The Sex Thread

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go
taza
Posts: 144
Joined: 30 Nov 2009, 23:01
First Video: Max Effect

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby taza » 25 May 2012, 07:16

The Jester wrote:It's like all those daft rules blokes come up with to define who's gay and who isn't; it doesn't matter if you wear a tight white teeshirt and a gold stud earring. The only thing that could possibly designate you as gay is having sex with other men.


I take major offense to this. I have plentiful (male) friends who have sex with other men and are still not gay, and I also know of men who are gay and do not have sex with other men. Nevermind how the ladies fit into this.
User avatar
The Jester
Posts: 6141
Joined: 07 Aug 2008, 17:49
First Video: The Truce
Location: Chester, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby The Jester » 25 May 2012, 07:23

Uh... ok, I wasn't going for offence, or definition of gender in four rigid quadrants, I was going for "appearance does not dictate intent".
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Matt » 25 May 2012, 08:25

hoboy.

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Geoff_B
Posts: 11637
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 13:13
First Video: Installation Anxiety
Location: Harrow, London
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Geoff_B » 25 May 2012, 08:26

Isn't it nice that we can all have a civilised discussion about all of this?
Twitter|Google+|Tumblr|Facebook|Steam|Skype: gmbridges

I survived spaMEGAdon and all I got was this lousy signature joke.

#TeamMonica, #TeamMaki, #TeamTavis
User avatar
TheRocket
Posts: 8428
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 01:17
First Video: Those Games That We Played
Location: Lake Titicaca
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby TheRocket » 25 May 2012, 08:56

Matt wrote:hoboy.

-m


RIGHT?!


Anyways... I didn't read everyones long posts and I will later on. I have to get back to working but I wanted to put my 2cents in on girls that wear super revealing clothing.

Of course they are doing it because it's comfortable and attractive and it might garner some positive attention to make them feel good. But that in no way excuses overtly sexual leering, groping, cat calls etc. It kind of is an open invitation to look - not an open invitation to harassment. If I am wearing a clevage showing shirt I am not offended if I catch someone glancing. It would be the same if I was wearing a huge pink sparkly fuzzy top hat. If I caught someone looking at my super pink fuzzy sparkly top hat I wouldn't start screaming "OMG MY EYES ARE NOT ON MY HAT - STOP LOOKING AT MY HAT!!!!" People's eyes are probably going to be directed to that which stands out. Again... it's not an invitation to start air humping and ask a girl to give you a BJ around the corner because she isn't dressing that way for you, she's dressing that way for her.

I saw a girl yesterday at the gym wearing next to nothing. Spandex booty shorts in which her bum hung out of. She had an amazing figure and a rocking bod and was on the eliptical directly in front of me. Even I couldn't help but stealing a few glances and that wasn't sexual or to leer at her. It was because her badonkadonk was hanging out and bouncing all over in front of me and it was a little dstracting as I had to turn my head or look down to avoid it. Obviously she knows she's hot and she knows she looks good in it - she also knows it will garner a bit of attention while being super comfortable to wear. So she feels confident, sexy and comfortable. A few glances at something that is obvsly hanging out I don't think is something she would freak out over. However it starts to get creepy when the old guys get on the machine behind her and have a beeline view that never breaks while making low MMM noises. That's inappropriate.

My point is there is a line between appreciating a woman and how she looks with a glance versus inappropriate harassment. People should be raised well enough to know this line. It's kinda a huge fucking line.

Yes some women will freak out if you say "hi" to them in passing. But truth is that is rare and is probably a symptom of being harassed one too many times so they are on their guard. Sometimes it's because they are a self involved wench - but more often it's probably the first.
Walk in like DeNiro, and leave like Brando.

You're living proof that Darwin was a moron.
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Lord Hosk » 25 May 2012, 09:25

Duckay wrote:I sincerely wonder how you can chastise someone for using the defense "but she was dressed like she was asking for it" in the same breath as "but look at these girls, dressed in a way that's inappropriate for public".

When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if a woman is walking down the street completely naked. It is still inappropriate to leer, make rude comments (whether those comments are "hey sexy, get on my dick" or "you're clearly seeking sexual attention"), or assault these women. Period. (Of course, if they're actually indecent, it's not inappropriate to, say, arrest them for that, but I certainly hope you see my point, here.)

I can't stop you from judging them, but I'm also not going to pretend like I think your judgement is right.

As for "as a person, you should be able to say...", well, that's neither here nor there. The fact is that when a guy says to another guy "dude, off-side", it gets a different reaction than when a girl says it. I've seen it happen, with these same people.



(I am still reading the rest of the thread but I wanted to respond to each individually.)


They were not in the same breath, they were responses to different arguments, I just didn't want to create multiple posts to make said responses.

It is never appropriate to leer at, oogle, or objectify anyone male or female. It is absolutely abhorrent to ever assault anyone which includes ANY unwanted/unrequested touching.

That being said, my argument is that some women WANT to be leered at, oogled, and objectified. I don't believe that anyone wants it to go further than that but their goal when choosing their outfit was to be stared at. I personally still wont do it, I wont give them the response they are looking for nor should anyone else in my opinion.

