A reader of this blog posited an absolutely terrible idea:
". . . what do you all think about the 'Yes means Yes' concept where a couple does not proceed with relations unless/until BOTH parties have made it verbally clear they are interested in...whatever they're doing to do? That would go a long way to clearing out any confusion and making it clear when a boundary is being crossed. IMO, this is a much safer practice for the man to avoid any 'confusion.' I'm not disagreeing at all that the women (or any intruded on party) needs to make it clear she does NOT want sex, but ensuring both DO is even better."
Here is why this feminist attempt at social engineering is an awful idea, and an exercise in man-hating: virtually no one engages in sexual relations by asking for a verbal assent. Everyone knows that. This cockamamie idea would criminalize men, and men alone, for behaving the way people have found it acceptable to behave since the beginning of time.
If this were the law, young men would be sent to prison for many years, their lives destroyed, for engaging in sex even after the woman clearly and unequivocally nods her approval and indicates beyond any doubt, but non-verbally, that she wants to have sex. Far fetched? If the law requires a verbal "yes" and no verbal "yes" was given, goodbye, Charlie. Ten years in prison for you. Your life is over. And if you are young and good looking, you stand a fairly good chance of being subjected to real rape (as opposed to this) in prison, repeatedly and for years.
This loopy plan is monstrously inhumane. It's been floating around in various forms for years, and I've even seen feminists explain that once this plan is enacted, yes, for a while, some young men who really thought they had procured the woman's consent will be sent to prison, but that's an acceptable price to pay to change the way young men in general behave.
As if there weren't infirmities galore with this idea to begin with, just consider this: it would tack on yet another "he said/she said" credibility question to an area already rife with them. That's all we need.
Spare me any further feminist "reforms." Every time they have a reform, innocent men and boys end up behind bars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
110 comments:
"virtually no one engages in sexual relations by asking for a verbal assent. Everyone knows that."
.... except for people who have never engaged in sexual relations.
In other words, feminists.
Sure, EVENTUALLY, they might get wimpy boyfriends who submit to all their silly rules around consensual sex.
But the fact remains MOST PEOPLE DO NOT ACT LIKE THIS. Feminists, stop trying to regulate what goes on in other people's bedrooms. Perverts.
Oh, and by this standard, I have been raped by women multiple times. Has a woman ever asked my permission before she has started touching me, and so on? Has she procured a verbal "yes" from me?
NO. That has NEVER happened.
Am I a multiple rape victim? Were those women rapists?
No, because in the real world, I was quite clearly consenting WITHOUT A VERBAL "YES".
Another inportant podcast from Fidelbogen; The counter-feminist.
http://www.4shared.com/audio/ds4tULRw/CF14.html
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/
I will add that, had I not been consenting, I could have made that perfectly clear without even expressing it verbally. At which point, I think I would have been well understood.
It is a woman's responsibility to express that she does not want to continue. Men aren't mind readers. I've been told 'I don't want to' before when things were escalating. All right, I said. And I stopped. 'No means no' works and sorts out any potential confusion. A real rapist is not going to respect 'no means no' OR 'yes means yes' now, is he? The ONLY outcome of moving to 'yes means yes' is that INNOCENT MEN will be prosecuted for rape all because women think they lack agency. That they lack the capacity to act as full human beings who have voices and can say when they'd rather stop.
I'm the reader who posited the idea and, despite Archivists view, I appreciate the willingness to make it a subject of discussion.
I've had LOTS o' sex; just putting that out there. And, yes, many times there was not a clear verbal "yes," HOWEVER it was clear from my responses (smiling, eye contact, removing my clothes, laughter, murmurs of interest) that I was an active participant.
I've also been in situations where I was somewhat, but not fully interested, and being asked helped me make it clear that I wasn't. Would I call rape in that situation if not asked? No, but I take responsibility for my choices.
I was coming at the "yes means yes" concept to support men who might otherwise be accused, in gray situations, not as a feminist canard.
I will make it clear that NO amount of obtaining consent will do anything to stop a woman/girl hellbent on falsely accusing a man/boy, nor will it deter a true rapist, as Anon @ 2:43 points out.
It can help ensure you have a willing partner, though, and decrease the bad communication situations, save her from feeling raped and him from potentially being accused of it.
If you want to have a good time with her, would you want even the slightest chance that she thinks she's being raped?
And, Archivist, if she doesn't say "yes," or otherwise indicate COMPLETE enthusiasm, why would you want to have sex with her anyway?
This may all be moot as most of the focus here is on the woman who knowingly files false rape charges when there hasn't even been any sex.
I'm just trying to address the wide gray area we've talked about here.
Spare me any further feminist "reforms." Every time they have a reform, innocent men and boys end up behind bars.
***
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. And none of this addresses the inconvenient truth that rape accusers are very often making the whole thing up.
Social Worker, false rape accusations aren't the result of a miscommunication. I think you're really confused on this point. Rapes aren't the result of a miscommunication, either.
FRAs happen because disturbed women want attention, and that is as deep as the diagnosis needs to go.
All of this is predicated on the phony feminist assumption that women are too weak-willed to verbally express their desire to refuse sex. That's ridiculous.
Even a child has no problem telling an adult not to take her candy away.
"And, Archivist, if she doesn't say 'yes,' or otherwise indicate COMPLETE enthusiasm, why would you want to have sex with her anyway?"
Why would a woman want me to drive her across state to visit her mother if I wasn't COMPLETELY enthusiastic? Hmm? Yet women have men do things for them all the time when men aren't especially enthusiastic. Why would women want that? Hmm?
The fact is, Social Worker, men and women who love each other do things for each other all the time even though they are not all that enthusiastic. Is that OK for EVERYTHING EXCEPT SEX? And if so, is that because men like sex more than women? (Don't bother trying to convince me otherwise.)
In any event, some people don't show much enthusiasm about ANYTHING. And most women aren't easy to read. Too bad women can't turn "red" and "green" to indicate stop and go. Women are trained, or hardwired, to behave coyly, to play games that most men think are absurd.
If women are willing to engage in sex, there's consent. PERIOD. She doesn't need to be ready to jump up and down about it. Just like I'm ready to jump up and down about going with her to her mothers.
Enough. Go troll at another blog.
Anonymous - "Social Worker, false rape accusations aren't the result of a miscommunication."
I have to agree with anonymous poster. Lot's of women have felt that they were unduly pressured into sex, or that they weren't able to communicate their desire to have stopped.
Yet, such women are not all that likely to make a formal criminal rape complaint (they probably just tell their friends about it, and make themselves part of that pool of unreported "rapes"). They mostly know that their situation does not make for a good case.
Most FRA seem to be born out of other reasons - revenge, alibi, attention, etc.
Yes, some do arise from regret. Still, this is usually when the women feeling the regret encounters external support and encouragement to make the charge.
It is often the case that regret doesn't set in until they had a time to reflect - or, more likely, they discover something else that nudges them along - like learning that the hot lover they just had a passionate romp with wasn't Jewish after all (I'm sure you're aware of that story by now).
Similarly, women who find out their friends or family do not approve of their choice of sex-partner are more likely to actually file a rape claim. Then, it's not just that they have regrets, but they are worried about their reputations (which is often far more compelling for them). If it was rape, then it wasn't their fault! Right!?!?
It's not that a "yes means yes" opt-in approach might not prevent some FRA's - rather, it's that it doesn't seem likely to address the majority of potential FRA's.
