, biology, or science.
And as I said, men have their fair share of unique problems, as well. Many of which are also due to various hormones and biological processes. Tendency towards violence is an obvious one.
This is chuckle-worthy. You only display your own inadequacies. This is how things have not worked for you in the past. It has pretty much only ever worked for me. Engaging women you are interested in verbally and leading to your attraction for them as a subject shows confidence and extroversion.
More attack on my character. Not surprising, at this point.
Quoting Akanthinos
So you're saying you tell women "I am attracted to you" and then ask women if you can touch their leg or their hand? You ask women if you can kiss them?
How romantic.
I'd also like to point out that you are displaying another negative characteristic that is generally more prominent in men. I'll call it "macho-ness", for lack of a better term. You are implying, with everything you have said to me so far, that you are "more of a man" than I am; that I am "inadequate" in comparison to you. And you're doing this to a complete stranger. Talk about chuckle-worthy.
I have a French accent. I could ask someone to pluck a chicken and it would still be more naturally romantic than all the artifice you can summon.
Well, that's how you are perceiving our interaction. You say women expect men to do the first move, and that they also expect this first move to be physical, and that these incompatible expectations are at the source of the negative dynamics between the sexes. You then lay an icing of "women are emotional and not rational" with the cherry of "women don't have more problems than man".
We are all free to form our own perceptions from this interaction, but you'll have a hard time passing as anything else than a frustrated MRA-type with this type of setup. And, relatively, I'll have a hard time passing as anything else than a macho.
You don't ask a woman if you can kiss her. You ask her if she wants to kiss you. Or tell her that she can, if she wants.
Despite this joke being at my expense, it still made me laugh. And you're not wrong.
Quoting Akanthinos
No, that's what you have been clearly implying by the things you've said.
Quoting Akanthinos
That's not at all what I claimed. What I said was that women cannot want men to make the first move spontaneously,while simultaneously wanting them to ask consent first.
Quoting Akanthinos
I did not say "women are emotional and not rational," I said that women are biologically predisposed to more frequent irrationality. This is a scientific fact; political correctness doesn't negate science.
I did say that women don't have more problems than men, they have different problems, though obviously with some overlap.
I'm curious, do you live in the U.S.? And if so, for hour long have you resided here? If not, then much of or disagreement is likely due to cultural differences. France has a very different culture than the U.S., and especially when it comes to sexuality they seem to be much more advanced than we are here.
Quoting Akanthinos
I don't know what MRA stands for, and Google returns results for medical scans.
That doesn't sound any less un-romantic. Maybe the culture is just different where I grew up, but I have it on good authority from multiple women I've had relationships with that women do not want you to ask, they want you to act.
Quoting Akanthinos
You both are wrong.
I am unsure whether you are aware of this, but all women are different and the only problem here is you both - as men - trying to rationale hasty generalisations of approaching and eventually soliciting sexual intercourse or intimacy. The problem of the OP is this solicitation, this subjective intent. Would you like it if you were approached only because of the value you have as an object to the person approaching you? That my history, my thoughts and opinions, my skills in the workplace and talent are all irrelevant as long as I have a vagina?
Perhaps you should change your attitude and have a discussion about how to solicit friendship. That may alleviate your problem.
Women generally don't want weak partners. They aren't really different from men in that regard, a lot of us would also very much dislike overly meek partners. Asking for permission can be seen as submissive, especially when it is done over and over again. It can also be seen as authoritative, as a statement of fact and a subtle, implied occasion for the other to desist. My experience is that it is well received when it is well led up to. Like Micheal said, don't ask her "can I kiss you now", tell her, "I will kiss you now, yes?". Don't say "Can we sleep together/" (lol), say, "I want to take you".
Quoting JustSomeGuy
No. Canada, Montreal.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
Possibly. Definitely doesn't make me want to go flirt in the US, tho, that's for sure.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
That's a trope, and a very false one at that. In many regards France gender norms are still much closer to that portrayed in Mad Men than anything else.
Given this unsollicitated answer, I assume I could ask you the same.
Quoting TimeLine
And you say:
Quoting Akanthinos
I think I am justified to question whether you understood what hasty generalisations are.
Hadn't seen your answer yet, and I wasn't replying to you anyhow... so... Care to dial down the aggressivity? :s
In any case, do you really find so insulting "women generally don't want weak undecisive partners, just like man"? As far as hasty generalisation goes, I feel it's a fairly well balanced one.
You make a very good point. I'll admit, looking over my previous posts, I've been unfair with the way I've been speaking about these things. I should have made it more clear that I'm only speaking of my own personal experience, I didn't mean for any of this to sound as though I'm claiming all women are the same or want the same things. My intention has actually been to show that women are not all the same by sharing these experiences and things that women I've known personally have told me. But it's nobody's fault but mine for not making my point more explicit and choosing my words more carefully.
That being said, your point seems to apply to the MeToo movement itself, or at the very least many of it's "members". The articles I've read on it have also been claiming that all women want the same thing, which is for men to ask consent before making any sexual advances.
Quoting TimeLine
For the record, every woman I've had a romantic relationship with began as friendship, and the vast majority of my closest friends throughout my life have been women.
Quoting TimeLine
So you're saying that this is what MeToo is truly about? Because I was under the impression it was about unwanted sexual advances from men in general, not sexist discrimination in the workplace. I don't use Twitter, though. Everything I know about this is from third party sources.