There was a trend in several peoples posts to say that women should not be objectified just because they want to dress cool and comfortably, they should not have to wear long pants and baggy shirts just to avoid those situations. My point was and still is that both of these skirt lengths would be "cool and comfortable" I would argue that neither A or B is "cooler" in the warm months.

Image

selecting A over B is done for the express purpose of soliciting what I would consider to be negative looks.

I ask again do you honestly feel that the person wearing A is not doing so to garner sexual attention, second looks, and stares?
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Deedles » 25 May 2012, 09:32

I have shorts about the length of skirt A and when I wear them it's usually because
1. They're so short they are really comfy in summer, and I get -easily- effected by heat so I'll take most means possible for just a tiny bit more coolness.
2. I feel they accentuate my butt quite nicely, and seeing as I'm chubby I use any advantage I can get. That doesn't invite to any kind of touching (like you said, it never does.), but if I catch someone glancing at my ass I'll take that in a positive manner, as my butt is pretty much my biggest (literally) asset. (Pun intended)
Last edited by Deedles on 25 May 2012, 09:33, edited 1 time in total.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
TheRocket
Posts: 8428
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 01:17
First Video: Those Games That We Played
Location: Lake Titicaca
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby TheRocket » 25 May 2012, 09:33

Why negative looks? Why is every look of appreciation a negative thing to you?
Walk in like DeNiro, and leave like Brando.

You're living proof that Darwin was a moron.
User avatar
TheRocket
Posts: 8428
Joined: 30 Nov 2006, 01:17
First Video: Those Games That We Played
Location: Lake Titicaca
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby TheRocket » 25 May 2012, 09:36

Lord Hosk wrote:I ask again do you honestly feel that the person wearing A is not doing so to garner sexual attention, second looks, and stares?


Not all the time, no. There are several shorts that fit better at that length. Above the fatty part of the thigh rather than squeezing the thigh lower down.

Even if it is to garner sexual attention it's not SEX they are looking for. They may be feeling sexy in that particular outfit and enjoy having a positive reaction from people and feel confident and sexy. That is not your call on what a girl chooses to wear to make her feel comfortable and confident. It's not an invitation for overly sexualized leering vs noticing.
Walk in like DeNiro, and leave like Brando.

You're living proof that Darwin was a moron.
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Matt » 25 May 2012, 10:04

Geoff_B wrote:But on the other hand I can't fully get away from the "girls ask for it" mentality based on the way they dress as demonstrated in Lord Hosk's post. I know there's a difference between girls asking for it and men giving it and yes responsibility does lie with the men in that case, but, to be blunt, if a girl chooses to wear that sort of clothing, whatever the reason, shouldn't they expect some form of unwanted attention? I'm more talking about male gaze (I think that's the term I'm looking for) rather than any of the other more serious things.


There are a million reasons a woman might dress in a sexy way.

Don't assume a strange woman doing it for your attention.

Also remember the "male gaze" is a social phenomenon that reflects the male-centric nature of our society - it is not a justification for being creepy.


Geoff_B wrote:I'm just trying to say that maybe the responsibility lies on both sides rather than (what seems to me) constantly demonising men for, as I've seen it described on one TV show, "appreciating nature".


That's the line of thinking that puts women in Burquas.

"it's women's responsibility not to wear clothes that arouse my interest, because I can't be assed to keep my own hormones in check"

You can wear basically whatever the hell you want (at least, within the confines of our gender norms, but that's another discussion) without having people regard you as a piece of meat first and a person second. Why do you think they shouldn't be allowed to do the same?



Avistew wrote:And I don't get how the same people who seem to think in the Menswear thread that clothing is how you present yourself to the world, it tell them what kind of person you are, it defines how you're going to be treated, etc, suddenly think the opposite when women are concerned.


responding to this could be a whole discussion in and of itself.

Men are not objectified in the same way women are. Period. Factual statement.

When a man dresses in such a way as to highlight certain features, or present a certain message about himself, that message is internalized by those who see it as "this is a person who is also X"

When women dress in a way that highlights certain features, or sends a specific message to the world, that message is usually internalized by others as "dat ass" or "Boobs!" or" slut" or "prude".

When we see a man dress up, we don't immediately assume it's to attract sexual attention from everyone around him.

I am not arguing that the way women dress isn't engaged in with the purpose of creating an image, or sending a message.

What I'm arguing is that the people observing this need to divorce themselves from the idea that the messages sent by that clothing are FOR them, and that they are necessarily seeking sexual atteention. Because women SHOULD be able to dress in whatever way they like, while creating an image that is seen by others as "this is a person who is also X"

Personal agency. It's what's for dinner.



Avistew wrote:My main problem is that some people just use it as an excuse. You'll be minding your own business, not paying attention to them, not even noticing they're there, and they'll start going "what are you looking at?" and insulting you like you're some kind of pervert. I'm female and I've had women do it to me, so I can't imagine how often it must happen to guys.


Never. I have never once, ever, by anyone, ever, in the history of my life, been confronted by a woman I wasn't even loooking at. I've never been confronted by a woman I was looking at. I've never seen or heard someone I know, or someone I don't confronted for ogling a woman they weren't actually ogling.