Even an enthusiastically stated "yes" can be re-imagined into a coerced "yes" when she finds out her friends think he's a loser.
Just sayin'
SLW -- right. For all we know, every FRA we talk about here was enthusiastically consented to.
I think we dignify this argument by not dismissing it out of hand.
"And, Archivist, if she doesn't say "yes," or otherwise indicate COMPLETE enthusiasm, why would you want to have sex with her anyway?"
Social Worker, this comment betrays a serious misunderstanding of male sexuality.
We are much more visual than women. A man can want to have sex with a woman just from how she looks. No amount of social engineering will change this simple fact.
Sexual enthusiasm is arousing, yes, but even in its absence, men will still want to have sex with (certain) women.
Some people aren't enthusiastic about anything.
Some women really do want men to 'take the initiative'.
Sorry, these are facts, and none of this has anything whatsoever to do with rape. But add a culture and legal system that privileges women over men and you have a breeding ground for false allegations.
It's not "omg I was raped I have to report this" most of the time.
It's more like "this guy hasn't called me again. Can I say that I was raped? ... technically ... possibly ...?"
Here is a thought: since the majority of rape cases hinge on one person's word against another, how would a verbal agreement clear up the matter? No one else other than the parties involved would ever hear the verbal consent, so how would anyone know whether consent was or was not given? Would it not be possible for someone to claim they did not give consent when they actually did and vice versa?
Short of having people sign a document or film verbal consent being given, I do not see how this suggestion resolves anything.
Archivist - "For all we know, every FRA we talk about here was enthusiastically consented to."
Which is why I have, in the past, recommended the use of an audio recorder along with questions (to her) designed to elicit a positive (affirming) response. That’s the only way I can see a “yes means yes” being meaningful – when she cannot just change her story afterwards.
BTW, with an audio recording, demonstrable consent can also be obtained after-the-fact.
“Was it good for you…?”
Social Worker, that's not that I was trying to shame you for not 'getting' male sexuality. I don't blame you at all. Unlike female sexuality, it's a completely taboo subject. Even the idea that men have desires of their own which might not concord with what women THINK men should desire, is very much taboo.
Women not really understanding what men desire sexually is the obvious result of this.
The question "what do women want" is asked with such regularity that it's become white noise. Nobody ever asks "what do men want?" The assumption, presumably, is that everyone already knows, yet so few women actually seem to have a clue about the male libido.
Toysoldier - "Short of having people sign a document or film verbal consent being given, I do not see how this suggestion resolves anything."
In fairness to Social Worker, I believe that she was simply making the point that an opt-in by both parties approach would clear up the sometime confuse communications (especially those between inexperienced and "fumbling" partners).
It's utility as a legal defense mechanism is obviously quite dubious. As I recall, Danmell Ndonye enthusiastically said yes - to several guy's. It was the recording that saved their asses, not the fact that she verbally opted-in, an in, and in...
Imagine a situation in which banks do not normally have security cameras and in which transactions are conducted in sealed rooms. The teller goes to the room with you and you do your business there.
Now, sometimes tellers accuse bank customers of pulling a gun on them and robbing them. Often these accusations are true -- the tellers really are being robbed. At other times the tellers are making it up, for psychotic reasons known only to them.
Okay. So in order to cope with this situation, we pass a law that says, "A bank teller must very clearly verbally agree to hand over the money." Perhaps even a wink or a giggle is required!
What difference will such a law make?
Practically none -- the customers who were planning to rob the tellers will continue to do so and the tellers who were planning to make it up will have no reason to stop.
But this will make it somewhat easier for the tellers who are lying, because the burden of proof will have shifted subtley onto the customer to demonstrate that he did in fact have the teller's consent.
And that's what this is really about: making it easier for prosecutors to get away with putting phony bologna "victims" on the stand.
Another way of putting it is this: this would do nothing at all to help our courts to determine what really happened.
It would, however, go a long way toward enabling prosecutors to pretend that they have proven something when they really haven't.
"Another way of putting it is this: this would do nothing at all to help our courts to determine what really happened."
Wasn't that obvious to everyone? There still aren't any other witnesses.
It's even worse than that. My point is, even if both sides tell the truth, and even if she admits she consented -- but not verbally, he's a RAPIST. That's repugnant to everything our system of justice is supposed to believe in.
Fuck off, troll.
Archivist: "The fact is, Social Worker, men and women who love each other do things for each other all the time even though they are not all that enthusiastic."
I don't think Social Worker was referring to an established relationship, like when you take your girlfriend's mother across state.
Also if a woman's signals are hard for you to read, it indicates lack of experience, or else it has all the markings of a one-nighter.
"I don't think Social Worker was referring to an established relationship, like when you take your girlfriend's mother across state."
So we're going to have different laws depending on how long they've been dating?
"Also if a woman's signals are hard for you to read, it indicates lack of experience, or else it has all the markings of a one-nighter."
You obviously are not married, sir.
Guys , If any of you are on Facebook , look up my id , i posted the recent story on the man jailed for lying about his religion and am in a debate with a DV worker in the states as to why its wrong i would appreciate some more comments.
@Archivist:
Enough. Go troll at another blog.
Archivist, that is really unfair.
I have backed up the basic stance of this site since coming aboard. Not that it is your problem, but I've taken heat on feminist sites for defending your beliefs and supporting the men/boys accused.
Yes, I raise various issues, ideas, problems that I see, but it is the interests of a full discussion around supporting the falsely accused and trying to find ways to clarify some of the confusion we discuss.
I can take having my positions challenged, even ridiculed, but please don't attack me as a troll.
I hope I've proven to most on here that just because I don't agree with everything that's said doesn't make me a troll.
I appreciate those of you who backed me up.
I've said before I absolutely agree with those saying that Yes means Yes will not stop the malicious woman from making a false charge.
...men and women who love each other do things for each other all the time even though they are not all that enthusiastic.
No argument here. I thought we were more addressing the one-night hook-up or casual dating scenario. Married/long-term couples, in the way you describe, is a different category for me.
All I'm saying is it is the smart man who ensures consent whether you think it's "fair" or not that he should have to.
It's a measure of self-protection, beyond just not having sex.
And that's no fun for anyone...except the radfems.
(Any radfems on here going to beat me up?)
Wookie:lying about a religion? It's not a crime in the US and besides people can change their religion. The case you cite is in Israel where they have stict rules about Jews and Muslims marrying. Israel not the US.
I said:
...defending your beliefs...
in my rant above.
I meant "defending our beliefs."
I apologize for the error.
All I'm saying is it is the smart man who ensures consent whether you think it's "fair" or not that he should have to.
It's a measure of self-protection, beyond just not having sex.
***
I completely agree with that. In fact, that's exactly what I do every time I have sex. (Besides, it's only polite.)
But here's the thing: a whole lot of behavior should be legal even if it isn't ideal, and it's extremely demeaning to men to insist that as a matter of law they need to have very explicit verbal permission if they wish to avoid being considered a rapist.
Obviously if the woman says that she does not want sex, that is one thing; but to say that consent is only consent if she says in a very clinical way what she wants done to her body is pretty silly.
Social Worker - have you not heard of the condom manufacturer who tried to include a legal consent form with each condom, only to learn signed consent forms will not hold up in court?
You can have a SIGNED statement - it will NOT hold up in court if the woman claims rape...try: "I was FORCED to sign it!"