I love it. 'I guess you can kiss me now if you feel you must.'
I think it actually went:
Me: Are you fun?
Her: Yes
Me: Adventurous?
Her: Yes
Me: Show me
Her: How?
Me: Kiss me
In my experience it's more about women, and men, not wanting their other partner to be more powerful than they are. So, the concern ought to be about equity, not equality.
Good stuff. I miss the flirting stage. Best game in the world, perhaps. At least I can watch La La Land with the Mrs.
Well that's just unrealistic when at a nightclub.
You need to come to Montreal. :D
The article reminds me of a joke:
Why do they call it "pre-menstrual syndrome"?
Because "mad cow" was already taken.
I'm not sure that the menstrual cycle makes women more irrational; it might, don't know. I think that at least many women in the world are socialized to be less rational, more irrational, or something similar.
It seems like women in other countries are much more rational/mature than Anglo-American-Australian women. But that's not based on first hand knowledge. Rational men are all alike; irrational women are all different in their craziness, as Tolstoy said.
The one thing that I do know all women like and that is respect. Not such a difficult thing to grasp. Hasty generalisations are insufficient, irrational and fallacious. Pretty simple.
I would definitely agree with that.
Quoting Michael
Absolutely cringe-worthy.
If it has worked for you, more power to you, but this is like one of those horrible pickup lines you'd hear in some YouTube video on how to attract women, hosted by some greasy douche.
Maybe where I differ most is that I have never had any desire to engage with women who would fall for dumb pickup lines like that. I've always just been genuine, actually gotten to know her, had a conversation; treated her like a person first and foremost. I know there are many girls who respond to and even enjoy when guys use pickup lines such as that, but as I said, those generally aren't the kind of girls I would want to get to know anyway.
It isn't a pickup line. It's a flirty conversation.
"Those" kind of girls? I think it telling that you seem to think less of women who respond well to this kind of talk.
By your own standard, this very statement is a hasty generalisation. Still, I guess you won't be willing to see my point, so I'll leave you to your indignation.
Keep telling yourself that.
Quoting Michael
I never said I think less of them, you're reading into my words things that aren't there. I said that girls who respond favorably to dumb pickup lines are not the kind of girls I am interested in. Is it wrong for me to have preferences in my romantic partners?
The point is you are using a myth of generalisation to relate to a context of an individual women.
If a woman is attracted to decisiveness, then it is her own. It isn't some sort or rule by which to obtain sex. In thinking about women in this way, you disrespect all of them.
Instead of understanding any instance of attraction in terms of the individual person involved, you relate to in terms of a generalisation which supposedly reflects a own you might come across. You've failed to understand and recognise someone else, with their own thoughts and desires is involved.
Not wrong to have preferences, but you are using interest in pick-up lines as a measure of social standing, competence and slut-shaming-- i.e. those women who would be interested in pick-up lines are dumb and shallow.
Actually, you are probably the only person here I have some respect for and I appreciate your clarity around your personal experience - which you have clearly stated previously upon perusal - but it serves as a warning for those who are incapable of articulating the difference between isolated experiences and "women" in general and would respond accordingly.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
I don't know if the members here are generally moronic, but it is quite clear when a woman does not want to engage in sexual activity and so attempting to articulate what this consent would look like is a failure of any form of philosophical reasoning. The problem here is the intent that men may have to try and solicit sexual intercourse and to do this with little or no respect to the personhood of the woman in question. The problem is the intent here in men that enables bad men to behave badly by viewing women as merely an object for sexual gratification. This then means that in the workplace, their skills, their qualifications, their history of employment is all irrelevant. Who they are, what they like, the things that they do are irrelevant. They are just a sexual object and when a man has that in mind, the person does not exist. At university, same thing. Even in the home or even entrenched in cultures.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
(Y)
What is your point, Michael? What are you attempting to convey?
My point isn't to use pick-up lines. I have never seen them work, and wouldn't really want a girl on who they would work.
My point is to place the blame squarely where it is deserved. You are responsible for engaging women in a manner that doesn't portray you as a creep. Engaging in polite conversation, having clear goals and mostly being good-humoured is, imho, the best policy.
Respect? You need to learn more before engaging in discussions with people.
The conversation went like this:
Quoting JustSomeGuy
Quoting Michael
Quoting dog
Quoting Michael
My first comment was explaining to JustSomeGuy that waiting for consent to kiss someone doesn't have to take the form of the possibly unromantic (and 'submissive') "may kiss you?"
My second comment was letting dog know specifically how I used to do it as he seemed interested.
So what I'm trying to convey is that it's a false dichotomy to argue that if we don't just act on our interest (and risk possible harassment) then we're somehow failing to be romantic or failing to be the sort of man that women want (as JustSomeGuy keeps claiming).
The idea that waiting for consent conflicts with proper dating etiquette is absurd, but it seems to be the sort of idea that so many are pushing.
Wow, and I thought Michael was reading too much into it. Do you not realize how huge of a leap it is to assert those things based on what I actually said? Nothing about what I said implied any of that bullshit you just attributed to me.
In my experience, if women are receptive to dumb pickup lines, it says something about their personality that I believe would likely mean we were incompatible. Again, this is based on my experience. If I find something completely stupid, and she finds it endearing, I feel like we wouldn't be off to a very good start. Say what you want about my reasoning in that regard, but you do me a huge disservice to put such strong words in my mouth which were never there.