I've heard third-hand stories of it on the internet though.


Avistew wrote:I just want a line, somewhere. We can't have it be okay for guys to be rude or aggressive or assault women. But we can't have it be okay for women to scold off people for no reason, either.


The line is : “men, don’t be creepy.” Misunderstandings are going to happen occasionally. The line is that which simply allows the most people to go about their day unbothered.


Geoff_B wrote:So I what I'm trying to say is, occasionally you see a girl whose shorts are just that bit too short or top is just that bit too low or showing more midriff than is really necessary and I ask myself "why would you wear something like that?"
So why would you wear something like that?

Why does it matter to you? They aren’t wearing it for you.

Avistew wrote:1) I always see it framed as men hurting women, but every time someone has harassed me about what I wore, every time someone has told me I really need to shave my legs, or wear makeup, or wear dresses, every time someone has asked me to change my appearance that person has been female.
People keep phrasing it as men oppressing women, but throughout my life I only have felt oppressed, pressured, told I should feel terrible about myself, etc, by other women. Every single time. And I hate that the blame is put on men, like they say we need to wear this or act like that, when every single man in my life has always been "why should I care?" but females, even strangers, have acted like they get a right to decide what I do with my body.
Thank God it's not every female, far from it, but I find it hard to take part in discussions about how men are jerks and objectifying women when my experience of being disrespected and objectified is by other women, and I really feel that a lot of the time, females are the ones oppressing or pressuring each other or themselves. I can't tell you how many times I've had female friends complain about something they did to themselves (wearing makeup, shaving, wearing uncomfortable shoes) only to have them flabbergasted when I asked "then why do you do it, if you don't like it?" and have them answer "well, you know, I HAVE to". Just like they tell ME I "have" to. But I don't, and they don't.

Welcome to the intersection between personal experience and patriarchy. Doing some reading on internalized misogyny might be interesting for you, but it might be jumping ahead a bit if you’re not familiar with the basics of feminism and patriarchy theory.

Avistew wrote:2) Slightly related to the first point, I feel like framing this in matter of men vs women, with females constantly being victims with no choice is hurtful. You tell someone enough times that they're weak, that they're a victim, that they have no choice, and they're going to believe it. But we do have a choice, we do have control over our lives, we have control over our appearance, and we have control over our actions. Sure, we don't control everything all the time, but saying we have no responsibility whatsoever is taking away our choice and our control. If you are able to make your own decisions, then you also have to be responsible for them. You can't have one without the other.


If the discussion is about how women can overcome social injustice, (which it, ostensibly, is) Then it seems strange to develop a victimhood complex over it – particularly since the overwhelming majority of this fight (on an academic and social scale0 is being fought by women and for women. I’m (sort of strangely) speaking in the voice of feminism on this forum, because it’s a discipline that I find interesting, and I’m familiar with it (and seemingly no one else is) but this isn’t about men, (or even people, really) telling women they’re victims (and actually the use of the word “victim” has fallen out of favour in feminist circles anyhow, which is why I’ve been trying, more or less, to steer clear of using it except where appropriate). It’s about finding ways to modify the language and dynamic of social discourse in a way that regards women as people equal to men. We aren’t post sexism yet, and you don’t make *ism go away by refusing to talk about it, no matter how convincing that video by Morgan Freeman may sound.

Avistew wrote:3) The double standard. I mean, if you think about it, the male equivalent of a female with a mini-skirt is a male with the tiny shorts that show half his buttocks. If a male can't wear that without people looking at him and wondering what the hell he's wearing, if it's not appropriate to wear it in school or at work, then there is no reason it should be any different for females and mini-skirts. Are you telling me that if a guy was walking around wearing basically nothing, you wouldn't even look at him and wonder why he's wearing that outfit?

Those scenarios aren’t really equivalent because of the extent to which gender norms pervade our culture. Men are held to masculinity in an extremely rigid way, probably more so than women. Such an instance would be one of shock at the flagrant violation of social expectation, not of the objectification and sexualization of the man.


Brief aside: apparently Jester picked up the torch a bit while I was a sleep.


Second aside: this conversation seems to have gotten bogged down in a conflation of “clothes” versus “appearance”
Evaluating “clothes” is not a problem. I can like your shirt. I can think you’re wearing a neat hat. I can think you’re wearing ugly shoes. I can not understand why you’d want to broadcast your deep, abiding love of UFC. These don’t deny you agency.
Evaluating your appearance, though, can be much more problematic. It’s not my place to accuse you of showing too much leg, or telling you to “put your tits away because they’re flopping all over the place” Giving you the ol’ Kanye “dat ass” lip bite as you walk by in yoga pants is a really shitty thing to do. In these cases, I’m making it my business to assess your physical attributes in a way that only considers my own desire for sexual interaction. I’m not engaging in any consideration of what you may have intended by dressing the way you did, or your desire to be evaluated by me for that purpose.
That does deny you agency.
Tl;dr: this is not a conversation about CLOTHES. It is not even a discussion about how we evaluate clothes. It is about the sexualization of physical appearance, and objectification of the physical form.