As a woman, I can say I enjoy sex MORE than the men in my life, so guys - stop flattering yourselves by declaring men enjoy sex more. Some do...and some don't. Viva la difference.
I can also say it would be a COLOSSAL Buzzz kill for a man to start asking permission, or to insist I VERBALIZE I really REALLY wanted to.
What a TURN OFF. You can have YOUR sexual politics,social worker, please allow me to enjoy mine.
Don't ask me to "verbalize" yes or no. Don't ask "Was it good for you?" type questions, either. Ick! If you don't know the answer to that after I non verbalize it loud and clear, there won't be a 'next time'.
I like men who are men, Social Worker. Even when I was VERY young and VERY shy - I KNEW how to convey "Yes" or "NO" very clearly.
You want a "Mother, May I?" guy? Have at it. They make great purse holders and shopping bag carriers, but I'll glady pass any I meet on to you. I don't want 'em.
The vast majority of men are not rapists and do not need to conduct themselves as though they were.
Being celibate will reduce your risks of being falsely accused of rape by 90-95%. Most false rape victims did have sex which
she "decided" was rape. Be a MGTOW and you can further reduce your risks.
"As a woman, I can say I enjoy sex MORE than the men in my life, so guys - stop flattering yourselves by declaring men enjoy sex more"
No you CANNOT say this, idiot. You would have to know how it feels as a woman AND as a man. Could this be any more obvious?
'As a woman', you are not able to make judgements based on things that both sexes feel! How absurd.
And if the 'men in your life' really aren't enjoying sex as much as you, perhaps you're doing something wrong, hmm?
Social Worker you are what we would call a useful idiot, I understand that verbal consent is more objective, but heres something from dating 101: 93% of communication is nonverbal (voice TONE is counted in the other 93%). It's a basic rule of life. Not only is pausing to say, "oh do I have permission to make love to you" going to KILL the moment, it's absurd to make it law that everyone does.
Now if you wanna be realistic, I seriously think men should film or @ least record ALL of their sexual encounters w/ women they just met.
Concerned Android
Anon@12:33, I just love everything you wrote. I wish you were here in person so I could give you a big hug and kiss.
You should consider putting yourself forward for writing some pieces for this blog. You are a breath of fresh air.
I don't think Social Worker is deliberately trolling. I think she just has some very naive ideas, and doesn't really understand how the real world works outside her social work textbooks.
Although I tend to think that any woman who expects a man to jump through ridiculous hoops and conform to feminist sexual etiquette doesn't really deserve to have sexual pleasure. In a just world, such women would have to wear a burqa and be condemned to a life of repression and frigidity.
"I can also say it would be a COLOSSAL Buzzz kill for a man to start asking permission, or to insist I VERBALIZE I really REALLY wanted to.
What a TURN OFF. You can have YOUR sexual politics,social worker, please allow me to enjoy mine."
Exactly. This is the thing that most people keep missing in this debate. If a man is legally forced to say "May I touch your shoulder?" "May I kiss you?" "May I touch your breasts?" "May I put my penis in your vagina?",the human race will quickly go extinct because no man will ever have sex again,either by his choice or hers.
That's what the real reason behind "yes means yes" is, I think. Because lesbian feminists will be exempted from this the way minorities are exempted from committing "hate crimes". This "yes means yes" crap is ALL about giving radical feminist lesbians more access to quality poontang, make no mistake.
Nick S, I must respectfully disagree that 12:33's comments were that great.
Yes, it is good that she understands how 'yes means yes' is flawed and unfair.
I would extend my gratitude to her for understanding this, and for knowing that all men are not rapists - and speaking up about how wrong it is to assume such.
Yes, for these things, 12:33, you and I see eye to eye, and I am grateful for your concern.
However, just because you're anti-FRA doesn't make you pro-male.
As a man, I found your comment to be rather demeaning towards men.
"You want a "Mother, May I?" guy? Have at it. They make great purse holders and shopping bag carriers, but I'll glady pass any I meet on to you. I don't want 'em."
Perhaps you need to have a think about why the 'Mother, May I' guys act like that. Perhaps it is because they have been beaten down and shamed into behaving that way by women - not women like yourself. Women who have demanded that men be 'sensitive' and such. YOU are demanding that man be something as well, and using sexual shaming to that end. Just because it's some different archetype that you want men to conform to, doesn't mean it's not every bit as oppressive. The 'real man' archetype is JUST as harmful as the 'submissive wimp'.
Here's a radical idea. How about backing the fuck off and allowing men to shape their own identities? Because we are CONSTANTLY being sexually shamed to conform to BOTH the 'sensitive' type AND the 'real man'. As a woman, you have no idea what this is like. You just add to this bullshit.
Oh, and using men as "purse holders" and "shopping bag carriers"? Men who have an interest in you? You'd humiliate and dehumanise men in this way? You'd string them along just for laughs, huh?
You are one SICK puppy.
And then there's this:
"Don't ask me to "verbalize" yes or no. Don't ask "Was it good for you?" type questions, either. Ick! If you don't know the answer to that after I non verbalize it loud and clear, there won't be a 'next time'."
Clear sexual and emotional manipulation of men. So these guys that have an interest in you, that are emotionally attached to you - you'd cut off all contact if the sex didn't meet your standards, huh?
As I say. Being anti-FRA does not make you pro-male. You quite clearly have some very anti-male sentiments to sexually shame and humiliate men in this way. You're a nasty piece of work, regardless of your stance on FRAs.
In sum, 12:33, you view and treat men as objects to be used and discarded for your personal entertainment.
While I wouldn't say you're as bad as a false rape accuser, you have the same mentality towards men.
Objects for your own use.
This is why, Nick S., I would strongly object that this person should contribute to FRS. If you hadn't noticed this is a PRO-MALE BLOG and 12:33 said some very demeaning things. Presumably she sees men as emotionless beasts of burden only existing for her titillation.
What a diverse range of comments!
I've never been a "useful idiot" before (unless maybe I was too stupid to notice). Is that an actual term, Nick?
I don't argue that Yes means Yes is clumsy compared to what we're used to and that, for some, it can create a buzzkill. But I've seen it employed in VERY sexy and sex-promoting ways.
Again, it doesn't HAVE to be explicitly verbal; I think the phrase lends itself to that false assumption. It simply means getting a positive interest rather than waiting for a negative disinterest.
If the goal of good sex is to have a mutually beneficial time, it raises the point that someone who does not care about what their partner wants is acting from an interest in what THEY want over what the other wants. To me, this is crossing a line.
To be clear, I am NOT saying that is rape, but it is ignoring a social boundary and the wishes of the other which is something not good.
I DO understand the concern about framing this concept in a legal sense and am not strongly advocating that. I think it at least deserves some discussion and attention for social use to PREVENT legal situations from occurring.
I like what Anon @ 11:57 and 12:00 said about men needing to shape their own sexual identity, though you have to allow that a partner will select you based on his/her interest in that identity. I admit we put out LOTS of confusing messages to men about what women do/don't want.
But it doesn't negate what the woman earlier said about who she likes and it doesn't make her "anti-male."
I also disagree (and I have seen Archivist back this up many times) that this is solely a pro-male site. Look at the header of the blog, it's in support of BOTH men and women falsely accused.
There is no question that FRA affects primarily men, BUT it has so many pro-female implications that it demands the support of both. E.g. actual rape victims who are hurt by FRA's.