This is the type of behaviour and aggressivity that is tolerated in a Mod here?
It's not about asking for consent. It's about respecting women and whether they consent. Rather than about what a man might say, it is about whether a woman wants to be involved in some sort of sexual act or context.
The act of asking for consent is only an action taken in some circumstances to aid communication. In quite a number of instances, the act of asking for consent would actually constitute sexual harassment-- e.g. walking up to a stranger in the street and asking: "Do you consent have sex with me?"
This is the great irony of those who complain about "consent contracts" making counting stuffy and uncool. No amount of prior verbal or written agreement amounts to consent. It's about whether someone wants to have sex, a question of not of a stated agreement, but rather of someone's thoughts, feelings and wishes. Consent isn't about whether a man has asked. It's about if a woman wants to. (of course, this is true of everyone, but I'll keep the gendered aspect consider the context of this discussion).
I understand now, and completely agree with your point. I do still think this is being clumsily handled by the MeToo movement, and a big part of that is likely the media's fault, but I absolutely understand that these issues are real and serious and much more widespread than many people have thought, up until recently. I was thinking the other day about how this recent sort of resurgence in women's rights activism and awareness began, and from what I can tell it really took off as a result of Trump running for president. It's ironic, and somewhat sad, that it took a sexist pig running for office to make our society acknowledge all of the problems women still face with regard to sexism and sexuality in general. It can also be seen as inspiring, though, that in the face of this adversity we're experiencing with him leading our country, people have decided to use it in a very positive way to bring up these issues and have these discussions. I should probably stop before this starts to come off as virtue-signaling, though. Point just being, despite my nitpicks with how some of these things are being handled, I do think we're heading in a good direction by airing out all of this "dirty laundry".
Precisely, and I think the most important part of this movement is how it serves young women -particularly from cultures or environments that are very paternalistic and where gender violence and discrimination is at epidemic levels - by giving them a sense of solidarity and empowerment. In addition to this, it also acknowledges the problematic views that men have in general about women, about them being biologically irrational for instance.
Now that I absolutely agree with, and I'm sure you'll agree that a key aspect of this is that a woman wants to at that moment. I cannot believe the number of men I have heard complain that a woman was about to have sex with him and then changed her mind before they began, or even in the middle of it. Obviously these things can be frustrating, I have experienced it myself, but for so many men to disparage or place blame on the woman, to act as though they are "owed" sex from her for whatever reason...it's just so ignorant and ridiculous, and it's another one of these bad attitudes that need to change.
It's all implied by the way you are using "the sort of woman" in question as some sort of rule which defines what an individual woman thinks. You are objectifying such women as necessarily shallow and stupid on account of being attracted to someone who used a pick-up line. It's a status judgment which has nothing to do with anyone you might b involved with.
With respect to who you might be interested or compatible with, the argument doesn't make any sense. If you were to be with anyone who liked pick-up lines, you would be around them, encountering their wonder behaviours and personality. At no point will you be in a situation of measuring whether someone is worthwhile or interesting based on whether they are fine with pick up lines. It makes no sense to use this as a measure of someone's character.
If you are on a date, you are clearly moving in the direction of mutual consent. The movement is not about this. It started because of Harvey Weinstein' bad behaviour and not while he was on a date.
(Y)
What I said was that women have a biological predisposition to more frequent irrationality. The article I shared involved a medical doctor explaining why this is, and as I said it contained many comments from women confirming their own experiences. I never meant for it to sound like women are always irrational, or that all women are more irrational than all men. As I have point out in other comments here, men have their own hormonal and biological issues that are unique to them, as well.
It is a fact that women, for approximately one week every month, are subject to hormonal changes in their body which cause many unpleasant symptoms, one of which being irrationality. And this itself varies from woman to woman in intensity, obviously. But aside from these changes during menstruation, women in general are no more or less rational than men in general. I have known many very rational women and many very irrational men, and vice versa.
Again, just to be clear, the lack of respect comes from my claiming that women, in the same way as men, tend not to value weakness in partners. This is what you claim amount to disrespect.
No, I'm not. I explained exactly what I meant by what I said, so you have no reason to continue misinterpreting it.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
As I said, my reasoning is based on my own experience. I don't claim it is 100% accurate, only that it is one of the many observations I have made in my relationships with women. Generally the women I have gotten along best with agreed with me about the ridiculousness of such pickup lines, and generally the women I haven't gotten along as well disagreed with me. It seems silly to single it out like this, but I can assure you this is a minor factor in my reasoning when it comes to potential relationships. The only reason it is being given so much light is because it applied to the conversation, so I mentioned it. There are many more important factors I consider in regards to the personalities of women who are potential romantic partners.
These hormonal shifts are cyclical and irrespective of gender in as much as it is irrelevant to a person' decision-making process; being irritable can be caused by a number of other stressors including not getting a good nights sleep, or not eating the right thing, or having a bad day at work. To indicate that somehow women frequent this more than men is not correct, particularly if we take into consideration the statistics of gender-based violence against women where clearly men are behaving irrationally irrespective of hormones. Would it be justifiable if I were to say that men are biologically pre-dispositioned to act violently?