Avistew wrote:Jester, just because the women who try to pressure others were pressured as well doesn't mean I'm going to stop being annoyed with them for doing it. They can't complain that society is that way and yet contribute to it. They have to stop it. They're part of society. If they stop doing it, society stops doing it.


Except that most aren’t even aware they’re doing it?
Read Me.
When “women” blame “men”, especially those who arent’ familiar with patriarchy, they misattribute blame. “Patriarchy” (more accurately kyriarchy, but that’s jumping WAY ahead) is the problem.
Two relevant quotes I’d like to highlight:
Patriarchy is a social system which includes men and women (as well as people who don't easily define as either). The philosopher Bourdieu argues that power can be direct- such as when you force someone to do something through coercion, or physical violence- or indirect, exercised through culture, social values and institutions, and language. The exercise of power becomes a social system when power moves from being direct to indirect. Patriarchy is not exercised directly by men over women, but indirectly through our involvement in social structures- the way we talk to each other, what we mean when we think 'woman' or 'man' in our heads, our legal system and governance, social customs, traditions and formal institutions like education and religion.


Both men and women live within this system and it is the act of living in it that both creates patriarchy and reinforces it. Men gain from patriarchy, but not exclusively. Some men gain more than others; some women also gain. Furthermore, by the time power is a social system, everybody who is operating within it is participating in its continuation- even if you don't want to be. In this way, women are as responsible for the perpetuation of patriarchy as men. And, while men gain more from patriarchy, and so may be more reluctant to give it up, they are just as much 'victims' of patriarchy as women. They can no more choose to remove themselves from a patriarchal world than women.


TorachiKatashi wrote:Can we get a definition as to what exactly qualifies as "sexual assault" in regards to that statistic? Because I mean, from reading this conversation so far, it seems that trying to look over a woman's shoulder to read the bus schedule she's standing in front of counts as sexual assault.


That's extremely disingenuous. Drop the defensiveness please.

Sexual assault is sexual assault - non-consensual engagement in a physical sexual act.

TorachiKatashi wrote:Well, no, apparently there is no difference. Apparently, I'm supposed to pivot and start walking backwards as soon as I see a woman walking down the same side of the street as me just to make sure that she doesn't, heaven forbid, think I might actually be looking at her.

Maybe go back and reread the discussion, and actually internalize the messages this time.

TorachiKatashi wrote:What my eyes do cannot hurt you, I'm not a comic book character. I understand not wanting to be touched or approached, but when women are posting blogs about how dirty and awful and violated they feel because some guy might have been looking at them or might have spoken to them in the two seconds they walked past him in the street (neither of which they can definitively prove was true, I personally stare off into space and talk to myself all the time,) that seems like a victimless crime to me, which is a shame, because it takes validity away from women who are legitimately harassed because everyone is sick of hearing from "the girl who cried wolf" and don't take the serious incidents, serious.

“I, as a man, can’t take the lived experiences of women seriously because they’re all so hysterically over-reacting to a culture of behavior I will never understand, and to which I will never be subjected.”

TorachiKatashi wrote:There's a pretty big difference between someone looking at you, and someone harassing you, following you and approaching you repeatedly. Someone looking at you as you run passed is about as harassing as a tourist asking you for directions.


No one cares if you have a look. They DO care if you leer. They DO care if you harass. They do care if your gaze invades their space in such a way as to cause them to feel shameful or marginalized. Which a look CAN and very often DOES do.

TorachiKatashi wrote:As a side note, I think the whole idea of "men who are harassed should shut up because it's not the same," is absolutely ridiculous. We already live in a society where a male rape victim is immediately shamed into keeping quiet, do we really need to be telling them that "women are raped more often, so shut up?" Since when does something happening to the majority make it not important when it happens to the minority?

Well, since no one said anything like that, I guess we don’t have a problem.


-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
The Jester
Posts: 6141
Joined: 07 Aug 2008, 17:49
First Video: The Truce
Location: Chester, UK
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby The Jester » 25 May 2012, 10:37

Matt wrote:Brief aside: apparently Jester picked up the torch a bit while I was a sleep.

Well I was trying, but I guess I'm not very good at articulating my understanding.

It's like... there are all these interrelated and interdependent factors all rolled up into one, and I can't find the start of the ball of string any more. I can only point at parts of the thread and try and make them relevant to others.
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Metcarfre » 25 May 2012, 10:42

This is good. We're all just trying to understand one another.
*
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Lord Hosk » 25 May 2012, 10:44

Matt wrote:Hosk, here's a hard statistic for you:

One in six women in the US will be a survivor of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault in their lifetime.

Globally that ratio is 1 in 4.

When asked in a way that doesn't use the word "rape", 1 in 20 college age men in the US will openly admit to committing an act that qualifies legally as rape.


WARNING there are some graphic acts described in this post


Those statistics are intentionally misleading, I have found this to nearly always be the case with statistics presented in that manner. I am not saying you are using them in that manner because I know that you are not, but the reality is not what those sentences implies. The phrase Sexual assault brings to mind very specific mental images but the reality of what qualifies is quite broad.

The reality is that Sexual assault is defined as Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering.