The Yes means Yes is not Social Work textbook stuff. My texts never covered this type of thing, at least not in this kind of detail. It's based on reading a wide variety of material on rape/consent/force/social conditioning/sexual relations/etc, thinking, applying what I think to real life, and conversations like these.
And, Nick, do you really believe it is making men"jump through ridiculous hoops and conform to feminist sexual etiquette" to ensure the woman's interest in having sex?
Seriously ask yourselves that.
I would think that is BASIC sexual etiquette.
"I've never been a "useful idiot" before (unless maybe I was too stupid to notice). Is that an actual term, Nick?"
'Useful idiot' I believe was coined by Lenin. It refers to one which furthers the political dialectic without realising it. Having the best of intentions but being unable to see that the effects of their actions will lead to great evil.
"To be clear, I am NOT saying that is rape,"
Then why is it being conflated with it? Why is it being brought up here?
This is not the false thoughtlessness society.
"To be clear, I am NOT saying that is rape, but it is ignoring a social boundary and the wishes of the other which is something not good."
Your line of thinking begins from the very assumptions that lead to feminist ideas such as 'yes means yes'.
That is, that all people at all times must be equally respected.
Doesn't work in practice. Nor should it. It's a very very silly and immature way of viewing the world.
"But it doesn't negate what the woman earlier said about who she likes and it doesn't make her "anti-male.""
Well, with all due respect Social Worker, I couldn't give a fuck what you think. You're a woman, so you weren't being demeaned and sexually shamed by her comments.
What right do you think YOU have, as a woman, to correct MY views, as a man, on whether or not MEN were being demeaned?
That level of arrogance just blows my mind, it's absolutely astounding. You think YOU should tell me, as a man, how men should feel about obviously anti-male comments?
You don't have the slightest CLUE of the offensiveness her comment carried.
Yeah, I know. Men aren't supposed to feel offended, right? We're not supposed to complain about it, anyway. Just keep reinforcing that stereotype - the 'real man' who 'mans up' takes all the blows without ever raising a fist in retaliation. Then five minutes later, criticise us for not being sufficiently 'emotional' and 'sensitive'.
False accusations against men are what this blog reports on 99% of the time. I feel for the falsely accused women too, but as of right now, your whole sex can just put a sock in it regarding what men are supposed to be or how we are supposed to feel.
I have had ENOUGH of your sex telling me what to be and how to feel. You can all just go to hell.
In fact, you know what the following from 12:33 reminded me of ..
"You want a "Mother, May I?" guy? Have at it. They make great purse holders and shopping bag carriers, but I'll glady pass any I meet on to you. I don't want 'em."
It reminded me of that comment signed on the anonymity petition, which was obviously written by a feminist, about how its author enjoys accusing "pussified men" of rape.
It is women who have made men 'sensitive'. Men did it to RESPECT WHAT WOMEN WANTED. For women to then turn around and call them sexually useless is sick and it leaves me with absolutely no sympathy for your entire sex.
I have had ENOUGH of your sex telling me what to be and how to feel. You can all just go to hell.
I clearly struck a nerve here (or added to one that the earlier woman did) and I am very sorry.
If you re-read my comment, I never suggested your feelings in reaction to what was said were invalid. They just don't equal her "being" anti-male.
Think of it as similar to the idea that a woman who FEELS raped doesn't, in and of itself, make the man a rapist.
That said, I certainly did not intend to add hurt. For that, I apologize.
To Anon @ 1:35:
That is, that all people at all times must be equally respected.
Doesn't work in practice. Nor should it.
Really? Wow. Okay. I'm not sure how to respond to this.
Mmm, yes I do. I think, until an individual causes harm, WE are best served by treating others with the respect we desire back.
And how did you mean that comment in the context of the discussion?
Anon @ 1:33:
"To be clear, I am NOT saying that is rape,"
Then why is it being conflated with it? Why is it being brought up here?
I took extra pains to make it clear that I am NOT conflating unintended crossed boundaries with intended rape, so I'm not sure where your question comes from.
It was brought up in the context of the Yes means Yes discussion and the benefits of being clear with a partner. I said it because I anticipated someone accusing me of conflating the two when I talked about crossing sexual lines.
Irony. When attempting clarity creates more confusion.
I think that you have the idea stuck in your head that false accusations happen by accident, Social Worker.
This is not the case. As incomprehsible as this must be to the average person, there is a psychological jackpot for these sick women, and that is why they do it.
When a woman is really raped she KNOWS it was rape; there is no need for further clarity.
However, it is true that sometimes a woman will play the game of asking, "Was this rape?" in order to give people the impression that she was raped when she knows perfectly well that she wasn't. (Ben Roethlisberger, etc.)
"I clearly struck a nerve here (or added to one that the earlier woman did) and I am very sorry.
If you re-read my comment, I never suggested your feelings in reaction to what was said were invalid. They just don't equal her "being" anti-male.
Think of it as similar to the idea that a woman who FEELS raped doesn't, in and of itself, make the man a rapist.
That said, I certainly did not intend to add hurt. For that, I apologize."
I appreciate that. Yes, I was angry earlier. That comment (not yours, the Anonymous from 12:33) really pissed me off. This woman who comes here and declares her support for the falsely accused - which was sound - but defended them by sexually shaming men. That shit will not fly. It will not pass without challenge.
I may have unfairly attacked you too, and if I did then I'm sorry too. When I get that mad sometimes anything can look like a target.
Anon @ 4:30:
No worries. I can take the heat when it's fair.
I get that many of the men on here have been hurt and/or falsely accused themselves. I try to remain sensitive to that, even when I have a disagreement with a particular point.
This loopy plan is monstrously inhumane. It's been floating around in various forms for years, and I've even seen feminists explain that once this plan is enacted, yes, for a while, some young men who really thought they had procured the woman's consent will be sent to prison, but that's an acceptable price to pay to change the way young men in general behave.
That is why they are called feminazis. We men are in a war for our very lives.
Social Worker, I didn't call you a useful idiot. You must be confusing me with another poster.
Anonymous @12:33 here.
Thank you for your kind words, Nick.
To Oh So Critical Anonymous who finds me such a nasty piece of work, I made MY comments to "refudiate" Archivist's boldly stated contention that women don't enjoy sex as much as men...and I quote:
"And if so, is that because men like sex more than women? (Don't bother trying to convince me otherwise.)"
'Cause, Archivist - yer wrong.
There are women with higher levels of sexual hormones than other women - AND men, just as there are men with higher octane levels than other men - and women.
So don't try to SHAME me for stating the obvious truth.
Women so blessed (or cursed) arent' allowed to openly discuss, brag or proclaim they like sex more because they would be labeled whores, sluts or other derogatory terms.
I would only post such an admission anonymously, since I am in 'real' life a decent, loving wife in a long term marriage, not some party girl trying to prove I'm "one of the boys".
I could say the same to Archivist - that HE must be a slacker if women don't enjoy sex as much as he does - but I know it's a matter of biology, not gender.
You might be surprised to learn a LOT of unassuming and deeply private women are "hot stuff", while so many "advertisers" are in reality man -and sex - haters.
If you feel my distain of Michael Moore type ass kissers makes me an 'objectifier'of men, I guess my distain of Social Worker's ball busting does too. I'm not ashamed - I'll own it.
They can have each other and I say go with God.
Just don't impose your lame ass YES means YES stupidity on me.
Anon, I think you may be onto something in that the belief that men want sex more than women may well be a myth. Or at the very least the differences are not as great as many people believe. The trouble is, this is one of those social dogmas that is so deeply entrenched in our psyche and social upbringing, that it is often hard to get people to change their views. But I believe it is useful to examine one's core beliefs to see if they are really useful or not. It actually took me some time to change my ideas on this as well.
A lot of this stuff is borne out by scientific studies, such as where the subjects are wired to measure their body's responses to various stimuli. When the female subjects are questioned about their responses, the women are far less likely to acknowledge being aroused by various stimuli than what their bodily responses revealed. For example, it is becoming increasingly clear that a higher percentage of women have bisexual tendencies than what was traditionally thought.
This confirms what I have long come to realize, that women are often secretly horny. Hell, even from when I was a small child onwards I have lost track of the number of women who behaved inappropriately towards me, or who were perhaps, shall we say, a little too friendly and helpful than what was required.
What troubles me about the idea that men have far more sexual needs than women is that it encourages men to do stupid things, like blowing all their money on hookers or throwing money at women in the hope they will give them some. The idea that men have much greater sexual needs than women is quite disempowering for men, and once you get past this idea it can be quite liberating. As I say, it is useful to examine your beliefs to see if they are helping you or not. If an idea brings nothing but misery, it sure is worth re-examining it to see if it is true or not.
Anon @ 1:09,
It's not your PREFERENCES that make you an objectifier of men.
You admitted to humiliating and demeaning men who do not fit your preferences, but who have an interest in you.
And you admitted to sexually and emotionally manipulating and threatening men, holding the relationship hostage to them 'performing' to your standards in the bedroom 'or there won't be a next time'.
That's pretty fucked up.
To the other Anonymous poster who was offended by Anon12:33, I think your response was excessive and frankly smacks of someone who is easily offended. We really need to avoid slipping into that kind of automatic whining and victimhood that the feminists indulge in.
Don't get me wrong. I am fully aware that women often try to use shaming tactics and the like to get men to do what they want. I have even copped ridicule and contempt on other forums for calling out women who do this. It is just that it's not helpful to make such claims when they are not really warranted, as it makes us look precious and too easily offended.
I certainly didn't get the impression that Anon@12:33 was trying to shame men. She wasn't putting all the responsibility onto men. Indeed, it appears to me that she was holding women responsible for making their desires clear. Usually people who are obsessed with shaming men try to put all the responsibility on men's shoulders. All she did was put down men who pander to feminist nonsense. Frankly, where is the harm in that? I took most of her post as mocking ball-breaking women, and frankly she is right that such women don't deserve a man who can even bang them properly.
"Perhaps you need to have a think about why the 'Mother, May I' guys act like that. Perhaps it is because they have been beaten down and shamed into behaving that way by women - not women like yourself. Women who have demanded that men be 'sensitive' and such."
Yes, yes, Anon, I know a lot of men have been shamed and put down by women over the years. But here is the thing. At some point you need to get past it and develop some strength of character. A real man does what he knows to be right, and what is true to himself. A real man doesn't feel the need to pander to every demand women make. Just practice saying "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".
Here's a thought. Why don't you just stop fretting about what women want, and start being true to yourself. At the end of the day, I couldn't give a flying fuck whether women want a sensitive man or want to sleep with criminals and bikers. I will be true to myself, who I am, and what I'm about. Even if women hate who I am, I will survive and be content in myself. My worth is not dependent on their approval. And to all the women who believe men can never do anything right, all I can say is that I hope you, your cat, and your vibrator have a nice life.
I hate to say this. But you just need to grow a pair and stop being such a wet blanket. I'm not trying to be mean. It is just that we all need a kick in the pants at times. I gave myself the same kick in the pants some time back.
Nick S, you completely misinterpret my position. I'm not offended on behalf of myself. I'm offended on behalf of men generally.
But as I already mentioned, men aren't supposed to be offended, are we? Just keep trotting out that 'real man' shtick ... what a surprise to see that phrase again in your post, without a hint of irony.
You tell me I need to form my own identity, without regard for what others think; and at the same time, tell me I need to 'man up' and become a 'real man'.
I agree with the positive points in 12:33's post, but some of what she said was shaming bullshit. I get that it makes some people feel uncomfortable when a man actually stands up to this shit. And there you go again. Using the same old shaming tactics. Calling me a wimp and such (although I was offended on behalf of men in general, not myself). It's so goddamn predictable at this stage.
To make it clearer, Nick.
She seemed to imply in her post that she has led men on, used them in demeaning ways, etc. It wasn't just how she put things, the implication was that she HAS ACTED IN THIS WAY, in real life, that is, humiliating and demeaning those men who have acted with the utmost consideration and respect for her. I find that really sickening. And it's on behalf of those men that I feel so appalled.
Anon, it seems to me that you are reading a lot of things into the other Anon's posts that I really don't see there. It seems you have a lot of anger that is easily triggered off, and you are looking for somewhere to direct it.
I really don't get from her posts that she is deliberately trying to lead men on or use them. I think you are reading in a lot of stuff that is not there. To be blunt, you sound a bit paranoid and suspicious, as though you are all too willing to believe the worst in others.
But you are right about one thing though. My comments about a 'real man' were a deliberate shaming tactic. If men are too pathetically anxious to please women, and if shaming such men helps them to snap out of it, then all well and good. I don't apologize for that.
Seriously, I am not trying to put you down. I genuinely understand where a lot of this anger and confusion comes from. All I am saying is that your current approach won't help you get past it. Trust me. I've been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt.
"I really don't get from her posts that she is deliberately trying to lead men on or use them. I think you are reading in a lot of stuff that is not there."
How can you NOT see it? I've quoted it multiple times.
Look, rather than continuing to insult me (the 'unresolved anger' charge is a shaming and silencing tactic too) or to get me to conform to your 'real man' standards, listen ...
I 'man up' by not letting women get away with shit.
Rather than just sit there while my brothers get attacked and humiliated, I will get in those women's faces and tell them exactly what I think.
Where does that fit into your real man/wimp complex?
As for the assertion that I am 'anxious to please women', that is LOW, Nick. Real LOW. Quite obviously I am calling her out on her bullshit. And that's on behalf of the men she ADMITTED to leading on and using.
How you can respond to this by saying I need to stop being anxious to please women I do not know. YOU are reading shit into posts that is NOT THERE.
"All I am saying is that your current approach won't help you get past it. Trust me. I've been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt."
Okay thanks big bro. Good to know I can always come to you for guidance on how I should let women get away with all kinds of atrocious shit.
"How you can respond to this by saying I need to stop being anxious to please women I do not know. YOU are reading shit into posts that is NOT THERE."
The reason I make the assumption that you are too anxious to please women is that you wrote this:
"Perhaps you need to have a think about why the 'Mother, May I' guys act like that. Perhaps it is because they have been beaten down and shamed into behaving that way by women - not women like yourself. Women who have demanded that men be 'sensitive' and such."
Okay, maybe you were talking about other men, and I made a false assumption you were dealing with your own problems in this regard.
It is possible I have made some false assumptions about where you are coming from. If so, I apologize.
"Okay, maybe you were talking about other men, and I made a false assumption you were dealing with your own problems in this regard."
Yes. I should perhaps have made this clearer.
I am not a guy who holds purses and carries shopping bags for women.
HOWEVER, when I see a guy being treated in this way ... I get pretty angry. Because I know, that those guys are trying their damn best to be respectful and considerate towards women. Just like women SAY they want. And what do they get for their trouble? They get used and humiliated.
And that my friends is where misogyny comes from.
Anon, I am sorry that I misinterpreted where you are coming from. And I think it is really good that you are helping pussy-whipped men to overcome their predicament.
But I still don't agree with your interpretation of where the other Anon is coming from. I didn't interpret her position as trying to shame men. I interpreted it as ridiculing ball-breaking women for creating men they don't really want.
But I can understand how people become sensitive to such things, especially when the culture has been swamped with such nonsense for so long.
Nick no need to placate the crazies. You took a position and stuck to it. Good on you.
I don't see how anybody can zero in on such a benign comment (purse holder and shopping toter) and expect to be taken seriously.
Did he ever consider that these so-called pussy-whipped men will get some pussy after the shopping spree?
"But I still don't agree with your interpretation of where the other Anon is coming from. I didn't interpret her position as trying to shame men. I interpreted it as ridiculing ball-breaking women for creating men they don't really want."
Yes, she DID ridicule feminist women. No argument here. As I've always said, I thought a lot of what she said - maybe MOST - was spot-on. And I am appreciative of her strong opposition to 'yes means yes' and the idea that every man should automatically be assumed to be a rapist.
Perhaps it was BECAUSE that part of her comment was so GOOD, that I got so worked up over the other part.
But let's take another look.
"You want a "Mother, May I?" guy? Have at it. They make great purse holders and shopping bag carriers"
Sounds to me like she's talking from experience of having led on and used men for not being 'real man' enough. Despite those men simply trying to be respectful of what women say they want.
See, I can't help but take the men's side here. Because those men are trying to do what's right, to forget themselves and make someone else happy, to consider the feelings of women, etc.
The woman, on the other hand, is a user and a manipulator who literally uses men as tools. Not only this; she uses their good, considerate natures for her own selfish ends or for entertainment.
"Don't ask me to "verbalize" yes or no. Don't ask "Was it good for you?" type questions, either. Ick! If you don't know the answer to that after I non verbalize it loud and clear, there won't be a 'next time'."
As for this, it seems like a threat to me. You might be emotionally invested in a woman, and she even seems attached to you; but then she holds your feelings and the future of the relationship hostage to you performing to her standard, or you'll never see her again.
Again, it sounds a lot like she's speaking from experience of dumping guys for not being 'good enough' - she's in fact BRAGGING about dumping men for being sexually inadequate.
She comes across as a cold-hearted, predatory user in these paragraphs. And not a friend to men whatsoever.
"Did he ever consider that these so-called pussy-whipped men will get some pussy after the shopping spree?"
Obviously they don't ... that's partly the point and it's exactly what 12:33 was SAYING, that such men are sexually insufficient. (But she'll gladly use them for her own demeaning ends.)
Crazy? Hardly ... what I'm saying makes sense. This is just another way women manipulate men. You have FRAs, you have divorce and family courts, and you have this kind of behaviour.
"I don't see how anybody can zero in on such a benign comment (purse holder and shopping toter) and expect to be taken seriously."
It wasn't benign at all, it was intended to sexually shame men who aren't 'real man' enough. So yes, my complaints should be taken very seriously.
"Did he ever consider that these so-called pussy-whipped men will get some pussy after the shopping spree?"
No, no, no! Stop!
Even if you do get some pussy afterwards, it is not worth it. I find the prospect of accompanying women shopping, wandering around stores all day, to be so mind-numbingly tedious and boring that I wouldn't do it. Even if my girlfriend promised me a blowjob afterwards, or even promised to fulfill my sickest fantasy.
Please refer to my comment further up about how the belief that men need sex more than women do is misguided and leads to bad outcomes. Seriously, there is nothing more demeaning than bending over backwards or throwing your money around in the hope of getting some pussy. Why do men think women will respect a man who has to go to such lengths merely to fulfill a bodily function?
And as I say, it is totally unnecessary once you realize that women are more interested in sex than you may realize.
You are way too sensitive and defensive. If you feel sexually shamed, there must be a reason.
Maybe these pussy-whipped guys are very happy "men" whose partners reciprocate generously. Ever thought of that?
"You are way too sensitive and defensive. If you feel sexually shamed, there must be a reason."
Anon, I don't personally feel shamed. Recognising that it was intended to sexually shame certain men is different from me personally feeling shame.
And again ... men aren't supposed to be 'offended', even on behalf of others ... 'too sensitive' you say? Well I guess I could bottle everything up, become completely stoic, never defend myself or show any emotion ... then I'd be chastised by women for 'not being sensitive enough'.
I am onto you and these little games, and there is no way you are going to shut me up from speaking out on behalf of my brothers who don't deserve this shitty treatment.
"Maybe these pussy-whipped guys are very happy "men" whose partners reciprocate generously. Ever thought of that?"
I didn't think of that. Because, for the second time, 12:33 was shaming these men specifically because they are sexually inadequate. Do you get it now?
Nick is right, Anon. You are projecting your own perceptions while claiming them as mine - I said nothing of the kind.
There is no such thing as a 'real' man just as there is no 'real' woman. Just a 'real' person.
My husband gripes that I never carry Kleenex with me at all times, because that's what he thinks 'real' women do. I roll my eyes and stifle my annoyance that he can't change a flat tire - cause that's what I think 'real' men do.
I guess that makes both of us losers in the REAL gender department.
As a 'real' person myself, I recognize men and women are VERY different in many ways. I don't expect men to be titless girlfriends and I deeply appreciate they don't expect me to be "one of the boys".
There's nothing 'shaming' about it.
I regard men as allies. Their strengths dovetail with my weaknesses - and vice versa. This is in all aspects of life, not just sex. That's the way it's supposed to be - not one sex browbeating and dominating the other into their own sensibilities of how things are supposed to be.
While it is true men in general have higher IQs than women, it does not mean ALL men have high IQs and all women have low ones - just as not ALL men have high libidos and ALL women have low ones.
There women with much higher IQs than Archivist's, and much higher libidos as well.
I am not trying to 'shame' anyone by pointing out this possibility - I AM trying to shame hammering square pegs into round holes with such an unfounded gender perception.
Same goes for Social Worker's "Yes means Yes" edict.
Yuck means Yuuuuuck.
"12:33 was shaming these men specifically because they are sexually inadequate."
12:33 is not the one with the problem. YOU feel plagued with sexual inadequacy and that is sad. The more you say the more obvious your situation.
Anon from 12:33,
As I've said, I agree very much with those parts of what you said - there's no need to reiterate those parts. We already see eye to eye.
I don't have a problem with you having certain expectations of men, either.
My issue was this: you appeared to have been speaking from personal experience of using 'inadequate' men. Damn right that strikes a nerve with me, because I'm a Men's Rights Activist.
Unless you were being hyperbolic ... but it did seem like you were relaying, even bragging, about how you had (mis)treated men because they didn't meet your standards.
"12:33 is not the one with the problem. YOU feel plagued with sexual inadequacy and that is sad. The more you say the more obvious your situation."
Sigh. Yet more shaming language because people are too afraid to engage in discussion. When will it end?
Some people here are every bit as bad as feminists ... no matter how many times (it's three or four by now) that I explain it's not a personal issue, but one which caused me concern because I am pro-male, they come right back with the personal shaming language.
This is assuming they're not actually feminist trolls - they are every bit as bad.
- Snark
Final word on this, there are a myriad of ways that women fuck men over. FRAs being just one of them. If men don't start calling women out, mercilessly, on their shit, then it is never going to end. This goes for the big stuff and the small. I wasn't going to let anti-male sentiments pass here, and shame on YOU guys who would. You let men down. Really, you do.
- Snark
Holy crap Snark. Is that you I was jousting with?
Nick, I appreciated your comments, (particularly once we were clear on what I originally meant).
It's a shame I have to bring my moniker into this, but as someone who contributed both to FRS and the MRM-osphere in various ways, it might help some realise that my motives for taking this stance are perfectly in line with everything else I've done, and not to do with personal issues.
Snark, I appreciate that there is an overwhelming need to counter a lot of shit that is directed at men. But to some extent, we have to pick our battles. Otherwise a lot of energy is wasted. There are countless individuals that are more deserving of being singled out than Anon@12:33.
I still think you misinterpreted her quote about "there won't be a next time". The way I read it, I think she was saying that if a man she sleeps with resorts to faux-sensitive, feminist-style "communication" about her needs, she probably won't sleep with him again. I don't think she was saying that she would dump any man who was not good enough in bed.
Snark, I guess you are a bit more radical than I am, and we probably won't see eye to eye on a lot of things. I still appreciate the need for radicals to drive our agenda forward.
"The way I read it, I think she was saying that if a man she sleeps with resorts to faux-sensitive, feminist-style "communication" about her needs, she probably won't sleep with him again."
Hmmmmm. I can see how it could be read this way, actually.
But even then, I still feel for the guys. The guys who do this are just trying to be considerate towards women, in the way women have said they would like them to be.
That's not to say there's an obligation on women to pretend to enjoy it if they don't - I agree with the thrust of 12:33's comment.
What burns me up, is that guys have been given a bowl full of shit and told to eat. It's not 12:33's fault. Her comment, as I interpreted it, was only an indication of what I consider to be much larger problems.
I think we're going way off topic here. Not every situation involving a man being disappointed by a woman is a men's rights issue.
Some thoughts:
-I have no problem carrying groceries for a woman -- especially if the woman plans to cook me a delicious meal!
-If a woman sleeps with a guy and finds that he doesn't measure up in the sack, and it's GAME OVER, that's not feminism -- it's Darwinism. Move on.
-And if being a nice guy and sucking up to women doesn't work, try being brash, like Clark Cable in 'Gone With the Wind.' Sometimes women prefer a man who isn't afraid to be cocky.
Anon 3:50, I completely agree. Thanks for winding up this nonsense.
"Not every situation involving a man being disappointed by a woman is a men's rights issue."
Of course not. It's the conflicting messages men receive which makes them manipulable. That's the issue here.
Of course there are conflicting messages. Different women want different things. Just because some women have said they'd like men to be more sensitive, doesn't mean other women are wrong to find this unattractive. In the same way, different men want different things and just because some men say they want women with big breasts, doesn't mean that all men find this attractive.
Anon, I see where you're coming from but that's not what I mean.
Of course different women want different things, there's no argument from me here.
To be honest, it's late here and I should be asleep. I tried but I'm too tired to articulate what I want to say. But I thought it best to make clear that I agree with you, and that's not the issue I was pointing to. I may return to this tomorrow.
"If a woman sleeps with a guy and finds that he doesn't measure up in the sack, and it's GAME OVER, that's not feminism -- it's Darwinism. Move on."
Perhaps true. But the whole 'feminism v. Darwinism' divide is something of a false mutual exclusivity. To a large extent, feminism IS social Darwinism (just with a humanitarian mask). i.e. the main purpose of feminism is to allow women to weed out the weaker males and eliminate them from the gene pool and the species. The men who are silly enough to fall for these games will go the way of the dodo.
Anon@7:16, it is true that we all face conflicting messages and demands from others.
"In the same way, different men want different things and just because some men say they want women with big breasts, doesn't mean that all men find this attractive."
The only difference is that if a man sleeps with a woman and finds out her large breasts are false, she is unlikely to find herself behind bars due to a false allegation.
When any group in society is vilified and criminalized to such an extent, the conflicting messages directed towards them become a greater concern.
Snark, I can appreciate how you might see my approach as a kind of victim-blaming. But the thing is, sometimes it is useful to blame the victim in order to encourage them to stop being a victim. Tough love can be more effective than tea and sympathy.
The problem with sympathizing too much with pussy-whipped men is that you are encouraging them to stay in their position and feel sorry for themselves. I would rather empower them to change their situation than just offer sympathy.
As I say, I have been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt. I made the decision to stop pandering to women and engaging in their emotional games and manipulation. It is not that difficult. Much of the power that women hold over men, or the idea that men need women so much, is just something that people are brainwashed into believing. With a bit of work, you can retrain yourself to look at things differently and it is very liberating when you achieve it.
The best thing is to find a woman who doesn't play those games.
Well, let ME clarify my Anon 12:33 remarks once and for all, Snark.
Nick "gets it". You don't.
First off, I don't sleep around and secondly I don't humiliate or reject men.
What I was trying to tell Social Worker is I like men just as they are and don't want HER horrible dictates or suggestions ending up in MY bed - 'cause, rest assured, there WILL be rejection for someone dumb enough to listen to her.
Think of YOUR reaction when a woman YOU are with is acting out something repulsive she'd been mislead into believing ALL men expect.
I found Social Worker's suggestion completely repulsive. I hated her recommendation - I don't hate men.
What might be HER idea of a good time isn't MINE - that I reject HER suggestion vehemently as a woman who likes men just the way they are: REAL men, not dickless Ken dolls.
It seems like you've been studying the feminist's playbook too much, Snark. You are starting to sound like them.
Well, let ME clarify my Anon 12:33 remarks once and for all, Snark.
Nick "gets it". You don't.
First off, I don't sleep around and secondly I don't humiliate or reject men.
What I was trying to tell Social Worker is I like men just as they are and don't want HER horrible dictates or suggestions ending up in MY bed - 'cause, rest assured, there WILL be rejection for someone dumb enough to listen to her.
Think of YOUR reaction when a woman YOU are with is acting out something repulsive she'd been mislead into believing ALL men expect.
I found Social Worker's suggestion completely repulsive. I hated her recommendation - I don't hate men.
What might be HER idea of a good time isn't MINE - that I reject HER suggestion vehemently as a woman who likes men just the way they are: REAL men, not dickless Ken dolls.
It seems like you've been studying the feminist's playbook too much, Snark. You are starting to sound like them.
I read both posts.
The phrase that resonates: 'dickless ken dolls.'
@Nick:
"At the end of the day, I couldn't give a flying fuck whether women want a sensitive man or want to sleep with criminals and bikers. I will be true to myself..."
*applause applause* That kind of says it all to me.
And sorry about confusing you with the Anon before you on the "useful idiot" comment.
Carry bags, don't carry bags. Use Yes means Yes or don't.
If you are true to your own convictions to yourself and don't step on others doing that, there likely won't be any worries about bad communication or fumbling around, etc. as several have said.
Then it's just the malicious ones (on both sides) we have to hold accountable.
"Then it's just the malicious ones (on both sides) we have to hold accountable."
That was always my point. Anon @ 12:33's over-eagerness to explain how 'misinterpreted' she was suggests to me again that she may be one of the malicious ones.
Nick S - "The only difference is that if a man sleeps with a woman and finds out her large breasts are false, she is unlikely to find herself behind bars due to a false allegation.
When any group in society is vilified and criminalized to such an extent, the conflicting messages directed towards them become a greater concern."
I really don't think this has any relevance to what I was saying. It's not inconsistent for different people to be attracted to different things. The only way messages about 'what women want' become conflicting is when men believe that all women want the same things (and the genders in this sentence could easily be reversed and it would be just as true).
I don't think that people talking about what they find attractive is cause for 'concern'. The fact that some people feel the need to change themselves everytime they hear about a trait that might make them more attractive to the opposite sex is concerning and leads to some very confused individuals trying to be all things to all people. (That is NOT to say that people deserve to be used, mistreated or falsely accused for doing this.) The media encourages this with endless articles about "what men want" or "what women want", as if there was a consensus and as if we should all be trying to be those things. (Of course, as 'the media' isn't one homogenous entity, there are also plenty of messages from the media saying 'be yourself'.)
Anon@6:35, I agree with you that different people want different things, and facing conflicting or confusing messages does not make one a victim.
The problem, as I see it, is that women have been encouraged to feel entitled to have a man fulfill their needs, and even to exact punishment through various legal recourse if they don't get what they want.
The point I am really trying to get at is this. Being subjected to conflicting or even contradictory demands is much more of a problem when one's moral worth in the eyes of society, and nay, one's very liberty or rights are at stake. Suppose you were prosecuted for breaking the law. Then suppose the law was changing all the time, and what is legal one day is illegal the next. When you look at it this way, you begin to see that being subject to conflicting or confusing messages is much worse in this context than others.
I don't mean to give too much encouragement to the 'men are confused by women's expectations' crowd, who perhaps need some more of the tough love I have been dispensing of late. Confusion is not necessary once you realize that the world is full of things that don't add up or make sense.
What I find concerning about this discussion is that there is a real danger that we become like the feminists in lacking a sense of humor and becoming too obsessed with seeing a battle everywhere. You need to keep a sense of humor if you are to get through the tough battles.
I found Anon@12:33's comment that Social Worker wants a "Mother, May I" guy frickin hilarious. I'm still laughing over it. (Sorry Social Worker, but it was frickin hilarious). It sums up the attitudes of a certain kind of a woman perfectly. That is, sex is something they hand out like candy to boys who are good.
It is also notable that when Social Worker talked about her sex life, she basically said that she never sleeps with guys who ask for her consent, while she sleeps with guys who don't. Well, gee, I guess all those nice sensitive guys who ask permission really get your juices flowing, hey? Need I say more? Pussyboys will get no pussy. That is the funny thing. Even Social Worker does not want a "Mother, May I" guy. But only a "Mother, May I" guy would conform to these silly feminist rules.
Of course, in the real world I am sure that even most shy, sensitive guys don't ask for explicit verbal consent.
Anonymous said...
I read both posts.
The phrase that resonates: 'dickless ken dolls.'
Jul 25, 2010 1:33:00 AM
....Ken dolls ARE dickless, stupid.
Haven't you never seen one?
Lol, that's the point. That's why 'ken dolls' rather than 'men'. The adjective 'dickless' is just there to emphasise that particular aspect of them. Saying 'green grass' doesn't mean that the person doesn't know grass is green. Also, there's really no need to be so rude.
What I find concerning about this discussion is that there is a real danger that we become like the feminists in lacking a sense of humor and becoming too obsessed with seeing a battle everywhere. You need to keep a sense of humor if you are to get through the tough battles.
***
That is indeed a danger, and it's something that I focus on a lot when I comment on this blog.
The downfall of feminism will be the all-consuming narcissism of the feminists, and their inability to limit and contain their ideology. We shouldn't make that mistake.
This is why I reject extremist positions such as denying women the right to vote, imposing censorship of feminist art and books, violence against false rape accusers, etc. I have seen all of these things proposed (mostly by trolls) at some time or another.
And the most fundamental boundry that needs to be drawn pertains to logic and facts themselves: the feminists have no use for them. Their dogma is combination of their emotions and what they can get away with lying about and nothing else. But we need to conform to logic and facts.
As you've said, we can't allow men's rights to become a sort of religion in which every situation involves a man being deprived of his liberty by a mustache-twirling feminazi. Sometimes disappointments are the result of normal life events -- and at other times they really are the result of injustices.
We must not always make the personal political, like the feminist snake oil slingers.
@Nick:
"I found Anon@12:33's comment that Social Worker wants a "Mother, May I" guy frickin hilarious. I'm still laughing over it. (Sorry Social Worker, but it was frickin hilarious)."
Why are you apologizing to me? I thought it was funny too.
I'm not advocating begging and pleading on the part of the guy, just some assurances by both partners that they really want to do whatever it is they're going to do.
That's what always happens during sex, Soc. There is no need for a law to regulate it, any more than you need a law to tell people how to tie their shoes.
False rape accusations aren't the result of miscommunications. They are the deliberate products of sick, evil minds.
Social Worker, the problem is that it is hard for a guy to ask for explicit consent without coming across as a pathetic pleader.
'Please mam, may I put my dick inside you?'. Does that sound sexy to you?
I couldn't imagine a bigger mood killer than having to ask for explicit consent. That is not to say that a guy shouldn't pay attention to other things to see if his partner is willing or not.
"'Please mam, may I put my dick inside you?"
"Mam" implies he hardly knows her, and "may I put my dick inside you" sounds like a pussy whipped nerd. Nick, do I have to tell you everything?!
How about something sexy like "god, I wanna make love to you", or "let's make love".
DO NOT PROCEDE without a positive response.
""Mam" implies he hardly knows her, and "may I put my dick inside you" sounds like a pussy whipped nerd. Nick, do I have to tell you everything?!"
Well, first, I don't know who you are? So many Anon's. I assume you are Social Worker.
Of course I was exaggerating slightly for rhetorical effect, so it is a bit obtuse to critique my arguments as though they were a literal reference to what someone might say. The point remains, it is still hard for a man to ask for explicit consent without looking awkward or craven.
[Note: As a general rule, if you are a woman who identifies as a feminist I will have a hard time tolerating smears designed to attack one's masculinity, such as "pussy whipped nerd". And you will find you wear out your welcome quite quickly here with stuff like that. I am slightly more tolerant of non-feminist women ridiculing pussy-whipped men. But for feminist women to ridicule wimpy men is rank hypocrisy].
Anon @ 2:38:
"any more than you need a law to tell people how to tie their shoes"
Whoah whoah whoah, wait a minute! You mean, there isn't?!??!
I am sick and tired of those lace-flingin' freaks out there who think THEY are exempt from the shoe-tying that the rest of us commit to responsibly!
What will it take?/!11!
Nick:
As the other Anon (who wasn't me) said and I said before, getting positive, enthusiastic consent can be VERY sexy and not come across as pathetic at all.
Man: "Mmmm, god baby, you are so hot. I'm going to put you up against the wall and screw you into tomorrow."
Woman: "Yes, please."
You could easily reverse those roles too, if you like.
You're just not thinking about it creatively enough.
In fact, what I'm describing is likely MORE typical of a short-term hook-up than a passive, frozen, scared looking woman.
But if you encounter that look, just back it up and make sure she's okay with continuing.
It's good for everybody and tasty too.
Social Worker, I didn't have anything that graphic in mind, lol.
Other Anon.
Yyyyeah, I was just making a point.
See how hot consent can be?
Post a Comment