So, you are saying that all people do not value weakness?
I've been saying (all along >:o ) that, in general, statements like "women like assertive men who act and do not talk" are meaningless by ways of being trite. Most people, men or women, do not like unassertive individuals. And contrarily to what JustSomeGuy claimed previously, the "assertive move" doesn't have to be made physically, blind of any verbal consent.
Considering I said the exact same thing earlier...
Quoting JustSomeGuy
...I would have to say yes, it is justifiable.
Quoting TimeLine
Men do not menstruate, and therefore do not experience the same hormonal cycles as women. Men may have a tendency to be more aggressive in general, and both men and women obviously have fluctuations in various physiological and psychological things that result in varying levels of rationality from moment to moment, but only women experience the monthly cycle of hormonal changes which cause higher levels of irrationality. This is not a negative thing, this is not an insult, this is a biological fact. It does not discredit the opinions of women in any way. I only ever brought it up to highlight that there are, indeed, biological differences between men and women that allow for certain generalizations to be within reason. The generalization was not that all women are irrational, it was that it can be predicted with a high level of accuracy that during these specific times, women will be less rational, completely against their own will, due biological processes.
I don't find it insulting to say that men are biologically more prone to violence, and it shouldn't be insulting when it is said that menstrual cycles generally make women less rational during specific time frames. It's science.
I never claimed that.
Carry on.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
That would be a workable flirty conversation only if you had already engaged in sexually exploitative behavior and were in the eager queue to take off on runway # 1, like, she facing you, your arms around her waist, she pressing herself against you, her lips a tongue flick from yours, and so on.
Men do not have the innate predisposition to be violent against woman, JSG, otherwise gender-based violence would not be a crime. Patterns of violent behaviour are largely the product of the structure of any given society or culture and permission to be violent to your wife or children or women in general (violence needn't be physical) together with the physical power that enables some men to act in an effective way does not make it innate. There are many men that do not like violence but feel obligated as part of the social views of masculinity that either physical or monetary power and strength somehow gives you worth.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
First of all, potential symptoms of PMS are not the same. I get sleepy, for instance. All I want to do is sleep. I also find fried potato cakes smothered in thick tomato sauce somehow appealing. That is not being 'irrational' and so when you bring up this suggestion, you are implying something false. Indeed, we - as in men and women - are completely different biologically, but how this effects our rationality is irrelevant whether it is monthly or seasonal.
You contradict yourself in that statement, because if you think that people - whether men or women - do not like unassertive people, then you are claiming that women do not like unassertive people. It does not change the nature of your generalisation by simply adding everyone into the equation. That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though it justifies the initial comment.
This is tangentially off-topic, but then again it isn't. Remember worker A's story? The one who assaulted the cleaning lady in the bus?
Just learned she wasn't fired because of that. In fact the corporation didn't care at all. She was fired because she slapped a newly hired dude on the bum. I mean, I'm just glad she's gone, and slapping dudes on the ass is unacceptable... But no one cared that she assaulted a coworker???
Can the cooperation care if the cleaning lady did not make any complaints (whereas it sounds likely the man made a complaint)? In addition, the cleaning lady was assaulted outside of work, although you did clarify that she experienced harassment - mostly by her way of using methods where she would not get caught like intentionally spilling drink - which is what bullies do.
I've been very clear in my use of conditionals. "Tend". "Generally". "Most of the time".
Quoting TimeLine
It does however change that you can't claim that I disrespect women when I specifically do not say anything about women, but about people.
Quoting TimeLine
I really doubt the validity of this analogy. If you wanted to push it, it could be "guy from culture A claims racist thing about culture A but says it's fine because he's from culture A".
I never said men are prone to violence against women, only to be more violent in general. Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking. Were you asking if men's higher biological predisposition to violence justified the rate of violence against women? If so, that wasn't how I understood it. I thought you were just asking if it was justifiable to say men have a biological tendency to be more violent than women.
Quoting TimeLine
I can only speak for myself, but have always been a very non-violent person. I never fought back against bullies when I was young, never wanted to participate in the "play-fighting" my friends would do. I don't like pain, so why would I want to inflict that on others? Even as a child, I understood that boys were "supposed" to be violent (because of the culture) and yet I still refused to participate because I felt that violence was stupid and unpleasant and primitive. I was called every name in the book--pussy, faggot, loser, wimp, etc.--but I didn't let any of it change my mind. So, I have a hard time blaming society for any violence that men commit. We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to.
Quoting TimeLine
It is absolutely not irrelevant how things affect our rationality, but other than that, what you say here is the exact sentiment I was trying to convey. Men and women are different biologically, and this results in various effects that each sex has to deal with more or differently than the other. To deny that the hormonal changes during a specific period of the menstrual cycle do not generally make women more irrational is a denial of science. Ironically, it is itself an irrational claim.
As I made explicit earlier, I never claimed women were more irrational than men. I never claimed men weren't irrational. I never claimed any of the things you seem to have inferred from my simple statement. But I have made my points very clear, so there's nothing more I can do. If you want to continue believing I said or meant something which I have told you I did not say or mean, I cannot stop you.
As far as I know, she did make a complaint. And her boss too. I figured that since it's a cleaning service footed by the building in which we rent our office space, that it was taking its sweet time to resolve because of the go-between of both HR departements, and technically, the police. Maybe that was the case, and the pat on the ass just allowed my boss a good excuse to put an early end to it? I'll hope that was the case.