By this legal definition, if a man forces a woman into an ally tears her cloths off and forces her to have sex with him or if a man reaches into his pants and says to a woman "you know you want this" Both of those are sexual assaults.

If a woman is walking down the street and a car pulls up along side her, a man and a woman jump out with the intention of dragging her off and raping and molesting her, but as they grab her drag her into the car and start to pull away the woman kicks screams and fights free of the car and the people speed off. If a boss leans over woman's desk and say "I'm want to you into the bathroom and have my way with you" but then a second person walks up and the the boss gets startled and walks away. Both have been the victim of a attempted sexual assault.

All four scenarios are disturbing, all four scenarios would leave a lasting impact on the victim. However when that 1 in 6 is spoken of it evokes only the first two images.

The 1 in 20 is surprisingly low, I have heard much higher numbers on that. Rape is defines as having sexual contact with a person who has not, or can not legally give their consent.

I don't know exact numbers but spit balling I would say that 1 in 3 sexual encounters on a college campus are rape. Why do I think its that high?

Here is a scenario, a guy and a girl meet in English class, they get along. Girl asks guy if he would like to go out for pizza on Friday, guy agrees. They order a pizza, they have a couple beers a good time is had so she invites him back to her dorm room. They each have a beer and talk, talking leads to kissing kissing leads to sex.

They just raped each other. By imbibing more 1 12oz 4% alcohol beer in two hours neither person can give consent to have sexual contact and if legal consent is not obtainable its rape.

I don't mean to diminish the rapes and sexual assaults that happen, they are terrible. But a purely statistical argument is flawed by the broad nature of the terms.


You know literally nothing about the women you're saying hello to in the street, but with numbers like those, can you blame women for not always being receptive, even if your personal intentions are totally pure?

What reason do they have to trust you? Particularly if they are, themselves, a survivor of sexual assault?

You're just some strange dude in the street inserting himself into their day.

It would be nice if we didn't live in a society as fucked up as we do.

Unfortunately, this is the shit we've got.


-m


The problem I have is that, Im not stopping them, or getting in their way, or making a extended interaction with them.

Just as you say I know nothing about them, they know nothing about me, but its ok for them to categorize me a someone who wants to do them harm because I smiled and said "hi" in passing.

I am not asking them to trust anything other than we live in a society. I would think that we can expect that not everyone is out to harm us, the very basis of a society is a group of individuals working towards a common, if vague, cause.

Yes, there are people who are bad and who intent to hurt people but should you assume that every person is intent on harming you?

Has our society really degraded to the point where its not acceptable to say hello or smile at other people in public but it is acceptable for women to be rude to everyone for no reason other than there is a 1 in 6 chance that something terrible will or has happened to them?

By those odds 5 in 6 women will be rude to everyone in public even though in there lifetime they will never suffer from a sexual assault of any manner.
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
User avatar
Dutch guy
Posts: 5198
Joined: 11 Feb 2008, 17:12
First Video: History of Halo
Location: Southern Dutch Colonies

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Dutch guy » 25 May 2012, 11:09

@Matt, thanks for that link on patriarchy. I kinda knew the system/mechanism but never knew the proper name for it.

Matt wrote:
Geoff_B wrote:I'm just trying to say that maybe the responsibility lies on both sides rather than (what seems to me) constantly demonising men for, as I've seen it described on one TV show, "appreciating nature".


That's the line of thinking that puts women in Burquas.

"it's women's responsibility not to wear clothes that arouse my interest, because I can't be assed to keep my own hormones in check"

You can wear basically whatever the hell you want (at least, within the confines of our gender norms, but that's another discussion) without having people regard you as a piece of meat first and a person second. Why do you think they shouldn't be allowed to do the same?


I don't think that was the kind of thinking Geoff was intending here. I think Geoff mostly means that maybe SOME of the clothing some women are wearing nowadays should be considered "outside the gender-norms"/"socially unacceptable". I'm sorry, but if I see a women wearing a skirt that basically gives me a full view of "down-there" from the front and back as soon as she sits down then, to me, that is outside acceptable limits. Not in the "she's asking for sex/being sexual/seductive" but in a "yeah, I dont need to see that" way. Yet there are many women who will instantly shout "But I should be allowed to wear what I want!"


Matt wrote:Never. I have never once, ever, by anyone, ever, in the history of my life, been confronted by a woman I wasn't even loooking at. I've never been confronted by a woman I was looking at. I've never seen or heard someone I know, or someone I don't confronted for ogling a woman they weren't actually ogling.

I've heard third-hand stories of it on the internet though.
-m


So here's a first hand story:

Riding on the train I was sitting across the aisle and a few rows away from 2 women, my seat facing in their direction, theirs facing in mine (weird construction on dutch intercity trains). I was mostly concentrating on my laptop and a most riveting game of spider solitaire. These 2 ladies were being obnoxious, loud, and annoying (and not just to me judging from the reactions of the people around) I had already asked them to calm down a bit once, but they still kept it up. So this meant that every once in a while, when they were being especially loud I would look at them with an annoyed face, decide I wasn't going to bother asking again and return to my game. At roughly the third time this happens, she happens to see me look up and immediately starts making a scene about how I'm staring at them, that I'm a creep, etc, etc.