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah. She was something. We once had a fire alarm at work, and she refused to leave work. I was alone with her as her supervisor, it was late at night, and she was convinced it was fake. So I waited by her for half an hour until her shift was over, and the second we exited our office, we started smelling smoke. I directed her to the fire exit stairs, and once we were both down a bit, I ran down to make sure that the whole stairwell was clear of fire, which is was. I then ran back up 16 floors to get to her, bring her down to the exit, where we met the firemen and the building security which were completely furious at us. I explained it all to them, took me about 3 hours of filing paperworks, she left immediatly.
The next day, I came into work to get pulled by my boss for a complaint that I had abandonned worker A in the stairway shaft, endangering her, and that I was lucky that I wasn't facing disciplinary measures and possibly legal damages. I was absolutely furious. Luckily, for some other reason, both of my bosses got fired that very same day, so when the new boss came in weeks later, I had a chance to explain my point.
Whew. Once again, oddly therapeutic. Sorry about being so off-topic.
And the worse... I have literally dozens of such stories.
Not if we aren't predisposed to it. Ever since I turned 18, the question 'what do I want' has been followed by 'why do I want what I want'. Not to pat myself on the back, but this level of critical introspection, while probably common to most philosopher-types, doesn't seem to be generalised. A hell of a lot of people seems to be comfortable at stopping themselves at the first line of motive inquiry : 'what do I want', 'what should I do', 'what is good', etc...
Even the ones who end up going against the norms rarely seem to do so out of a conscious choice, but rather through a process of internalized and perhaps inversed values. Changing yourself truly demand clarity of introspection, something which I would be quick to add I do not have... Perhaps once I get in the habit of asking myself consistently "why do I think that this is why I think that this is what I want?". I'll give myself at least another decade.
I think so, but you know HR is an important part of this discussion because they are often responsible for undermining bullying victims and fail to enforce the rights of employees. The psychological, physical and emotional impact of workplace bullying and harassment - including sexual harassment - is actually quite profound and rather than addressing the actual problem, HR can demotivate the victim, ignore the complaints or are unresponsive to reports and even potentially pressure the victim to leave because their role is to protect the organisation from liability and thus protect the hierarchical chain of command. This leads to the prevalence of workplace bullying and harassment particularly by those abusing their authority and while things are starting to change because people are becoming aware of this problem, so many cases of sexual harassment could be prevented by developing better procedural and cultural practices.
Quoting Akanthinos
Yeah, not sure, but your workplace sounds profoundly toxic.
I disagree with this; men are more capable of inflicting physical violence and not that they are more violent. Violence can also include bullying and harassment, gossip and slander, ostracising and even getting others to do physical harm for them and it makes women just as capable of being aggressive as it can men. We often assume that since men are biologically stronger that it somehow equates to biologically likely to be aggressive but again, aggression is not physical. It is a subjective disposition and if men act on this, they do so for mostly social and environmental reasons and not because they are genetically predisposed.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
You are exactly right that violence is both unpleasant and primitive, but it is used as a form of power and when reflecting on statements relating to assertiveness and how women apparently respond to this, it is all really just socially constructed nonsense, automatons behaving in ways that they think they are required to in order to be categorised into a fixed archetype. When I think of power, I think of someone who can go against the norms despite the pressure, who can identify with what they actually want and not follow because it pleases others, who stands above the herd; to turn the other cheek requires more greatness in character, when most would assume it to be a form of weakness.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
The word 'irrational' is a strong word to use for fluctuations in hormones that - depending on the woman - has a minor or temporary affect, just as much as a bad night sleep can have. Can you show me this scientific evidence that women become 'irrational' because of their menstrual cycle?
Well, yes. I didn't mean to suggest that I just walked up to someone and these were the first things I said.
If I was single and I was approached with these exact words I would have one of three responses depending on the level of attraction:
1) Oo you do have good moves but Thank you I am not interested. Sweet smile~
2) I would kiss him and continue on with conversation. Coy smile with intrigued eyes~
3) I would ask him where he wanted me to kiss him. Lick of the lips and sultry drop in the eyes~
Does that help? Non-verbal communication can be misconstrued but coupled with verbal confirmation it can still be very flirty and it seems like both parties can figure out what is being said.
:-O
If BC does not flag this reply, moderators kindly please delete, thank you.
You are free to--science is not absolute and can always be proven wrong--but we have strong evidence that more testosterone does indeed cause more aggression or tendency towards violence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/
"Atavistic residues of aggressive behavior prevailing in animal life determined by testosterone remain in man, attenuated and suppressed by familial and social inhibitions, but still manifesting in various intensities and forms from thoughts, anger, verbal aggressiveness, competition, dominance to physical violence. Testosterone plays a significant role in the arousal of these behavioral manifestations in the brain centers involved in aggression and on the development of the muscular system that effects their realization."
"The action of testosterone on the brain begins in embryonic life. During the fourth to fifth month of pregnancy a surge of fetal testosterone occurs reaching adult testosterone levels which induces anatomical and organizational changes in the male embryos brain. Even earlier at the DNA level, the number of CAG repeats in the genes of the androgen receptors appear to play a role in the expression of aggressive behavior. Men with fewer CAG repeats have more active androgen receptors and enhanced testosterone action."