At a later date, this time in a bus. I'm minding my own business, sitting somewhere towards the back half of the bus. A woman enters the bus (haven't looked at her at all at this point) and flops down rather violently in a seat 2 rows further forward. I look up to see what is happening as I'm hearing a loud thud basically. She looks around, sees me looking at her and immediately starts shouting profanities at me. (She was then asked to leave the bus 2 stops later for making a ruckus)

Trust me, it happens!
THE DUTCH!! THE DUTCH AGAIN!!!!!
Elomin Sha wrote:Dutch guy is the King of the Dutch.
User avatar
Geoff_B
Posts: 11637
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 13:13
First Video: Installation Anxiety
Location: Harrow, London
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Geoff_B » 25 May 2012, 11:17

Thanks Dutch Guy, that was what I was going for.
Twitter|Google+|Tumblr|Facebook|Steam|Skype: gmbridges

I survived spaMEGAdon and all I got was this lousy signature joke.

#TeamMonica, #TeamMaki, #TeamTavis
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Matt » 25 May 2012, 11:25

TRIGGER WARNING.

Lord Hosk wrote:
Matt wrote:Hosk, here's a hard statistic for you:

One in six women in the US will be a survivor of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault in their lifetime.

Globally that ratio is 1 in 4.

When asked in a way that doesn't use the word "rape", 1 in 20 college age men in the US will openly admit to committing an act that qualifies legally as rape.


WARNING there are some graphic acts described in this post


Those statistics are intentionally misleading, I have found this to nearly always be the case with statistics presented in that manner. I am not saying you are using them in that manner because I know that you are not, but the reality is not what those sentences implies. The phrase Sexual assault brings to mind very specific mental images but the reality of what qualifies is quite broad.

The reality is that Sexual assault is defined as Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering.

By this legal definition, if a man forces a woman into an ally tears her cloths off and forces her to have sex with him or if a man reaches into his pants and says to a woman "you know you want this" Both of those are sexual assaults.

If a woman is walking down the street and a car pulls up along side her, a man and a woman jump out with the intention of dragging her off and raping and molesting her, but as they grab her drag her into the car and start to pull away the woman kicks screams and fights free of the car and the people speed off. If a boss leans over woman's desk and say "I'm want to you into the bathroom and have my way with you" but then a second person walks up and the the boss gets startled and walks away. Both have been the victim of a attempted sexual assault.

All four scenarios are disturbing, all four scenarios would leave a lasting impact on the victim. However when that 1 in 6 is spoken of it evokes only the first two images.


That's because socially, we have a really fucked up perception of what sexual assault looks like, (which I can see below you're about to unrepentantly step into). 77% of rape is comitted by people the victim knows. That doesn't make it not rape. A woman doesn't have to be dragged into the bushes and held at gunpoint to be raped.

They just raped each other. By imbibing more 1 12oz 4% alcohol beer in two hours neither person can give consent to have sexual contact and if legal consent is not obtainable its rape.


This is a disingenuous argument. you can not simultaneously be raping a person, while being raped. it doesn't work that way, and no one would ever prosecute it that way.

What has just ocurred is non-legally-consensual sex. ThatMAY be rape, if one, or the other participant feels wronged by it in some way sufficient to feel victimized by the encounter, but it is not necessarily rape, if both parties, in the clear light of day, feel that their consent was uncoerced, enthusiastic, and ongoing. It's one of those grey-area corner cases that people like to trot out because it identifies a failing of the legal definition of rape. The real problem is that we don't teach children what consent actually looks like. We just say "no means no" - and that's a really shitty way to understand consent.

Sexual consent must be enthusiastic and ongoing. We need to make people (men especially) understand that pestering a woman into saying yes isn't good consent. Plying a woman with alcohol isn't good consent. Pior consent isn't good consent. Overcoming LMR (don't google that unles you want to read some really creeper-ass shit) isn't good consent. Good consent is when the other participant (ideally) verbalizes their desire to have sex in the moment, and is an active and engaged participant in the proceeding.

Anything less and you may be engaging in an act of rape.

Yeah, a lot of college kids will have drunk sex every year. Every single one of them is taking a gamble on whether or not they're comitting a rape. Where you and I differ is that you seem to think it's ridiculous that that could be rape. I think it's ridiculous that they aren't taking more care not to be rapists.


The problem I have is that, Im not stopping them, or getting in their way, or making a extended interaction with them.

Just as you say I know nothing about them, they know nothing about me, but its ok for them to categorize me a someone who may want to do them harm because I smiled and said "hi" in passing.


And so the fuck what? They're at much greater risk of sexual assault than you are, inhabit a culture that borderline celebrates it, and in many cases are harassed daily by other men.

You're just another strange dude who has decided to make an intrusion into their day. What fucking reason could they possibly have to give you the benefit of the doubt beyond preserving your own seeming hurt feelings that they won't give you the benefit of the doubt?

Get over it.

Yes, there are people who are bad and who intent to hurt people but should you assume that every person is intent on harming you?