Quoting TimeLine
This, too, goes against our current understanding of human biology, as explained in the quotation I just cited.
Quoting TimeLine
While I think comparing the hormonal changes that happen during this stage of the menstrual cycle with a bad night's sleep is disingenuous, you're probably right that my word choice wasn't quite fitting. Irrationality isn't technically a very scientific term.
However, as I have already said, my only point in bringing this up was as an example of biological differences between males and females. I did not say or imply that men are more rational than women. I wasn't meaning to comment on women's rationality at all, only at one of the many biological differences between men and women.
For what it's worth, though, I've had long-term romantic relationships with 4 women in my life who I have lived with for varying amounts of time, and every one of them displayed what I would characterize--and what they also referred to--as irrational behavior.
I also grew up with a mother and three sisters, and every one of them have many times addressed the fact that when they have PMS, they are irrational. Their words.
This is not scientific evidence, this is anecdotal. But seeing as how eight out of eight or 100% of the women I have been closest to in my life have both clearly displayed what I would characterize as irrational behavior, and verbally confirmed on multiple occasions that they, too, view themselves as being irrational during this time, I feel confident concluding that it is a common occurrence among females during this stage of their menstrual cycle. I will not try to argue that there is scientific evidence for irrationality, since I personally don't believe that is possible due to irrationality being a fairly subjective term. I also won't try to argue that my experience with these 8 women applies to all women. But I find it perfectly reasonable for someone with my experiences to conclude that the biological/hormonal changes that happen during the pre-menstrual stage often cause women to be more irrational during this time.
Timmy is in the well? What does that mean? A code, obviously...
That is often true - disqualifying is an important aspect of looking for the right people. And if you disqualify someone as not right for you, there's nothing wrong with that. There are many people in God's garden... Some like to ride on the town bicycles, and others look for more expensive & exclusive ones ;)
I appreciate your treating my statements reasonably, without reading your own prejudices into them as others have done. But based on previous interactions in this discussion, I would brace yourself for incoming "slut-shaming" accusations. Some here seem to believe that men aren't allowed to have a preference against women who sleep around, because it implies you are "shaming" them. I have male friends who prefer women who do sleep around, does that mean they are shaming women who don't? I also prefer women with a good sense of humor, does that mean I'm shaming women who don't have a good sense of humor? Obviously not. It's not about shame or respect, it's about preference and compatibility.
Oh yeah, I already know that it's the favourite past-time of Michael Mitch Mike and The Dark Willow to accuse people of slut-shaming >:O
What I am attempting to convey is that this aggression can also be influenced by oestrogen. While I agree that testosterone can be a mediator for male aggression, oestrogen and its metabolites can also stimulate or inhibit neurons that make one more or less sensitive to stimuli from other neurons and thus can change ones mood (what you have referred to as 'irrational' whereas the word you probably should be saying is 'irritable'). It actually remains unknown as to the extent of the effect between either physiological/biological and social on our aggressive behaviour. Poor sleeping patterns can also amplify aggression through fatigue and even depression/anxiety. While molecular mechanisms can underlie aggressive behaviour, my concern is sociological and not biological.
Just as much as drugs and alcohol can exasperate the symptoms of someone who has pre-existing mental health condition, both men and women are impacted by hormonal and other physiological fluctuations because of defective neural circuits psychologically; regions like the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus, ventral striatum and other areas of the brain that regulate emotions are not male only or female only. Any functional abnormalities increase the susceptibility for impulsive aggression and violence and this is gender-neutral considering both men and women have the same brains. How these brains develop - our childhood, upbringing, diet/health etc - together with the social and environmental impact can influence or moderate our aggressive behaviour. A man who punches a man is no different to a woman who slanders a woman; both are forms of aggression.
My problem is how this aggression can manifest and that latter is largely social. Men somehow appear justified for being aggressive and women are justified for being irrational and it is this that I have a problem with. First of all, I believe the word we should be using to justify women' behavioural changes due to menstrual cycle as irritable and not irrational, as per the following definitions:
Irrational: Not logical or reasonable.
Irritable: Having or showing a tendency to be easily annoyed or made angry.
But this is not a linguistic problem in my opinion, it is a cultural one where people generally respond to women' emotional changes as lacking any rational 'ought to be' behaviour. Women are not supposed to present themselves as feeling agitated in as much as men are supposed to; it is not the way women are supposed to behave (so unlady-like) just as much as men are feminine and weak if they are pacifists. So aggressive women can appear - socially - to be calm, respectful and lady-like but underlying their behaviour is nasty, vicious and aggressive because the social conditions allow it (office gossips, for instance). Conversely - and more problematic - is when you look at clusters of behaviour in demographics where women experience hysteria where the prevalence of somatization disorders tend to be aligned with high levels of domestic violence, both of which are 'normalised' behaviour. These pathological symptoms and even other concepts like masochism or neurosis become attributed exclusively to women rather than as a result of other culturally entrenched behaviours such as discrimination, violence, lack of education, restrictions of movement etc. So, the woman is temporarily 'irrational' which is merely a way of silencing her way of attempting to articulate her frustrations.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
You said it yourself, 1 in 4 of your partners have behaved differently and while it can certainly be biological; i.e. that girlfriend could have had endometriosis and so her hormonal fluctuations could have been extreme, this is not the case in general. Also, note the following quote:
"Listen to people when they are angry. Because that is when the real truth comes out."
Although, I kind of saw an image of you with a quizzical look being surrounded and sandwiched by so many ladies. :P
I think that your preferences should remain isolated from such discussions for this reason, because it can easily be interpreted as suggesting how women ought to be. I have chosen - independent and irrespective of religious or social determinants - to voice my own decision to not have sex until I fall in love and so am waiting to find the right person I am compatible with, but there is no morality there, nothing that makes me 'pure' or better than other women who choose to be promiscuous. It is just my independent choice and so I should refrain from bringing this up in discussions especially ones like this unless, for instance, the topic is about whether there is morality in decisions like promiscuity or monogamy. What would be the point if I were to say that I prefer men who exhibit strength by showing kindness and friendship over those that exhibit strength physically because the latter is brute and lacks intelligence? None.
So I shouldn't share my opinions because it's possible someone might misinterpret my words and become offended? That's ridiculous.
Quoting TimeLine
Of course there isn't; I never claimed anything of the sort. I never even implied it. The fact that a few of you took what little I said and made such huge leaps and assumptions about my meaning says a lot about you, not me.
Quoting TimeLine
You are more than welcome to say that whenever and wherever you want to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing personal tastes in romantic partners (or anything else, for that matter). If a person gets offended by something like that, that's their own fault. You're reinforcing one of the biggest problems in our society today, which is that everybody feels they have the right not to be offended. You don't. Nobody does. And for the record, what you said is much more "offensive" than what I said. You're insulting someone's intelligence, while all I did was comment about different personality types and compatibility. Like I said, anything you took from what I said beyond that was your own responsibility, not mine. It would be like if I were to accuse you of saying you think men who lift weights are all idiots. Clearly, that's not what you said. I would be twisting your words and reading into them something that you didn't actually say. This is exactly the same as what you have done.
"The gathering’s official purpose is to raise money for worthy causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, the world-renowned children’s hospital ..."
"It is for men only. "
"... the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.
All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned."
There is more... Ignoring the multiple claims of shock, ignorance, zero tolerance, and so on, it is clear from the get go, that 'charity' is being used as a justification for - well let's say 'a boys' night out.'
(a) no wives, but one of the auction items is plastic surgery for a wife-upgrade, another a ticket to host a lap-dancing party.
(b)Men, or rather companies, pay, and women are hired to 'entertain'.
(c) the women were obliged to sign non-disclosure agreements.
Now one does not need to pretend that the women were entirely innocent, in order to feel that the deliberately contrived power and gender alignment is wrong, and that the whole way the event is organised could hardly have been better arranged to elicit sexual harassment. And this is what it takes to make a couple of million quid 'trickle down' from the movers and shakers to sick children.
So how can you fix the problem without seeking to make people invulnerable? Because we all know what kind of totalitarianism we end up with when we seek to be invulnerable.
The only means I see is education and loyalty.
So then, the only way to fix the issue, seems to be, that we ourselves become the kind of people that, even if we were made absolute dictators of the whole world, would not engage in such activities. There is no other way.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/23/germaine-greer-criticises-whingeing-metoo-movement
It's not about the innocence of women being the measure of the guilt of men, it's about the structures and institutions that we, men and women, have created and found acceptable.
But society is just man writ large. So we have created those social structures because they represent who we are.
Well that's not true. Fear of breaking the law is a pretty good motivator.
Yes and no. It produces "who we are" in children and young adults, but not in those who have already formed and crystalised their personality. So those grown-up men, there pretty much is no changing for most of them.
Quoting Michael
Don't be naive. Someone is not afraid of the law if they understand the procedures, they have (or can make) connections with the decision makers, and can influence them. The law doesn't implement itself, it needs people to be implemented. Things need to pass through certain procedures, and through multiple hands, in order for the law to do things. These are social matters.
For example, someone may go to their local police station and file an accusation that, for example, you hit them. That accusation then needs to be passed onto a decision-maker who will decide if an investigation needs to be started, or there is no basis for it. If an investigation is started, then that will need to be passed onto the courts as well.
At every step of the way, there is an opportunity for something to go wrong. At the person who takes the accusation first and sends it over to his boss, if there is corruption, the papers will get lost. If the papers pass from that person to his boss, and there is corruption, his boss can find a reason for not starting an investigation into your case. And so on across the entire chain, to the highest levels.
So society is more important than the law - society governs how the law is implemented. If a homeless child from the street gets kidnapped, who is there to start an investigation into his case? If someone from a regular but stable family gets kidnapped, on the other hand, there will be a lot of people to report it, follow up, and make sure that an investigation is started and pursued to the end.
So society is more important than the law. These social structures determine the very possibilities for someone to use the law in the first place.
Donald Trump Jr. on SiriusXM radio program The Opie & Anthony Show back in 2013.
The acorn does not fall far from the tree.
No and no. Those grown-up men would not have behaved like that if there had been a good sprinkling of wives and significant others present, (oh and possibly some powerful women guests) and the auction items would have been different, and the uniforms would have been different, and...
Because they and we already know better. It was set up to indulge and legitimise foul behaviour, and everyone involved knew it, hence the non-disclosure agreements.
So you're telling me those grown-up men would not have behaved like that, if they did not wish the organizer to set up a party like that? :s That's silly beyond belief - of course not! When they themselves told that organizer, do a party like this, if you want our money, how would it be possible for there to have been a "good sprinkling of wives" etc.?
Quoting unenlightened
Yeah, they set it up for themselves as they wanted to. If the organizer wouldn't agree, they'd find someone who would, and so on so forth.
Quoting Agustino
On the one hand it has been set up that way by people who want it that way, on the other hand most of the people who attended were probably not involved in the set up. Again you take a simplistic, absolutist position, when the reality is more complex. There is feedback and feedforward. Nobody brings a wife, because it is instituted as men only. It is instituted as men only to ensure that nobody brings their wife. There is thus no unified 'they'.
But it is not men only, because girls are provided. But not enough girls for even one each. So the set up also involves by plan, 'non harassing men' who are probably there for the charitable kudos, and certainly there to add to the legitimacy.
Anyway, I'm happy to report that the organisation is winding itself up, there has already been one resignation from a government committee, and the general outrage and disapproval is such that it will be difficult to repeat this in the immediate future. We might even get some legislation out of it.
I am also concerned there is no proportionality, where telling off color jokes or touching someone on the shoulder gets mixed in with requesting sexual favors for promotion or trapping someone in a hotel room and forcing them to have sex.
Quoting prothero
I doubt if there was ever a wish for due process by the #me2 phenomena. Due process is slow and might be quite public. The court doesn't reliably find all of the accused guilty. Cases may be thrown out. I doubt also that there was any wish for proportional claims. If there is proportionality, where does one draw the line among rude and/or tasteless behavior, sexual misconduct, and sexual assault? What happens to solidarity if women who have been raped outrank, in an aristocracy of suffering, those who have been subjected only to repeated requests to have sex?
Besides, if offending men get fired on the basis of reports alone, why bother with due process? Who cares about proportionality if one can get results by making accusations which are likely to result in a firing or costly resignation? It's an all women for every woman free for all.
Last I saw, the determining factor in winning cases of sexual harassment in the workplace was who made the first complaint, regardless of what happened. Not gender. Then again, things could have changed since then...
Quoting jamalrob
How do we understand sexual pleasure in this age of ‘consent’?
Some quotes from the article:
And if you have no idea what she's talking about, well, you're doing it wrong. :wink:
No doubt she'll be cast as a rape apologist by the mob.
Western society has only recently gone from banning of explicit sexual constants and practices to celebrating them. The practices that put Oscar Wilde in prison, are now celebrated in marriage. Society in the process of liberating sex, and its associated practices, has created a moral (& a legal) maze for all genders.
Van Badham in her Globe piece (2/1/2018) quotes an "eloquent truth":
Van Badham points to the generational issues surrounding various feminist claims. The freedom of agency that older feminists sought so long and hard to achieve, younger feminists now want to circumscribe. Lili Loofbourow cultural critic for The Week interestingly states:
Perhaps it is "our instinct is to normalize", the control that society puts over agency, that is shaping what 'consent' entails, which is worrying from a feminist position because the Male view is dominant in Western Culture.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. As far as I am aware very few of those #MeToo has called out are under legal indictment and I wonder how it will pan out for those "monsters" who have been charged. Cosby's trail has gone on and on and picks up again next month. Remember OJ was exonerated of murder because of the force of his legal defense and I wonder if many public prosecutors or victims will be able to withstand the legal force that those 'monsters' will employ to defend themselves.
I agree with the article but I haven't read the following in the #MeToo movement, which probably explains my earlier inability of understanding the situations you were referring to:
Of course, if you read the above in the #MeToo movement, we should worry about the fluidity and ambiguity surrounding sexual encounters, the danger and fun accompanying it. I never interpreted the movement like that though. I understood the #MeToo movement as a wake-up call to take seriously the social assumptions on a lot of sexual encounters; the reality that 40% of Dutch women have been sexually assaulted and 80% sexually harassed with no similar figures for men. A woman's fear of speaking out due to effects on their careers, social ostracization etc.
disturbing update: NicK shared with me that he now in fact believes what I said about his friends brothers' actions and that it was not me that was "over-reacting". Shocked I turned to him and asked him what exactly changed his mind about what I SAID happened?
I am having trouble with his response as he said that when the group of guys went out to the range, the brother (offender) stayed behind at the house with another brothers wife. Apparently when the other brother got home, he got a earful from his wife about what had just happened to her. HE got pissed at his brother and is still not talking to him and THAT is what made NicK believe me. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I expressed that to NicK and he once again said that "You are quite capable of taking care of yourself" and I informed him that I was well aware of that but a spousal backup didn't seem unreasonable and expressed that to him.
I wonder how extreme of a situation I would need to be in when he would consider backing me up. It is not a comforting wonder by any means but I do wonder... :worry:
That's F-ed up. NicK needs to pull his spousal socks up.
In any case, I'd go for entrapment. Next time you meet with this guy you tell Nick beforehand that if he touches you inappropriately again you will loudly say something about it and knee him in the groin if he doesn't listen and that you demand he's behind you 100% if and when that happens. Possibly involving him kicking the shit out of that guy to defend your honour.
However, I was mistaken in looking for someone to defend my honor when I am the only one that can or will.
Once again it came down to my error of placing an "expectation" on someone other than myself.