IF YOU INHABIT A WORLD WHERE YOUR CHANCES OF BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN YOUR LIFE ARE 1:6, YES. ABSOLUTELY YES. UNEQUIVOCALLY, ABSOLUTELY, YES.


Has our society really degraded to the point where its not acceptable to say hello or smile at other people in public but it is acceptable for women to be rude to everyone for no reason other than there is a 1 in 6 chance that something terrible will or has happened to them?
By those odds 5 in 6 women will be rude to everyone in public even though in there lifetime they will never suffer from a sexual assault of any manner.

Why is it your RIGHT to insert yourself into a strange woman’s day, but not their RIGHT to give you a dirty look for it if it’s unwelcome?

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Matt » 25 May 2012, 11:29

Dutch guy wrote:Trust me, it happens!


I acknowledge that it has almost certainly happened.

I dismiss the idea that it is tremendously common, or that it is a behaviour that is routinely engaged in intentionally on the part of the women who do it.

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Deedles » 25 May 2012, 11:47

I have a first-hand experience of a group of guys sitting in a train and loudly imitating female moaning while shouting phrases like "oh my god! I wanna suck your cock!", "Mmm, harder! Harder!" having a right laugh, and being general dickheads.

Dutch's post just reminded me of that, it was rather irritating, and I finally flipped my lid at them when they kept doing it while standing behind me as we were getting off the train. They thought I was being a total bitch, of course.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Lord Hosk » 25 May 2012, 12:11

Matt wrote:This is a disingenuous argument. you can not simultaneously be raping a person, while being raped. it doesn't work that way, and no one would ever prosecute it that way.
-m


The act and perception in the moment is not a legal defense.

I personally known a man and a woman who are now registered sex offenders because they had sex with a person who had imbibed alcohol. Who gave every indication before, and during the encounter to be aware and consenting but regrets it later for any reason and it becomes a prosecutable offense.

Further, I can speak directly to the incident of double rape I was called as a witness in both courts-martial, I was in the room where the drinking and some foreplay happened and I was in the cabin the next day as they were being all buddy buddy. At the time, and the next day both were happy with the proceedings. After the weekend was done and we returned to work the girl started being made fun of when it got out who she had slept with, her story changed and then it was a rape. Just after he was charged in reprisal he also filed a complaint. Because both parties were intoxicated and it was ruled in both cases that the other person had committed rape because their partner could not legally consent while under the effects of alcohol.

Matt wrote:Why is it your RIGHT to insert yourself into a strange woman’s day, but not their RIGHT to give you a dirty look for it if it’s unwelcome?
-m


I have the same right in insert myself into the strange woman's day as they have to insert themselves into mine.

If someone makes eye contact with me in public I am going to respond in a polite none intrusive manner, regardless of gender. I fail to see how any amount of external potential gives anyone the right to respond in a rude way.

I do this A LOT, in fact I do this dozens sometimes hundreds of times a day and it boggles my mind the negative reactions that I get over

man walking
woman walking
woman looks at mans face,
Man smiles says "good afternoon"
Man keeps walking
Woman turns and scoffs
Man doesn't look back doesn't respond doesn't break his stride.
Woman says "pervert"

I have had this scenario and ones VERY similar happen more times than I can count. I don't understand how this can be defended as not being uncalled for because women are victimized far more often in our culture.
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Lord Hosk » 25 May 2012, 12:20

As another inclusion of statistics.

According to the United States Department of defense.

(numbers off sexual assault power points)
60% of reported sexual assaults are male service members on female service members
25% of reported sexual assaults are male service members on male service members
10% of reported sexual assaults are female service members on female service members
5% of reported sexual assaults are female service members on female service members

Female Victims of sexual assault are 27 times more likely to report the incident based on surveys of all service members.

Cases where a female was assaulted by a male are 40 times more likely to be prosecuted under the uniform code of military justice based on DOD data.
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Matt » 25 May 2012, 12:29

Lord Hosk wrote:The act and perception in the moment is not a legal defense.

I personally known a man and a woman who are now registered sex offenders because they had sex with a person who had imbibed alcohol. Who gave every indication before, and during the encounter to be aware and consenting but regrets it later for any reason and it becomes a prosecutable offense.

Further, I can speak directly to the incident of double rape I was called as a witness in both courts-martial, I was in the room where the drinking and some foreplay happened and I was in the cabin the next day as they were being all buddy buddy. At the time, and the next day both were happy with the proceedings. After the weekend was done and we returned to work the girl started being made fun of when it got out who she had slept with, her story changed and then it was a rape. Just after he was charged in reprisal he also filed a complaint. Because both parties were intoxicated and it was ruled in both cases that the other person had committed rape because their partner could not legally consent while under the effects of alcohol.


Ok, so first thing first, the handling of rape by military courts is different than the civilian handling of same.

That's fine. It wouldn't at all surprise me to see that in the case of drunk sex becoming a rape case, in civillian court, there have been instances of both parties filing against one another. That said, rape is already under-prosecuted both by nature of under report, and because it is so often extremely difficult to prove. cases routinely boil down to he said-she said, and in those cases, the proceeding is dismissed.

On your first scenario: that's why you don't have drunk sex. don't want to be convicted of rape? Don't have sex that could get you conviceted of rape. Seems pretty straightforward, no?

On your second - I find it hard to believe that that verdict would ever be returned in a civilian court. Even if it were, yeah, it's still pretty much the right one.

Lesson of the day: don't have sex you can't legally consent to or with someone who can't legally consent.


Lord Hosk wrote:I have the same right in insert myself into the strange woman's day as they have to insert themselves into mine.

If someone makes eye contact with me in public I am going to respond in a polite none intrusive manner, regardless of gender. I fail to see how any amount of external potential gives anyone the right to respond in a rude way.

I do this A LOT, in fact I do this dozens sometimes hundreds of times a day and it boggles my mind the negative reactions that I get over

man walking
woman walking
woman looks at mans face,
Man smiles says "good afternoon"
Man keeps walking
Woman turns and scoffs
Man doesn't look back doesn't respond doesn't break his stride.
Woman says "pervert"

I have had this scenario and ones VERY similar happen more times than I can count. I don't understand how this can be defended as not being uncalled for because women are victimized far more often in our culture.


Well there's one commonality between all these "hundreds" of encounters, isn't there?

YOU.

If you keep doing something and routinely get negative responses for it learn your lesson and stop fucking doing it.

It's OBVIOUSLY not appreciated, so fucking STOP.

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Geoff_B
Posts: 11637
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 13:13
First Video: Installation Anxiety
Location: Harrow, London
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Geoff_B » 25 May 2012, 12:34

Does anyone remember when this was a thread where people would post sordid details about their private love lives? :D
Twitter|Google+|Tumblr|Facebook|Steam|Skype: gmbridges

I survived spaMEGAdon and all I got was this lousy signature joke.

#TeamMonica, #TeamMaki, #TeamTavis
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Matt » 25 May 2012, 12:42

Lord Hosk wrote:As another inclusion of statistics.

According to the United States Department of defense.

(numbers off sexual assault power points)
60% of reported sexual assaults are male service members on female service members
25% of reported sexual assaults are male service members on male service members
10% of reported sexual assaults are female service members on female service members
5% of reported sexual assaults are female service members on female service members

Female Victims of sexual assault are 27 times more likely to report the incident based on surveys of all service members.

Cases where a female was assaulted by a male are 40 times more likely to be prosecuted under the uniform code of military justice based on DOD data.


In which you provide further evidence that (in the military, at least) women are sexually assaulted by men alone at a rate far exceeding the rate at which men are raped by men and women combined.

Yes. Men under report their sexual assaults, (I wonder I'd that might have something to do with patriarchally enforced gender norms... Hmm) which is clearly a problem, but that simply doesn't change the fact that women are at so much more risk of sexual assault, the comparion is barely valid.

Point of note: the rate of false report in the general population is about 5%.

Women report rape so much more often because they are raped so much more often

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby Matt » 25 May 2012, 12:43

Geoff_B wrote:Does anyone remember when this was a thread where people would post sordid details about their private love lives? :D


This is a pretty important series of issues relating to human sexuality. It's not like we're off topic.

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
tamaness
Posts: 2673
Joined: 17 Oct 2008, 03:44
First Video: LRReview: Desert Bus
Location: Stuck between a rock and a hard place
Contact:

Re: The Sex Thread

Postby tamaness » 25 May 2012, 12:55

Geoff_B wrote:Does anyone remember when this was a thread where people would post sordid details about their private love lives? :D

I'm just waiting for the discussion to slow down so I can catch up and put in my two cents. This is a really interesting debate.

Matt, I doubt anyone expects to be shouted down because of a friendly greeting, whether they asked for it or not. I always appreciate when people say "hi" or "good morning" or whatever, I return the greeting and go on my way. Calling someone a pervert when they greet you and then keep walking is somewhat uncalled for.

Hosk, perhaps your phrasing or tone is indicating to people that you have ulterior motives besides saying "hello." Examine the next interaction that you have that goes badly and try to figure out if it's something you're doing. I know you've indicated that it happens less often when you have your wife and/or child with you, but perhaps you've got some confirmation bias in your results?

I live in a fairly large apartment complex, and frequently greet people as I pass. I figure it's only polite. I've never had someone respond in any negative way; only neutral to positive. The same goes for when I'm out and about; if I make eye contact with someone, I generally raise my hand in greeting and say something along the lines of "hello" or "good evening." I've never had anyone say anything back to me to make me think it's unwelcome.

But back on the subject, I see quite a few separate arguments here, being mixed, and muddying the waters:
• Honking/whistling/cat-calling are prevalent, and make some people feel threatened. There is an argument as to whether one should feel threatened or not, and one as to whether it is an appropriate action ever.
• Compliments from strangers may or may not be welcome or even called for.
• Choice of clothing may invite sexual attention, but doesn't necessarily warrant action of any kind.
• "Leering"/gazing is unwelcome, however a glance isn't unwelcome. What is an appropriate response to this?
• Greetings may be unwelcome because of the first two points.
• For some reason groping, I.E. physically assaulting people is commonplace. How does one respond?

Perhaps it'd be constructive to break this argument down into a couple different conversations, rather than rolling everything into one gigantic snowball.

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests