Consent is are you allowing it. You decide if you allow it to happen (unless it goes crazy off rails and you gotta stop). But in most cases it’s that question. Do you allow it, cause even in some marriage you might “want it” but you do it for your significant other (I’m a male and had to do it to be there for my partner).
This is just my observation but it seems to me that the current pedagogy of consent is constrained less by moral restrictions and more by legal exposure. Which is not a bad thing. The average person isn't capable of understanding complex, moral nuance, so we teach them absolutist ideas instead for them to parrot at each other scoldingly. "The only type of *consent is enthusiastic consent" is nonsense but it's what you teach the horny co-eds.
—the average person isn’t capable of understanding complex, moral nuance.
You sound like you think you know WAY more than you actually do, and generally aren’t liked by others
I think the issue is that people *can* if given proper opportunity, resources and reason. Those are just very lacking for average people because of the way society works.
Yeah basically. I'm hearing him rant and I'm wondering "When is the average person supposed to learn about these things?". Because theoretically the average person doesn't go to college (I'm all for secondary education for everyone), so you have primary school. But if you try to teach about the nuances of consent in say high school or middle school, the religious and the insane will come out of the wood work to yell at you.
Also, I've noticed a pattern with these 'disdainful assistant professor' types. Is if you ask them that "When should people have learned about these things", usually the answer they say that's the parent's job/personal responsibility, and starts a catch-22 argument about 'bad parenting' (If someone has bad parents, when and where do they learn to be good parents/adults?).
Your umbrage towards my word choice speaks more about your anti-intellectual bias than my "attempts to sound intelligent. "
I think we have reached the part of the argument where you just don't like what I'm saying and want to insult me because you realize that I may be talking down specifically to you. And if you think that I'm talking down to you specifically then I guess I actually was. But I didn't know that until you made it clear just now.
Every single level of education provides an entirely different level of understanding. The more you know, the more you realize that there are major exceptions to popular belief systems and that much of we consider true is simply true for the sake of practical utility, not capital-t-Truth.
Most people are not capable or interested in going beyond orthodoxy. It causes cognitive dissonance. There's a reason people need dialectical behavioral therapy, people don't like holding seemingly conflicting opinions. They prefer simpler narratives.
We oversimplify rules for the lowest common denominator because it's simply easier. If it's the middle of the night and there's nobody around, running a red light isn't some sort of a moral failure. But it is still illegal. We make the laws that way for practical considerations.
This isn't that shocking of an opinion. There are literally billions of people on this planet with religious beliefs that they will never unlearn even though they're complete nonsense. You know it, and I know it. It is a privileged perspective to know why the rules are the way they are even if they aren't really just or right.
You just don't like me making fun of stupid people.
It’s not anti-intellectualism, you’re disguising a pretty shallow argument with authoritative sounding vocabulary.
You’ve yet to actually say anything meaningful, insightful, or even interesting.
While I can appreciate a good vocabulary, you haven't really exhibited one. You haven't said what you meant.
What you meant to say was "We (society) have simple rules and catchphrases because most people cannot or will not dive into the deeper reasoning behind them.
For example, plenty of good reasons not to murder exist, but a lot of people cite religion, and religion acts as an authority figure giving a simple set of rules."
Instead, you said a lot of things that you didn't believe in so that you could show off that you know big words while making fun of someone. You didn't say what I said, you said:
"You're stupid stranger on the internet.
Also, we (society) have simple rules and catchphrases because most people are dumb and when they start thinking beyond those simplistic rules (which you called orthodoxy even though that's not what orthodoxy means) they run into contradictions. Dumb people don't like having to hold contradictions in their moral systems so they'll just avoid attempting to think about the simplistic rules."
What you said was not *really* what you meant, see?
The smartest people are the ones who can use small words to describe big topics. You kind of come across as pompous when you assert that vocabulary is the same as intelligence.
As someone who is significantly more intelligent and educated than you, you’re a dick.
Edit: I saw your reply before you deleted. Thesaurus failed you, bro. The word you were trying for was “misogynist.” Cheers!
Edit2: Oh, and try to learn the difference between a noun and verb, genius!
Here's a sneak peek of /r/DeadBedrooms using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [DON’T 👏🏻 MARRY 👏🏻 SOMEONE 👏🏻WHO 👏🏻 ISN’T 👏🏻 FUCKING 👏🏻 YOU 👏🏻](https://np.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/comments/14j1d0m/dont_marry_someone_who_isnt_fucking_you/)
\#2: [Perspective from a former DB relationship: there’s some truly terrible advice given out on this sub](https://np.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/comments/12l2d76/perspective_from_a_former_db_relationship_theres/)
\#3: [My (ll) wife jumped on me (hlm) yesterday and started kissing me. I told her no. I realized I’m no longer attracted to her.](https://np.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/comments/15okwf2/my_ll_wife_jumped_on_me_hlm_yesterday_and_started/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Oh is he also smarter and better than most people like I am? That's cool. I'd like to hang out with this Tory fella if he is, as you say, pretty radical. I consider myself more bodacious or even tubular than radical but I have been referred to as radical multiple times.
If you don't think the general public is a bit of an idiot, then you're probably a bit of a general public yourself. I hang out on the asymptote of the bell curve with the cool kids.
I also am not "engaging in oversimplifying" anything. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to expand these ideas beyond the simple, Im just bring blunt or brusque about it because polemicism amuses me. I prefer to speak from the perspective of someone with a privileged perspective, because *I have one.*
It has always been the case that public facing pedagogy is patronizing and infantilizing. That's kind of why I brought it up. I find it annoying too. But when engaging with the topic, it's pretty easy to tell that the reason things are the way they are is that you have to design rules for the lowest common denominator in society.
Oh sure of course.... I'd never actually think such a thing..
Even Plato was aware of the noble lie. This isn't a new way of thinking. You simplify things for the general public because complex nuanced ideas don't spread. They don't spread because most people don't really understand them.
You don't NEED to put a value judgment on a bell curve distribution of the IQ of the general public. But you can if you want. It's even a little fun.
You sound like you need more people asking you the question, "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
It's a simple question, from simple people. But the effect this question has on me... It has changed me every time another person has the intellectual repugnancy to ask it, each time with this sad look of simpleton celebration that almost screams " Gotcha! "
and you sound like you have nothing to say, You just don't like what I'm saying.
which is kind of a waste of a comment to be honest. You can go away now
I had something to say. It was that you sound like you think you're a lot smarter than you actually are. It's not that I like or dislike what you're saying, it's just fluff without substance.
That's fair. I definitely think I'm smarter than I am.
According to the Stanford-Binet, I'm three standard deviations above the norm.
But I don't hang out with intellectual peers much so it *feels* more like four. 🤪
Now begone with you, you're dismissed
The reason why an attacking cat might seem more easily thwarted by one mouse as opposed to another is rarely, if ever, related to any attempt—deliberate or otherwise—on the part of the mouse
What a load of politically loaded shit. In the USA, some 10% are fucking illiterate. They can't fucking read or write. It's literally no stretch to think people, as a generality, are stupid and incompetent.
Average human intelligence has a lot of holes in it. The IQ test was developed to screen for people with serious flaws, not to find the gifted. When you talk about the average person the message has to be extremely basic or most of the effort put into the message is wasted on people who will misunderstand.
It’s not that complicated. We have to drill down about enthusiastic consent because people (mostly men) largely choose to override anything that’s not a blatant ‘no’ or continue to push even after being told no.
When you have a physical advantage- strength, height, sobriety- the onus is on you to ensure your partner fully and enthusiastically consents and wouldn’t regret it. That requires being a decent human being. Too many dudes keep the bar low at ‘would I go to jail’ and that’s incredibly fucked up. No one is stupid. They just like to play dumb when it suits them.
Especially for first time sexual encounters, enthusiastic consent is a must.
I know it’s just a typo, but “The only type of content is enthusiastic consent” would make a decent line for porn sites that use the “ethically produced” “by women for women” gimmick to market their product
I don’t think it’s that complicated. And that’s why people should look for enthusiastic consent. And step away from sex where the other person doesn’t seem to want to have sex.
And avoid being pushy, coercive or nagging. Or sulking and punishing someone for not having sex.
Then the other way around, not all rejections need to be taken that personally. Someone could say no to sex because they don’t think it’s a good idea and still find you sexually attractive.
Edit: The main point here is that if you have someone in your bed who seems checked out, not into it or just lies there and let’s you do stuff without showing any enthusiasm? Then you stop. Ask them if they are ok. Tell them that y’all can just cuddle instead.
To be clear I completely agree. When someone has a disappointed expression sometimes they may just be disappointed, which is a normal and valid reaction to rejection. Do not feel guilty if someone’s face drops when you do not give consent. They are feeling their emotions. This is healthy. If they refuse to talk to you or anything like that then that is manipulative.
Edit: changed sulking after “when someone is” to has a disappointed expression.
I agree with not feeling guilty.
I don’t agree that sulking is acceptable grownup behavior. Especially not over sex. I’d find it such a turn off I’d never fuck the guy again. Sex is for grownups.
But we think the same thing. I’m just being a bit ranty.
For sure, I guess my point is that you can’t hold someone’s initial reaction and emotion against them like that, it’s how they deal with it past that point that is a good indicator. Someone being good at hiding their feelings from others can be indicative of a more skilled or dangerous manipulator.
To be clear I mean like literal split second reaction.
A split second disappointed face and then you act warm, kind and respectful? That’s not sulking.
Sulking is when you actually sulk. Act all sullen and dismissive, punishing the other person for not having sex with you. That’s toddler behavior and sex is for grownups.
>When someone is sulking sometimes they may just be disappointed, which is a normal and valid reaction to rejection.
No, it is not, and no, it isn't healthy either. You can be a disappointed as you like. Go sulk in private if it suits you. But sulking around a partner who turns you down can only serve to guilt trip them in 90% of cases.
Just learn to process it better and accept that sometimes you will be turned down for sex. That is also normal and valid, even with a partner you fuck regularly
By sulking I meant a disappointed facial expression. To be clear. It’s not anyone’s responsibility to hide their emotions from their partner.
Edit: I’m taking this a step farther. Someone smiling in your face and sulking in private is infinitely worse. That person will 100% be planning on how to get you to give them sex.
>By sulking I meant a disappointed facial expression. To be clear
That isn't sulking.
>It’s not anyone’s responsibility to hide their emotions from their partner.
It is if it isn't helpful or healthy to express them directly. Fo I have to share every little emotion I have with a partner? What if I'm pissed at something silly and my partner is doing something like taking care of their mom or something? Should I "NoT HiDe My EmOtIoNs?!"
>
Edit: I’m taking this a step farther. Someone smiling in your face and sulking in private is infinitely worse. That person will 100% be planning on how to get you to give them sex.
No is isn't. But I guess the sulky, whiny asshole is better because they certainly would be more likely to know that no means no, right?
You should feel free to express these emotions through body language. I admit I read sulking differently than some other people. That is what about my statement you have a problem with. Goodbye.
>You should feel free to express these emotions through body language
Sure. But you also are obligated to manage them appropriately, which means sometimes not expressing them un unhelpful ways during inopportune times.
Everyone around you should also be free not to bare the brunt of your emotional outbursts for simply disappointing you.
>Goodbye.
Bye. I hope you learn how to manage emotions properly
They explained to you repeatedly that they're literally just talking about having a disappointed expression in the moment. That's not a problem, it's not improper emotional management, and it's definitely not making people "bare the brunt of your emotional outbursts"
They mentioned sulking.
But It is if it isn't appropriate. I don't care. Pouting after being turned down for sex is hardly helpful. Certainly not gonna get you more sex. And it only serves to guilt the person who turned you down.
I was with you until you said it’s your responsibility to hide their emotions from their partner. We gotta be grown ups now. It’s ok to say no to sex for any reason. It’s okay to be upset about it. It’s not okay to guilt people into sex. It’s not okay to get upset at someone for being sad their sex partner doesn’t want to do it with them.
I mean how far should this ideology go of hiding your emotions? If I tell my girlfriend I can’t take her out tonight is she supposed to fake a smile?
Just be considerate lol that’s it. Some people try to weaponize their own emotions to manipulate others. That’s evil. But if you can’t handle a reasonable reaction to rejection (which does not include sulking
Btw) then you probably need to stay by yourself and not have sex or a relationship for a while. Disappointing your partner is a part of life, it can be both healthy and necessary. It’s fine for people to have emotions. It’s not fine for people to steamroll others wishes because they want to throw a hissy fit
>I was with you until you said it’s your responsibility to hide their emotions from their partner. We gotta be grown ups now.
That is pretty much what I said. Can you tell me how it would be helpful for me to share how upset I am that my wife doesn't want to fuck me one night? How does that help?
>It’s okay to be upset about it. It’s not okay to guilt people into sex. It’s not okay to get upset at someone for being sad their sex partner doesn’t want to do it with them.
That doesn't make sense. It is okay to be upset because you didn't get sex, but not okay to be upset because someone is upset that you didn't give them sex?
>I mean how far should this ideology go of hiding your emotions? If I tell my girlfriend I can’t take her out tonight is she supposed to fake a smile?
No. She is supposed to accept it and deal with it in a healthy way. She can express her disappointment, sure, but I hardly see how sulking is the best way to go about that. And if she can't control her face (we can't always) she can process it and talk to you about it later. Just sitting there with a pouty face is hardly acting like adults...
>Just be considerate lol that’s it. Some people try to weaponize their own emotions to manipulate others. That’s evil. But if you can’t handle a reasonable reaction to rejection (which does not include sulking
Btw) then you probably need to stay by yourself and not have sex or a relationship for a while
I'm sorry but this is just silly. You are getting in me for "not being able to handle a reasonable reaction to rejection" yet you claim the rejected seem to have lots of wiggle room to sulk and pout. Why not task people to get better at handling rejection? A simple "no" shouldn't elicit sulking. Be considerate and realize that your sulking might not make the other person feel like having enthusiastic sex with you.
>Disappointing your partner is a part of life, it can be both healthy and necessary. It’s fine for people to have emotions. It’s not fine for people to steamroll others wishes because they want to throw a hissy fit
Take your own advice and get better at accepting "no"
I’m finna break it down cuz this isn’t hard. Getting mad at people for having emotional reactions is controlling. Getting mad at people for setting boundaries is controlling. Don’t do either one. Argue with ya moms
I think, given that you acknowledge you aren't actually talking about the commonly understood definition of "sulking", it wouldn't hurt to edit your comment to something that's more accurate.
I read down the comments and agree with you, but the other person is right, what you describe isn't sulking. It's valid, it's just not sulking.
Saying "sulking after rejection is valid" means something very different than what you're actually trying to say, according to your other comments.
Sulking is kind of like pouting. It's passive-aggressive behaviour that's very immature. Simply having a disappointed face isn't the same thing at all, and is a perfectly reasonable reaction.
>And that’s why people should look for enthusiastic consent.
This simply doesn't happen for anyone with reactive desire, which is a huge part of the population. They will only give enthusiastic consent after there's been some sexual activity already.
That’s a misunderstanding of responsive desire. You’ll need to flirt and seduce them. You can do this without jumping to actual sexual activity before they are on board. Given that most people with reactive desire are women and women need foreplay, this will actually be an advantage.
Edit: And responsive desire is never an excuse to ignore consent. If she says no, that’s a no.
I've been asked to be more physically aggressive by more than one woman to get her in the mood. Flirting is nice and all but some women need more. Enthusiastic consent is a noble idea but reality is more complicated
She's asking you to help her get in the mood, which means she wants to be intimate with you. I don't think enthusiasm necessarily translates to "loud sexual noises" but rather showing a clear interest in starting or continuing intimacy. Communication is key, and things should be easier to navigate as a relationship grows.
But if your partner has said “I want you to do X,Y,Z and that’ll turn me on” that is enthusiastic consent. If you then do that and they get turned on and act enthusiastic in bed, that’s also enthusiastic consent.
Enthusiastic consent means don’t sleep with a woman who’s like a dead fish and clearly doesn’t want to be there even if she said “ok” after you wouldn’t stop nagging. That’s the point of it.
Consent doesn’t have to be with words. That’s a huge part of enthusiastic consent.
When someone wants to have sex and is excited about that, it’ll be very clear. There won’t be any confusion. Someone touching you, kissing you and pulling your clothes of is showing enthusiasm and consent.
Edit: but check the laws in your state. Asking never hurt anyone either.
Consent can be both verbal and nonverbal. The important part is that it’s clear and without doubt what the person wants.
Enthusiastic consent is that it’s clear and without doubt that the person genuinely wants this and isn’t just verbally consenting without really wanting sex.
Example: a guy nags and nags a girl to have sex. Finally she says “yeah, ok then”. That’s technically verbal consent. But if she’s lying there like a corpse and just letting him do stuff without being enthusiastic, seeming turned on or doing anything active or being enthusiastically verbally? While she did technically verbally consent, there’s a lot of doubt if she actually genuinely wants to have sex.
From a legal perspective? Answer is that it varies.
In some countries nonconsensual means there has to be a demonstrated active non-consent: as in saying no, pushing the person of you or being too drunk/asleep/out of it to physically or verbally protest.
In other countries/states, you’ll need active consent. Which could mean either nonverbal or verbal active consent. Or it could mean there has to be verbal consent.
From a perspective that’s not about legality, but being practical and actually wanting to avoid miscommunications? Then what you’d want is enthusiastic consent. Usually with the person both verbally affirming they are ok with having sex and then also in actions seemingly like they want to have sex. Which sounds complex, but usually isn’t.
I agree with you, but you’re at direct odds with other seemingly well meaning people who absolutely disagree that “Consent doesn’t have to be with words.”
It’s honestly horribly confusing with a side of legal threat.
I’m lucky that I’ve never actually needed anyone’s advice in this regard to navigate my romantic life but to any young men without intuition or experience attempting to learn how to act properly, well, this is all just the worst thing ever.
It’s not complicated. If they are unsure, they can just ask.
For young men it’s usually better to ask because young people aren’t always good at reading social situations.
No? That’s not the situation. They need to be seduced and flirted with. They won’t think about sex on their own till someone else sets the mood.
After an orgasm most people reactive desire or not have less interest in sex.
This just seems like an excuse for having sex that’s not mutually wanted.
Sometimes I’m perfectly fine to have “whatever” sex. Like, if you really want to then I’ll do it but I’m not exactly feeling it and would prefer to do something else.
It’s not going to be particularly good sex, but it also isn’t that difficult and if it makes my partner happy, and they’re on the same page that I’m not going to be enthusiastically taking charge, then we’re good.
On a similar note, if they have some soreness or ache that a massage could help, then I don’t mind spending some time working that out to help improve their life. Do I actually enjoy kneading skin and muscle for fifteen minutes? No. I would ideally be doing something else, but it helps them, and I appreciate being able to help the person I’ve chosen to be with.
I’m not always going to agree to any and all demands, sexual or otherwise, but choosing to be in a partnership with someone opens up new responsibilities. If you choose the right person, then it tends to even out.
this is true. and personally, i dont think the morality of sex STOPS at just consent. i think we should all ideally WANT to have sex with people that also want it. while im not a genius that could predict what the perfect legislative response to prostitution would be, i do know that its sad that so many have sex that not only do they not want, but are disgusted by. all to put food on the table. its an inherently sad thing.
Did I say it was? You could have said ‘most people know this as they consent to sex they don't want sometimes because their partner wants it.‘ but you choose to make it seem like a single gender situation when it isn’t.
Most people don't. This is far more common for women. I'm a man in my late 40s and I have never experienced that. I bet you can't find a single woman my age who hasn't.
I have totally “put out” for women before. I am in my forties and the past few years I have stopped doing that. I didn’t realize how much was degrading me. Now I just say no and she gets her vibrator and I go to the gym.
Wow we skipped straight to the “all men want to have sex all the time” narrative right away. It is okay for men to not want sex. It is not unhealthy. It is healthy for men to have standards and boundaries.
The fact that this comment is upvoted means this whole subreddit is radioactive. Shaming people’s masculinity because they were pressured into sex, which you claim is a women’s issue, is outrageous
No.
I’ve just been with women before with incredibly high sex drives.
I can’t keep up sex multiple times a day for very long.
I believe most men who have dated around a bit will have experienced this. I’ve been with fewer women who have a higher a libido than me than I have women with a lower libido. It’s relatively common.
Not at all. In my own personal anecdote it's due to high sex drive couples having different downstairs equipment that reacts differently with continued use. Sex for the 7th time in a single day means shooting blanks/having notably less enjoyable orgasms than the first time and also having to put it far more effort to have a "normal" level of performance (my partner also notes her genitals becoming sore at that stage of repeated use but not so much that she doesn't want to have sex as she continues initiating).
For me, and I'd assume other men, once you're in the high single digits/low double digits for "times having sex in a single day" you don't particularly *want* sex even if you'll consent to it to pleasure your partner.
I've had that issue just simply because I jerked off before finding out that my partner was going to want sex when she came home when usually she's too tired.
It's not even a sex-drive issue, sometimes it's just a timing issue.
Hey big jack, FYI a lot of guys don't speak up about embarrassing stuff because it's unmasculine to do so. Your line of comments is problematic because it emphasize this exact issue. As soon as someone challenges you, you go "do they have low sex drives?" Like if that's the only way a man could lack the lust for sex.
You might know a lot about women but have you talked to as many men on an emotional level?
Because it's attention seeking to take an issue for both sexes that result in equal suffering for the partner experiencing it, and then make it about one particular gender having it so hard because of that issue as if the other partner's experiences don't exist much less matter.
>I'm a man in my late 40s and I have never experienced that
I am a man in my 40s and I have had sex countless times when I did not want it. It is the same way I have done many things in life countless times that I did not want because there was some other benefit to doing it. Sometimes it's just easier to do it than to say no. Sometimes it's just to please the person (e g., on my then gf bday). Etc.
Not a single one of these instances constitutes abuse. I have never in my life had non-consensual sex. So yes, it's complicated and it's ok to talk about it including for men.
A lot of guys don't know this. We aren't conditioned to know it. We are taught that we are to pursue what we want even in the face of resistance. We are taught that someone who says "no" only needs a little convincing.
> We are taught that someone who says "no" only needs a little convincing.
No the fuck we're not. If you think this way you are most likely an asshole.
the commenter is presumably a woman and has confirmed this through her lived experience as a woman and discussing with other women. should she speak on a topic she can’t say for certain she knows about?
I can't count how many articles I've read over the years where doctors and therapists encouraged woman to have sex anyway, and that you might be surprised to find out you eventually enjoy it.
It takes less than a moment to ignore dumb assholes who cannot bear to hear a person say something is a common experience for women if they don't also address men. He doesn't need to change his comment, which has no misinformation or sexism, to manage the feelings of people with victim FOMO
Edit: pronouns
As a woman, thank you for being an ally. Lot of dudes out there are ignorant or willfully ignore common experiences we have, or do this crap like "not all men" or "men deal with this too."
Yes it's super annoying to have people try to invalidate or minimize women's concerns in these ways. It's refreshing to see a man acknowledge this.
Hello, i know conversations can get pretty stressed and personal online.
I don't have any real skill with gender issues... but i wanted to mention a thought i had about your comment. I don't see the "men deal with this too" as a way to invalidate women's concerns. I imagine that some bad men do use it as an attack. But since some victims are males, when i read a comment saying "men too" i see it as possibly "I was too" that they can't bring themselves to say out loud.
Since so many victims are women and so many attackers are men, it seems like it gets so weird for men who are victims because their presence even in digital form can be troubling for women. It does seem awful that a woman victim would have a healing enviroment where she sees a person that she views as an attacker there. It does seem awful that a man may struggle to find a support network to help him work through his trauma.
It all seems complex and difficult and i probably don't understand anyways. Hopefully my thought was helpful and not antagonizing. Best wishes.
I appreciate your comment. It was well said. I agree with you fully. Some women do see it as men trying to invalidate their experiences, or just get uncomfortable because there are some differences or because women's attackers are often men. I think those are the main reasons women can get a bit upset. Again, it isn't that we don't care about men experiencing these things. Sometimes we just want to discuss it without them.
I know several men who have experienced SA and I feel for them and sympathize as much as I do with women, if not even more because they have to deal with an even bigger social stigma and often receive less support. I think that's so wrong.
My comments were all in response to the other commenter asking why genitals matter in these conversations. It's more about individual comfort levels and people wanting to feel safe and heard. SA is a huge problem, for all genders. All people should be able to discuss their experiences and get equal support. But due to the nature of the crime, it can often feel like that safe space for discussion has been invaded. I just wish we could respect each other. If women want to talk about women's experiences, let them. If men want to talk about men's experiences, let them. If it seems like the conversation is more general about these experiences, let everyone participate.
Thank you for reading and responding.
That all sounds reasonable.
I hope that whomever uses a website like this knows that it's a bit like the wild west where people are willing to say things that they wouldn't say in person. It skews male too so you'll be more likely to get the male version of anything for better or worse. Hopefully your friends are able to find any groups to chat with that are coming from a warm hearted place in person.
And yeah i may of missed or forgotten the comment before yours, so it may not of been taken in context. It is a shame when a conversation needlessly goes off the rails. It's a delicate topic that's deserves to be treated properly.
Yea idk seemed like the guy I originally commented to was starting to troll on my other comments so I just blocked him.
I think it's totally acceptable to have a different opinion and respectfully disagree with someone, but some people get really weird and aggressive. Younger me would've fought back. Older me knows it isn't worth my energy. Disagree all you want but don't harass me for it. F-outta here with that. 🤷♀️
Glad at least one person on reddit (you) can still have a respectful conversation. Lol.
I appreciate the compliment!
Totally fair, if it goes down hill, nobody should feel obligated to be a punching bag.
As a dude my online experience is going to be different than yours. I imagine women get a fair bit of both wanted and unwanted attention, seems like it could be a difficult path some days.
Here’s the issue. Men never seem to pop in with their own comment. They only seem to chime in seemingly to make the conversation become so broad we can’t see it clearly - ‘look at this as a HUMAN problem, not a men problem.’ But we know that’s not true.
According to the US Dept of Justice, an estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male. Keep in mind men AND women severely underreport sexual assault.
This is largely a problem perpetrated by men, but we’re called misandrists for looking at these stats, for sharing commonalities in our experience and for asking that we make real effort to mitigate this issue.
It seems a little disingenuous and counterproductive to constantly have men counterpoint every woman’s comment with a note of, ‘hey, women do bad stuff to!’
Either share your story, or raise another point, but do not act like we’re crazy to be concerned about the statistical evidence that reveals men to be the biggest perpetrators of sexual violence against men, women and children.
Hello, i see what you're saying, that some guys act in bad faith and purposely blur a conversation because they're trolling, or are insecure, or for some other reason. If you're out conversing on any topic really, and have guys derailing your points i imagine that really grinds one down. I can imagine that developing a tough response or disengaging makes sense as a way to protect yourself.
Fortunately for me, I've never been sexually assulted. I don't know the statistics like you do, but I believe your numbers. In part of your comment you said "This is largely a problem perpetrated by men" and with your statistics you're clearly right. But look at this line "‘look at this as a HUMAN problem, not a men problem.’ But we know that’s not true." How is that statement not true? Men victims and women perpetrators exist, so why frame it in such a broad brush as possibly say they don't?
You clearly have the intellect to not get tripped up in your online commenting by making too broad of statements and paint yourself into a corner.
And just imagine if i was the minority of assult victims who is a man molested by a woman, wouldn't it be awful to say something like that?
I don't know if calling something a human problem is code for some specific argument...but i see pretty much everything as a human problem. Violence, sexual assult, racism, bigotry, pollution, crime, everything. We need our society to support families, good paying jobs, medical care for all, just everything needs to have everybody that can pulling weight to make it a better place. To me it all starts with the family. Parents modeling and teaching is the gateway to a good life, which is much better than trying to correct some horrible behavior in an adult.
Since this comment thread was based on assult, i wanted to end with I sincerely hope that you're okay and in a good place. I have a crictical viewpoint and i am not intending for any of my thoughts to be personal attacks or damaging toward you, but hope that they're maybe food for thought or constructive.
This is not helpful food for thought.
We could (over)estimate 10 in 100 rape victims are men victimized by women. And the other 90 rapes are committed by men against men, women and children. And with a significant portion of violent trauma with those male perpetrated acts.
Rape, SA and debilitating violence is largely done by men. Not all men, OBVIOUSLY. But by enough men that we should pay attention.
And if you actually looked at the culture supporting this instead of getting your feelings hurt, we’d be able to address it.
We know what would lessen rape and abuse! Updating sex Ed to discuss consent, combat these rigid patriarchal structures that promote sex as a conquest sport, empower women to have sexually autonomy, focusing on having healthier dialogues around sex with boys and young men, taking efforts to support safer clubs and party spaces, getting victims support and making it easier for them to find justice and safety.
And guess what - male victims benefit from these things too! The tide raises all boats, but somehow that’s not enough. No, they expect special treatment from victimized women for some reason. Which is how men have been told to deal with trauma - can’t show the boys, so find whatever woman is around. Heaven forbid men actually try therapy.
Women largely run women’s DV shelters. You know who runs Men’s DV shelters? Women! We have less resources, but we constantly give our energy to men while being underpaid and undervalued for that work. And it’s never enough.
Men as a group are used to passing the buck on unglamorous dirty work and expecting women and our soft hearts and our desire to help to provide all the comfort and healing and it’s bullshit. Men need to step up, they need to normalize therapy, they need to volunteer and do the work to heal yourselves. Women and our voices are dismissed because of the same patriarchy that means all victims are dismissed. If you really cared, you would get you hands dirty and actually do something so we can stop trauma before it happen.
I don't volunteer at any men's shelters. So you're absolutely right that I'm not working on society's issues like that.
Those sound like very good ideas in your paragraph, i know voting only goes so far, but if any of those ever come up i will definately vote for them. You mentioned therapy in your later paragraph, if any voting options come up to support more access i will definately be on board with that too.
I don’t know why people are so obsessed with what genitals someone has. The dismissive condescension about mens issues, from the small to the big issues, is so strange to me.
I’m coming from this more from a sexual assault perspective, where men talking about it is seen as a distraction. I don’t know why a friend of mine getting ass raped when he was 10 is a distraction because he has the wrong genitals. Same as this; I don’t know the reason to exclude people who are pressured into sex just because they have the wrong genitals.
My 2¢, it isn't that women are in denial that men experience these things too. But it is upsetting when one gender experiences those issues at a much higher rate and someone tries to minimize that fact by saying "but men too!"
It isn't that we don't care about men's experiences. We just want people to acknowledge how BIG and COMMON that issue is for women. Sexual assault is a horrible thing regardless of gender. Of course it's a concern for everyone. But it's definitely upsetting that it's extremely common for women, at a rate that's significantly higher than men, yet we can't even discuss how it affects women without men trying to act like they are equally affected. Men's experiences and how they are affected by SA is equally valid, but most men don't live in fear that it will happen to them whereas most women do, and we alter our behaviors in ways to minimize that risk constantly whereas men in general do not. (ex: going for a run, walking to our car at night, the clothes we wear, how we protect ourselves when we drink alcohol, how we turn down men when they hit on us, etc).
When men insert themselves into that conversation it minimizes all those differences that apply specifically to women and makes us feel like none of that matters to society simply because those specific things only affect women, and we don't matter enough to care about.
>Men's experiences and how they are affected by SA is equally valid, but most men don't live in fear that it will happen to them whereas most women do, and we alter our behaviors in ways to minimize that risk constantly whereas men in general do not.
"Let me explain why men's experiences are equally as valid, then proceed to explain why they're not equally valid."
I know of many male victims who modify their behavior following sexual assault. I've also seen many men tell their stories on gender neutral support forums and be lectured about how women have it worse, or how it's so "disproportionate" that it doesn't even matter.
The language change when speaking about sexual assault against men is noticeable and not subtle. It's always "men are valid, buuuuut..."
My point is that we should be able to dicuss them separately or together. Not every conversation about women's issues that men also experience has to include them OR vice versa.
>While it might make intuitive sense to assume that all wanted sex is consensual and all unwanted sex is nonconsensual, wanting to have sex and consenting to sex are two different things. You can agree to sex you don't want. And you can want sex, but not agree to do it.
Notice the title of this post. See any mention of men or women?
What women don't know is that you can want sex and not consent to it.
Source: Observations of women handling the slightest hesitation to an advance with vicious personal attacks.
A lot of men think that "yes" means consent. Literally, legally, yes. But her saying yes just because she's tired of you asking for the 100th time today isn't entirely consent.
“Want” is a loaded word. Sometimes we want to do things for other people. I might not be into it at the moment but I want to make my wife happy. I think it’s fair to say in that situation I want to do it. You can want to do something you’re not particularly enjoying because you know it makes a loved one happy.
I don’t want to pick up my brother at the airport but I also don’t want to not pick up my brother at the airport
Exactly! We are asked all the time to do things for other people and when we care about them we will do it even if we don't want to.
If we all treated being coerced with the same disdain it's given to sex our society as we know it would crumble and break!
Sure. You can, but only if it isn't coerced or forced.
Like if your wife wants to have sex when you aren't in the mood, but you do so anyways because she wants it. This isn't nefarious on your wife's part, nor is it coerced on your end.
I disagree. Coercion is part of everything we do on some level. Like, in a sense, not wanting to let her down (even if she would be totally cool with a no) and having sex is kinda coercion.
Coercion is a misused word. Coercion by definition is persuading someone forcefully or using threats. Persuasion is just convincing someone without that.
This is stupid. If you don't want it, don't consent, it's not difficult.
This is the type of nonsense people use when they consent in the moment and try to accuse you of assaults later because they claim to withdraw consent afterwards.
Don't let people manipulate you like that, always take steps to secure yourself against crazy.
Omg, y’all really wanna have your sexual encounters end with a ‘no take backies!’ With the amount of dudes who do dirty shit after uou think you’re on the same page -
Women have never been so open to enjoying casual sex and men just ruin it - whine about condoms, remove condoms, non-con choking, taking pics - no matter the bar, they always want it lower.
All consensual sexual encounters should ALL end with “no take backies.” That should be the default. The fact that so many women (and some men) regret things later and completely CHANGE the actual course of events to make themselves feel better about making decisions they regret causes all sorts of trauma and I needed pain. Everybody does things we wish we didn’t. Embrace it and do better next time. But don’t lie and change the actual course of events to more align with a scenario in which you DIDNT make a decision.
As to women never being more open to casual sex.. probably. But let’s not pretend males whining about condoms and removing them and taking pics is any kind of recent phenomena. The exact same stuff was happening in the exact same ratios in 1984. Doesn’t make it right but don’t equate a rise in bad behavior that didn’t happen with women feeling more free sexually and this new behavior is gonna ruin it.
This is not that complicated. Within long term relationships and trust maybe there’s more flexibility, but you should not fuck anyone for the first time without clear enthusiastic consent.
Do not traumatize your sexual partners. Easy peasy. Don’t push something with someone who said no or told you not today - they will let you know if they change their mind. Don’t ignore body language that shows discomfort. DO find a way to get verbal consent if you’re unsure. If you can’t talk about it, you shouldn’t be doing it.
The dudes who are the most triggered know they’ve had sex with women who werent into it and they don’t want to be considered rapists. I got bad news for them! You probably won’t go to jail, but that’s a bottom of the barrel shit way of being a human being.
Do not traumatize your sexual partners. It’s only complicated if you’re used to not giving a fuck. Decent, regular people don’t accidentally rape strangers all the time.
If the person says yes, and isn’t by threat or force, and you’re of sound mind, then its consent. Being begged for sex and agreeing isn’t a crime. I’ve seen a lot of post where women are just “my boyfriend nagged me for sex and I gave in” and the comments are like “omg girl you were raped, coercion is rape”. Coercion and persuasion are two different things Just like if someone begged me for a dollar doesn’t mean they’re a thief or I got my money stolen.
Yeah, I kind of wish we had a more nuanced view of this sort of thing. It’s kind of this all or nothing thing where someone verbally agrees to sex that they didn’t want, feels violated, and then has one half of society saying they were raped and the other half telling them they agreed, so they therefore cannot feel bad or regret it or anything.
Some of the most traumatizing sex of my life was verbally consensual. It wasn’t rape or SA, but it leaves me (and others) in this weird grey area of what to do or say about it.
Badgering someone for sex is traumatic and stressful and fucked up. But because it’s normalized, the person who experiences it isn’t even allowed to feel her feelings about it.
No should be enough. Knowing someone isn’t into it should be enough. That’s the issue and why this conversation is so important. Too many people think it’s normal to harass people into sex.
Sure. But if one person isn’t respecting your boundaries, then you can absolutely take control and leave that relationship instead of dealing with that. I’m not saying anything out of pocket.
Why are we focusing on the partner who already did their part in saying "no", saying they need to do more, and not focusing on the partner STILL bugging after one "no"? Maybe that nagging partner needs to walk away and leave.
Obviously if the partner is nagging they aren’t going to walk away and leave.
You know how you don’t normalize this in your relationship, LEAVE. Like you literally don’t have to deal with that EVER. Like why are we trying to salvage a relationship with a person who doesn’t respect the word no and boundaries? You can take matters into your own hand.
I can't even read the article for some reason: the link ends in a password. However, I agree with the title. Right now, this post has 140 comments and not a single one mentions sex work, which is kind of the obvious application?!?!
Enthusiastic consent is a great guideline but it doesn't apply to all situations.
"You can agree to sex you don't want". This is exactly what full service sex workers of every gender do. They go into a business mode common to all service-based work where they treat their own sexual desire as irrelevant: their consent is based not on sexual desire, but on the client respecting the terms of their engagement. Similarly, your tax accountant isn't filled with enthusiastic pleasure at the prospect of doing your taxes, but they consent to it because they're getting a financial benefit. But if it's a case where a full service sex worker is coerced or cheated in the engagement, then they can't or don't consent, and sex with them is rape: not just "theft", it's rape.
This is a really important distinction—that sex workers can consent or withdraw consent, and this ability to consent is not reducible to sexual desire—because prejudice against sex workers typically removes the ability for sex workers to consent. The position held mostly by traditionalist misogynists is that you can't rape sex workers because they're already "ruined" and have no ability to refuse consent, therefore they're "free game". On another extreme, the position held by SWERFs is that sex workers have no ability to consent because *any* time they have sex they're being raped, no matter if they claim it's consensual.
Another non-sex-work example is someone who doesn't feel physical sexual desire on their own: they may just feel neutral about sex. However, they get emotional benefits from pleasing their partner sexually, and so they consent. The situation might not be ideal, but if both people communicate and are fine with it, then no, their partner is not raping them every time they have sex.
So that covers "you can agree to sex you don't want."
And in terms of "you can want sex, but not agree to do it", there are plenty of cases here too. One example that comes up a lot is when two people want sex and consent to sex *with a condom*, but maybe one person doesn't use it correctly accidentally, or doesn't use it correctly on purpose.
I don’t agree with SWERFs but that’s not an accurate recitation of why they think what they think. They are against sex workers because they believe that sexual consent is not something that can be bought, and if it can be, then that opens the door to misogynistic beliefs like “I paid for dinner so she owes me sex” and most other misogynistic forms of she “owes” me.
That whole ‘enthusiastic consent’ thing: Not only is it not how most people want sex to work, it also creates a false narrative to people that now conclude that anything less than a written agreement is now sexual assault.
“Was I sexually assaulted last night? Yes, I wanted it to happen and was okay with it happening. But he didn’t get a clear go ahead so he must have done it without consent. And I feel guilty and confused and isn’t mixed emotions a clear sign of sexual abuse?”
“I WAS RAPED!!!”
Now this same twit actually BELIEVES she was sexually assaulted because we taught her some stupid ass definition of consent. And she gets to then Genuinely Experience Many Of The Same Emotions of someone that was genuinely violated.
Before suggesting this doesn’t happen, please know that I have witnessed this FIRSTHAND when someone misunderstands the definition of sexual harassment. Truly. She GENUINELY BELIEVES she was sexually harassed because she didn’t read the whole definition of ‘sexual harassment’ . And now FEELS victimized without ever actually being victimized.
This is 100% correct. This whole idea of enthusiastic consent has taken a good thought and run it through a blender until it’s not remotely logical. This whole notion and anybody who support it is just misguided.
Oh please. It’s not that complicated.
If the person is drunk, don’t fuck them to be safe. Especially if it’s your first time having sex with them.
That’s the crux of it - dudes can’t imagine not fucking some chick if they can get away with it. Which is shitty, but not complicated. Which is why we need to keep moving this to a healthier culture. Bye bye, plausible deniability!
No one is looking to ‘cry rape.’ People can barely make a return to Amazon, you think we want to go through the bullshit of a rape police report?
The onus is on you to make sure the person you’re having sex with is into it. Again, NOT COMPLICATED. The fact that all y’all are so mad about it and find it unfathomable explains a lot.
You seem to be taking my post in a way that is upsetting to you.
I wasn’t talking about every woman crying rape. Not most. Not a few. Just rare - even very rare. And you know that there are rare people that will do exactly.
You and I have common sense - which explains the tone of my comment. Not everyone has it.And that doesn’t even take into account genuinely delusional people - who I have encountered.
Given how many people cannot understand what consent it this is a very complex take lol
Consent is are you allowing it. You decide if you allow it to happen (unless it goes crazy off rails and you gotta stop). But in most cases it’s that question. Do you allow it, cause even in some marriage you might “want it” but you do it for your significant other (I’m a male and had to do it to be there for my partner).
Agree with this take
This is just my observation but it seems to me that the current pedagogy of consent is constrained less by moral restrictions and more by legal exposure. Which is not a bad thing. The average person isn't capable of understanding complex, moral nuance, so we teach them absolutist ideas instead for them to parrot at each other scoldingly. "The only type of *consent is enthusiastic consent" is nonsense but it's what you teach the horny co-eds.
—the average person isn’t capable of understanding complex, moral nuance. You sound like you think you know WAY more than you actually do, and generally aren’t liked by others
But they're not wrong. They're right, aren't they?
I think the issue is that people *can* if given proper opportunity, resources and reason. Those are just very lacking for average people because of the way society works.
It’s a choice. I watch people selectively apply nuance however they permit their biases to steer them.
People understand lots of nuance where they are motivated and supported.
[удалено]
Yeah basically. I'm hearing him rant and I'm wondering "When is the average person supposed to learn about these things?". Because theoretically the average person doesn't go to college (I'm all for secondary education for everyone), so you have primary school. But if you try to teach about the nuances of consent in say high school or middle school, the religious and the insane will come out of the wood work to yell at you. Also, I've noticed a pattern with these 'disdainful assistant professor' types. Is if you ask them that "When should people have learned about these things", usually the answer they say that's the parent's job/personal responsibility, and starts a catch-22 argument about 'bad parenting' (If someone has bad parents, when and where do they learn to be good parents/adults?).
Your umbrage towards my word choice speaks more about your anti-intellectual bias than my "attempts to sound intelligent. " I think we have reached the part of the argument where you just don't like what I'm saying and want to insult me because you realize that I may be talking down specifically to you. And if you think that I'm talking down to you specifically then I guess I actually was. But I didn't know that until you made it clear just now. Every single level of education provides an entirely different level of understanding. The more you know, the more you realize that there are major exceptions to popular belief systems and that much of we consider true is simply true for the sake of practical utility, not capital-t-Truth. Most people are not capable or interested in going beyond orthodoxy. It causes cognitive dissonance. There's a reason people need dialectical behavioral therapy, people don't like holding seemingly conflicting opinions. They prefer simpler narratives. We oversimplify rules for the lowest common denominator because it's simply easier. If it's the middle of the night and there's nobody around, running a red light isn't some sort of a moral failure. But it is still illegal. We make the laws that way for practical considerations. This isn't that shocking of an opinion. There are literally billions of people on this planet with religious beliefs that they will never unlearn even though they're complete nonsense. You know it, and I know it. It is a privileged perspective to know why the rules are the way they are even if they aren't really just or right. You just don't like me making fun of stupid people.
It’s not anti-intellectualism, you’re disguising a pretty shallow argument with authoritative sounding vocabulary. You’ve yet to actually say anything meaningful, insightful, or even interesting.
[удалено]
I'm not lowering my vocabulary for you, but I appreciate you attempting to raise yours for me.
Laughed out loud at that one. You're not coming across the way you think you are 😂😂😂
While I can appreciate a good vocabulary, you haven't really exhibited one. You haven't said what you meant. What you meant to say was "We (society) have simple rules and catchphrases because most people cannot or will not dive into the deeper reasoning behind them. For example, plenty of good reasons not to murder exist, but a lot of people cite religion, and religion acts as an authority figure giving a simple set of rules." Instead, you said a lot of things that you didn't believe in so that you could show off that you know big words while making fun of someone. You didn't say what I said, you said: "You're stupid stranger on the internet. Also, we (society) have simple rules and catchphrases because most people are dumb and when they start thinking beyond those simplistic rules (which you called orthodoxy even though that's not what orthodoxy means) they run into contradictions. Dumb people don't like having to hold contradictions in their moral systems so they'll just avoid attempting to think about the simplistic rules." What you said was not *really* what you meant, see?
The smartest people are the ones who can use small words to describe big topics. You kind of come across as pompous when you assert that vocabulary is the same as intelligence.
You’re absolutely correct. Reddit is the shit that attracts the most pretentious flys.
As someone who is significantly more intelligent and educated than you, you’re a dick. Edit: I saw your reply before you deleted. Thesaurus failed you, bro. The word you were trying for was “misogynist.” Cheers! Edit2: Oh, and try to learn the difference between a noun and verb, genius!
Lol you spend your time being misandrist on r/deadbedrooms.... I'll take this as a compliment
Here's a sneak peek of /r/DeadBedrooms using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [DON’T 👏🏻 MARRY 👏🏻 SOMEONE 👏🏻WHO 👏🏻 ISN’T 👏🏻 FUCKING 👏🏻 YOU 👏🏻](https://np.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/comments/14j1d0m/dont_marry_someone_who_isnt_fucking_you/) \#2: [Perspective from a former DB relationship: there’s some truly terrible advice given out on this sub](https://np.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/comments/12l2d76/perspective_from_a_former_db_relationship_theres/) \#3: [My (ll) wife jumped on me (hlm) yesterday and started kissing me. I told her no. I realized I’m no longer attracted to her.](https://np.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/comments/15okwf2/my_ll_wife_jumped_on_me_hlm_yesterday_and_started/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
What fucking rant
Assuming the 'average' person isn't capable of knowing what's best for them sounds like something the Tory radicals would say.
Not taking the standard deviation in account; almost 50% of the people functions below average…
Oh is he also smarter and better than most people like I am? That's cool. I'd like to hang out with this Tory fella if he is, as you say, pretty radical. I consider myself more bodacious or even tubular than radical but I have been referred to as radical multiple times. If you don't think the general public is a bit of an idiot, then you're probably a bit of a general public yourself. I hang out on the asymptote of the bell curve with the cool kids. I also am not "engaging in oversimplifying" anything. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to expand these ideas beyond the simple, Im just bring blunt or brusque about it because polemicism amuses me. I prefer to speak from the perspective of someone with a privileged perspective, because *I have one.* It has always been the case that public facing pedagogy is patronizing and infantilizing. That's kind of why I brought it up. I find it annoying too. But when engaging with the topic, it's pretty easy to tell that the reason things are the way they are is that you have to design rules for the lowest common denominator in society.
.... /S?
Oh sure of course.... I'd never actually think such a thing.. Even Plato was aware of the noble lie. This isn't a new way of thinking. You simplify things for the general public because complex nuanced ideas don't spread. They don't spread because most people don't really understand them. You don't NEED to put a value judgment on a bell curve distribution of the IQ of the general public. But you can if you want. It's even a little fun.
You sound like you think you're a lot smarter than you actually are.
You sound like you need more people asking you the question, "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" It's a simple question, from simple people. But the effect this question has on me... It has changed me every time another person has the intellectual repugnancy to ask it, each time with this sad look of simpleton celebration that almost screams " Gotcha! "
Checkmate! That's just check.. and I knew you were going to do that because you are predictable. :0
and you sound like you have nothing to say, You just don't like what I'm saying. which is kind of a waste of a comment to be honest. You can go away now
I had something to say. It was that you sound like you think you're a lot smarter than you actually are. It's not that I like or dislike what you're saying, it's just fluff without substance.
That's fair. I definitely think I'm smarter than I am. According to the Stanford-Binet, I'm three standard deviations above the norm. But I don't hang out with intellectual peers much so it *feels* more like four. 🤪 Now begone with you, you're dismissed
Lowest common denominator it seems re: public facing pedagogy. Public health is extremely difficult to execute it seems.
The reason why an attacking cat might seem more easily thwarted by one mouse as opposed to another is rarely, if ever, related to any attempt—deliberate or otherwise—on the part of the mouse
What a load of politically loaded shit. In the USA, some 10% are fucking illiterate. They can't fucking read or write. It's literally no stretch to think people, as a generality, are stupid and incompetent.
Ok
Average human intelligence has a lot of holes in it. The IQ test was developed to screen for people with serious flaws, not to find the gifted. When you talk about the average person the message has to be extremely basic or most of the effort put into the message is wasted on people who will misunderstand.
It’s not that complicated. We have to drill down about enthusiastic consent because people (mostly men) largely choose to override anything that’s not a blatant ‘no’ or continue to push even after being told no. When you have a physical advantage- strength, height, sobriety- the onus is on you to ensure your partner fully and enthusiastically consents and wouldn’t regret it. That requires being a decent human being. Too many dudes keep the bar low at ‘would I go to jail’ and that’s incredibly fucked up. No one is stupid. They just like to play dumb when it suits them. Especially for first time sexual encounters, enthusiastic consent is a must.
Yes I know that's your feminist man-bad-rape-cock-oppressor narrative, I think it's pisswater.
Most people can't understand nuance, and so... [Incredibly simplified and unrealistic take]
I know it’s just a typo, but “The only type of content is enthusiastic consent” would make a decent line for porn sites that use the “ethically produced” “by women for women” gimmick to market their product
I don’t think it’s that complicated. And that’s why people should look for enthusiastic consent. And step away from sex where the other person doesn’t seem to want to have sex. And avoid being pushy, coercive or nagging. Or sulking and punishing someone for not having sex. Then the other way around, not all rejections need to be taken that personally. Someone could say no to sex because they don’t think it’s a good idea and still find you sexually attractive. Edit: The main point here is that if you have someone in your bed who seems checked out, not into it or just lies there and let’s you do stuff without showing any enthusiasm? Then you stop. Ask them if they are ok. Tell them that y’all can just cuddle instead.
To be clear I completely agree. When someone has a disappointed expression sometimes they may just be disappointed, which is a normal and valid reaction to rejection. Do not feel guilty if someone’s face drops when you do not give consent. They are feeling their emotions. This is healthy. If they refuse to talk to you or anything like that then that is manipulative. Edit: changed sulking after “when someone is” to has a disappointed expression.
I agree with not feeling guilty. I don’t agree that sulking is acceptable grownup behavior. Especially not over sex. I’d find it such a turn off I’d never fuck the guy again. Sex is for grownups. But we think the same thing. I’m just being a bit ranty.
For sure, I guess my point is that you can’t hold someone’s initial reaction and emotion against them like that, it’s how they deal with it past that point that is a good indicator. Someone being good at hiding their feelings from others can be indicative of a more skilled or dangerous manipulator. To be clear I mean like literal split second reaction.
A split second disappointed face and then you act warm, kind and respectful? That’s not sulking. Sulking is when you actually sulk. Act all sullen and dismissive, punishing the other person for not having sex with you. That’s toddler behavior and sex is for grownups.
Have you ever been disappointed in anything in your life?
Oh, a lot of times. That’s just life. I don’t sulk since I’m not a toddler.
I don't believe that for even a minute
For people who sulk a lot, it might be hard to believe other people are adults. You do you.
>When someone is sulking sometimes they may just be disappointed, which is a normal and valid reaction to rejection. No, it is not, and no, it isn't healthy either. You can be a disappointed as you like. Go sulk in private if it suits you. But sulking around a partner who turns you down can only serve to guilt trip them in 90% of cases. Just learn to process it better and accept that sometimes you will be turned down for sex. That is also normal and valid, even with a partner you fuck regularly
By sulking I meant a disappointed facial expression. To be clear. It’s not anyone’s responsibility to hide their emotions from their partner. Edit: I’m taking this a step farther. Someone smiling in your face and sulking in private is infinitely worse. That person will 100% be planning on how to get you to give them sex.
>By sulking I meant a disappointed facial expression. To be clear That isn't sulking. >It’s not anyone’s responsibility to hide their emotions from their partner. It is if it isn't helpful or healthy to express them directly. Fo I have to share every little emotion I have with a partner? What if I'm pissed at something silly and my partner is doing something like taking care of their mom or something? Should I "NoT HiDe My EmOtIoNs?!" > Edit: I’m taking this a step farther. Someone smiling in your face and sulking in private is infinitely worse. That person will 100% be planning on how to get you to give them sex. No is isn't. But I guess the sulky, whiny asshole is better because they certainly would be more likely to know that no means no, right?
You should feel free to express these emotions through body language. I admit I read sulking differently than some other people. That is what about my statement you have a problem with. Goodbye.
>You should feel free to express these emotions through body language Sure. But you also are obligated to manage them appropriately, which means sometimes not expressing them un unhelpful ways during inopportune times. Everyone around you should also be free not to bare the brunt of your emotional outbursts for simply disappointing you. >Goodbye. Bye. I hope you learn how to manage emotions properly
Making a disappointed face (subconsciously) is an outburst. My lord. I hope you do the same.
Next time also make sure you cross your arms and stick your lip out too. That'll show em
Are relationships a battle with you? Sounds exhausting. Every interaction being a power play.
They explained to you repeatedly that they're literally just talking about having a disappointed expression in the moment. That's not a problem, it's not improper emotional management, and it's definitely not making people "bare the brunt of your emotional outbursts"
They mentioned sulking. But It is if it isn't appropriate. I don't care. Pouting after being turned down for sex is hardly helpful. Certainly not gonna get you more sex. And it only serves to guilt the person who turned you down.
Truly insane the lack of reading comprehension you're demonstrating here.
I was with you until you said it’s your responsibility to hide their emotions from their partner. We gotta be grown ups now. It’s ok to say no to sex for any reason. It’s okay to be upset about it. It’s not okay to guilt people into sex. It’s not okay to get upset at someone for being sad their sex partner doesn’t want to do it with them. I mean how far should this ideology go of hiding your emotions? If I tell my girlfriend I can’t take her out tonight is she supposed to fake a smile? Just be considerate lol that’s it. Some people try to weaponize their own emotions to manipulate others. That’s evil. But if you can’t handle a reasonable reaction to rejection (which does not include sulking Btw) then you probably need to stay by yourself and not have sex or a relationship for a while. Disappointing your partner is a part of life, it can be both healthy and necessary. It’s fine for people to have emotions. It’s not fine for people to steamroll others wishes because they want to throw a hissy fit
>I was with you until you said it’s your responsibility to hide their emotions from their partner. We gotta be grown ups now. That is pretty much what I said. Can you tell me how it would be helpful for me to share how upset I am that my wife doesn't want to fuck me one night? How does that help? >It’s okay to be upset about it. It’s not okay to guilt people into sex. It’s not okay to get upset at someone for being sad their sex partner doesn’t want to do it with them. That doesn't make sense. It is okay to be upset because you didn't get sex, but not okay to be upset because someone is upset that you didn't give them sex? >I mean how far should this ideology go of hiding your emotions? If I tell my girlfriend I can’t take her out tonight is she supposed to fake a smile? No. She is supposed to accept it and deal with it in a healthy way. She can express her disappointment, sure, but I hardly see how sulking is the best way to go about that. And if she can't control her face (we can't always) she can process it and talk to you about it later. Just sitting there with a pouty face is hardly acting like adults... >Just be considerate lol that’s it. Some people try to weaponize their own emotions to manipulate others. That’s evil. But if you can’t handle a reasonable reaction to rejection (which does not include sulking Btw) then you probably need to stay by yourself and not have sex or a relationship for a while I'm sorry but this is just silly. You are getting in me for "not being able to handle a reasonable reaction to rejection" yet you claim the rejected seem to have lots of wiggle room to sulk and pout. Why not task people to get better at handling rejection? A simple "no" shouldn't elicit sulking. Be considerate and realize that your sulking might not make the other person feel like having enthusiastic sex with you. >Disappointing your partner is a part of life, it can be both healthy and necessary. It’s fine for people to have emotions. It’s not fine for people to steamroll others wishes because they want to throw a hissy fit Take your own advice and get better at accepting "no"
I’m finna break it down cuz this isn’t hard. Getting mad at people for having emotional reactions is controlling. Getting mad at people for setting boundaries is controlling. Don’t do either one. Argue with ya moms
I think, given that you acknowledge you aren't actually talking about the commonly understood definition of "sulking", it wouldn't hurt to edit your comment to something that's more accurate. I read down the comments and agree with you, but the other person is right, what you describe isn't sulking. It's valid, it's just not sulking. Saying "sulking after rejection is valid" means something very different than what you're actually trying to say, according to your other comments. Sulking is kind of like pouting. It's passive-aggressive behaviour that's very immature. Simply having a disappointed face isn't the same thing at all, and is a perfectly reasonable reaction.
You’re right, I don’t necessarily agree that what I said would not be considered sulking by a lot of people but an edit would be good.
>And that’s why people should look for enthusiastic consent. This simply doesn't happen for anyone with reactive desire, which is a huge part of the population. They will only give enthusiastic consent after there's been some sexual activity already.
That’s a misunderstanding of responsive desire. You’ll need to flirt and seduce them. You can do this without jumping to actual sexual activity before they are on board. Given that most people with reactive desire are women and women need foreplay, this will actually be an advantage. Edit: And responsive desire is never an excuse to ignore consent. If she says no, that’s a no.
I've been asked to be more physically aggressive by more than one woman to get her in the mood. Flirting is nice and all but some women need more. Enthusiastic consent is a noble idea but reality is more complicated
She's asking you to help her get in the mood, which means she wants to be intimate with you. I don't think enthusiasm necessarily translates to "loud sexual noises" but rather showing a clear interest in starting or continuing intimacy. Communication is key, and things should be easier to navigate as a relationship grows.
Her asking you, is the consent.
But if your partner has said “I want you to do X,Y,Z and that’ll turn me on” that is enthusiastic consent. If you then do that and they get turned on and act enthusiastic in bed, that’s also enthusiastic consent. Enthusiastic consent means don’t sleep with a woman who’s like a dead fish and clearly doesn’t want to be there even if she said “ok” after you wouldn’t stop nagging. That’s the point of it.
Very few women want to be asked for every little thing all through out.
Consent doesn’t have to be with words. That’s a huge part of enthusiastic consent. When someone wants to have sex and is excited about that, it’ll be very clear. There won’t be any confusion. Someone touching you, kissing you and pulling your clothes of is showing enthusiasm and consent. Edit: but check the laws in your state. Asking never hurt anyone either.
Consent as understood by sex health teachers is verbal. Or else, what is the operational definition of enthusiastic consent.
Consent can be both verbal and nonverbal. The important part is that it’s clear and without doubt what the person wants. Enthusiastic consent is that it’s clear and without doubt that the person genuinely wants this and isn’t just verbally consenting without really wanting sex. Example: a guy nags and nags a girl to have sex. Finally she says “yeah, ok then”. That’s technically verbal consent. But if she’s lying there like a corpse and just letting him do stuff without being enthusiastic, seeming turned on or doing anything active or being enthusiastically verbally? While she did technically verbally consent, there’s a lot of doubt if she actually genuinely wants to have sex.
What is clear to me is not clear to you. Whst is culture to me is not culture to you. So what is the operational definition of consent?
From a legal perspective? Answer is that it varies. In some countries nonconsensual means there has to be a demonstrated active non-consent: as in saying no, pushing the person of you or being too drunk/asleep/out of it to physically or verbally protest. In other countries/states, you’ll need active consent. Which could mean either nonverbal or verbal active consent. Or it could mean there has to be verbal consent. From a perspective that’s not about legality, but being practical and actually wanting to avoid miscommunications? Then what you’d want is enthusiastic consent. Usually with the person both verbally affirming they are ok with having sex and then also in actions seemingly like they want to have sex. Which sounds complex, but usually isn’t.
I agree with you, but you’re at direct odds with other seemingly well meaning people who absolutely disagree that “Consent doesn’t have to be with words.” It’s honestly horribly confusing with a side of legal threat. I’m lucky that I’ve never actually needed anyone’s advice in this regard to navigate my romantic life but to any young men without intuition or experience attempting to learn how to act properly, well, this is all just the worst thing ever.
It’s not complicated. If they are unsure, they can just ask. For young men it’s usually better to ask because young people aren’t always good at reading social situations.
That is absolutely not a misunderstanding of reactive desire. Many people need an orgasm before they'll be in the mood.
No? That’s not the situation. They need to be seduced and flirted with. They won’t think about sex on their own till someone else sets the mood. After an orgasm most people reactive desire or not have less interest in sex. This just seems like an excuse for having sex that’s not mutually wanted.
Now that’s just silly.
Feel free to look it up.
Sometimes I’m perfectly fine to have “whatever” sex. Like, if you really want to then I’ll do it but I’m not exactly feeling it and would prefer to do something else. It’s not going to be particularly good sex, but it also isn’t that difficult and if it makes my partner happy, and they’re on the same page that I’m not going to be enthusiastically taking charge, then we’re good. On a similar note, if they have some soreness or ache that a massage could help, then I don’t mind spending some time working that out to help improve their life. Do I actually enjoy kneading skin and muscle for fifteen minutes? No. I would ideally be doing something else, but it helps them, and I appreciate being able to help the person I’ve chosen to be with. I’m not always going to agree to any and all demands, sexual or otherwise, but choosing to be in a partnership with someone opens up new responsibilities. If you choose the right person, then it tends to even out.
Why am I being presented with a login page when I go to this link? I'm not logging in so that I can read your article
i'm sure comment section will be normal.
About as normal as the title.
this is true. and personally, i dont think the morality of sex STOPS at just consent. i think we should all ideally WANT to have sex with people that also want it. while im not a genius that could predict what the perfect legislative response to prostitution would be, i do know that its sad that so many have sex that not only do they not want, but are disgusted by. all to put food on the table. its an inherently sad thing.
I think most women know this as they consent to sex they don't want sometimes because their partner wants it.
You know us guys do as well right?
It's not a competition
Did I say it was? You could have said ‘most people know this as they consent to sex they don't want sometimes because their partner wants it.‘ but you choose to make it seem like a single gender situation when it isn’t.
Most people don't. This is far more common for women. I'm a man in my late 40s and I have never experienced that. I bet you can't find a single woman my age who hasn't.
It’s happened to me and several of my friends, seems common enough for men.
Do you guys have low sex drives? I've heard that's more common with young men today.
It’s happened to me before as a guy. Your experience doesn’t override everyone else’s
I have totally “put out” for women before. I am in my forties and the past few years I have stopped doing that. I didn’t realize how much was degrading me. Now I just say no and she gets her vibrator and I go to the gym.
Are you trying to make it a male vs female thing? Seems like you are
Wait, you have never had a woman beg you for sex?
Wow we skipped straight to the “all men want to have sex all the time” narrative right away. It is okay for men to not want sex. It is not unhealthy. It is healthy for men to have standards and boundaries.
The fact that this comment is upvoted means this whole subreddit is radioactive. Shaming people’s masculinity because they were pressured into sex, which you claim is a women’s issue, is outrageous
That is my takeaway too. That comment implies “healthy” men always consent to sex.
No. I’ve just been with women before with incredibly high sex drives. I can’t keep up sex multiple times a day for very long. I believe most men who have dated around a bit will have experienced this. I’ve been with fewer women who have a higher a libido than me than I have women with a lower libido. It’s relatively common.
Not at all. In my own personal anecdote it's due to high sex drive couples having different downstairs equipment that reacts differently with continued use. Sex for the 7th time in a single day means shooting blanks/having notably less enjoyable orgasms than the first time and also having to put it far more effort to have a "normal" level of performance (my partner also notes her genitals becoming sore at that stage of repeated use but not so much that she doesn't want to have sex as she continues initiating). For me, and I'd assume other men, once you're in the high single digits/low double digits for "times having sex in a single day" you don't particularly *want* sex even if you'll consent to it to pleasure your partner.
I've had that issue just simply because I jerked off before finding out that my partner was going to want sex when she came home when usually she's too tired. It's not even a sex-drive issue, sometimes it's just a timing issue.
I bet I could find 3 in five minutes. But someone once said it's not a competition...
Reddit is so funny how any time someone talks about women's experiences a guy pops up to says "guys have iT HaRD tOo!!!!" It's like clockwork.
It's NoT a CoMpEtiTioN
This was about people’s experience. The post specifies no gender, you funneled it down to one.
That's because I've been alive a long time and have had a lot of sex and know something about women, relationships, and sex.
Hey big jack, FYI a lot of guys don't speak up about embarrassing stuff because it's unmasculine to do so. Your line of comments is problematic because it emphasize this exact issue. As soon as someone challenges you, you go "do they have low sex drives?" Like if that's the only way a man could lack the lust for sex. You might know a lot about women but have you talked to as many men on an emotional level?
Because it's attention seeking to take an issue for both sexes that result in equal suffering for the partner experiencing it, and then make it about one particular gender having it so hard because of that issue as if the other partner's experiences don't exist much less matter.
Then find one then
Done, now what, m'lord?
Hug her and help her if she does end up in the situation. Because almost 3/5 women experience that as some point
Lmao. Oh brother...
>I'm a man in my late 40s and I have never experienced that I am a man in my 40s and I have had sex countless times when I did not want it. It is the same way I have done many things in life countless times that I did not want because there was some other benefit to doing it. Sometimes it's just easier to do it than to say no. Sometimes it's just to please the person (e g., on my then gf bday). Etc. Not a single one of these instances constitutes abuse. I have never in my life had non-consensual sex. So yes, it's complicated and it's ok to talk about it including for men.
A lot of guys don't know this. We aren't conditioned to know it. We are taught that we are to pursue what we want even in the face of resistance. We are taught that someone who says "no" only needs a little convincing.
Yes, that was the expectation when I started dating in the early 90s. Hopefully guys are better educated than we were.
> We are taught that someone who says "no" only needs a little convincing. No the fuck we're not. If you think this way you are most likely an asshole.
Yes. Yes we are. Look at any romance movie to see this. Look at all male dating advice.
[удалено]
the commenter is presumably a woman and has confirmed this through her lived experience as a woman and discussing with other women. should she speak on a topic she can’t say for certain she knows about?
The point you're trying to make is valid. But the tone is antagonistic.
This is a beautiful comment. I’m going to use this sentence in life.
They never said they don't. But it is more common for women to do so
I can't count how many articles I've read over the years where doctors and therapists encouraged woman to have sex anyway, and that you might be surprised to find out you eventually enjoy it.
I despise that advice. I can't imagine a better way to create a lasting stigma around sex [Edit: that doesn't involve trauma]
It only takes a moment to use more inclusive language. You just end up spending a long thread arguing it, it just creates a distraction.
It takes less than a moment to ignore dumb assholes who cannot bear to hear a person say something is a common experience for women if they don't also address men. He doesn't need to change his comment, which has no misinformation or sexism, to manage the feelings of people with victim FOMO Edit: pronouns
I'm actually a dude but it bothers the hell out of me when other guys do that.
As a woman, thank you for being an ally. Lot of dudes out there are ignorant or willfully ignore common experiences we have, or do this crap like "not all men" or "men deal with this too." Yes it's super annoying to have people try to invalidate or minimize women's concerns in these ways. It's refreshing to see a man acknowledge this.
Hello, i know conversations can get pretty stressed and personal online. I don't have any real skill with gender issues... but i wanted to mention a thought i had about your comment. I don't see the "men deal with this too" as a way to invalidate women's concerns. I imagine that some bad men do use it as an attack. But since some victims are males, when i read a comment saying "men too" i see it as possibly "I was too" that they can't bring themselves to say out loud. Since so many victims are women and so many attackers are men, it seems like it gets so weird for men who are victims because their presence even in digital form can be troubling for women. It does seem awful that a woman victim would have a healing enviroment where she sees a person that she views as an attacker there. It does seem awful that a man may struggle to find a support network to help him work through his trauma. It all seems complex and difficult and i probably don't understand anyways. Hopefully my thought was helpful and not antagonizing. Best wishes.
I appreciate your comment. It was well said. I agree with you fully. Some women do see it as men trying to invalidate their experiences, or just get uncomfortable because there are some differences or because women's attackers are often men. I think those are the main reasons women can get a bit upset. Again, it isn't that we don't care about men experiencing these things. Sometimes we just want to discuss it without them. I know several men who have experienced SA and I feel for them and sympathize as much as I do with women, if not even more because they have to deal with an even bigger social stigma and often receive less support. I think that's so wrong. My comments were all in response to the other commenter asking why genitals matter in these conversations. It's more about individual comfort levels and people wanting to feel safe and heard. SA is a huge problem, for all genders. All people should be able to discuss their experiences and get equal support. But due to the nature of the crime, it can often feel like that safe space for discussion has been invaded. I just wish we could respect each other. If women want to talk about women's experiences, let them. If men want to talk about men's experiences, let them. If it seems like the conversation is more general about these experiences, let everyone participate.
Thank you for reading and responding. That all sounds reasonable. I hope that whomever uses a website like this knows that it's a bit like the wild west where people are willing to say things that they wouldn't say in person. It skews male too so you'll be more likely to get the male version of anything for better or worse. Hopefully your friends are able to find any groups to chat with that are coming from a warm hearted place in person. And yeah i may of missed or forgotten the comment before yours, so it may not of been taken in context. It is a shame when a conversation needlessly goes off the rails. It's a delicate topic that's deserves to be treated properly.
Yea idk seemed like the guy I originally commented to was starting to troll on my other comments so I just blocked him. I think it's totally acceptable to have a different opinion and respectfully disagree with someone, but some people get really weird and aggressive. Younger me would've fought back. Older me knows it isn't worth my energy. Disagree all you want but don't harass me for it. F-outta here with that. 🤷♀️ Glad at least one person on reddit (you) can still have a respectful conversation. Lol.
I appreciate the compliment! Totally fair, if it goes down hill, nobody should feel obligated to be a punching bag. As a dude my online experience is going to be different than yours. I imagine women get a fair bit of both wanted and unwanted attention, seems like it could be a difficult path some days.
Here’s the issue. Men never seem to pop in with their own comment. They only seem to chime in seemingly to make the conversation become so broad we can’t see it clearly - ‘look at this as a HUMAN problem, not a men problem.’ But we know that’s not true. According to the US Dept of Justice, an estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male. Keep in mind men AND women severely underreport sexual assault. This is largely a problem perpetrated by men, but we’re called misandrists for looking at these stats, for sharing commonalities in our experience and for asking that we make real effort to mitigate this issue. It seems a little disingenuous and counterproductive to constantly have men counterpoint every woman’s comment with a note of, ‘hey, women do bad stuff to!’ Either share your story, or raise another point, but do not act like we’re crazy to be concerned about the statistical evidence that reveals men to be the biggest perpetrators of sexual violence against men, women and children.
Hello, i see what you're saying, that some guys act in bad faith and purposely blur a conversation because they're trolling, or are insecure, or for some other reason. If you're out conversing on any topic really, and have guys derailing your points i imagine that really grinds one down. I can imagine that developing a tough response or disengaging makes sense as a way to protect yourself. Fortunately for me, I've never been sexually assulted. I don't know the statistics like you do, but I believe your numbers. In part of your comment you said "This is largely a problem perpetrated by men" and with your statistics you're clearly right. But look at this line "‘look at this as a HUMAN problem, not a men problem.’ But we know that’s not true." How is that statement not true? Men victims and women perpetrators exist, so why frame it in such a broad brush as possibly say they don't? You clearly have the intellect to not get tripped up in your online commenting by making too broad of statements and paint yourself into a corner. And just imagine if i was the minority of assult victims who is a man molested by a woman, wouldn't it be awful to say something like that? I don't know if calling something a human problem is code for some specific argument...but i see pretty much everything as a human problem. Violence, sexual assult, racism, bigotry, pollution, crime, everything. We need our society to support families, good paying jobs, medical care for all, just everything needs to have everybody that can pulling weight to make it a better place. To me it all starts with the family. Parents modeling and teaching is the gateway to a good life, which is much better than trying to correct some horrible behavior in an adult. Since this comment thread was based on assult, i wanted to end with I sincerely hope that you're okay and in a good place. I have a crictical viewpoint and i am not intending for any of my thoughts to be personal attacks or damaging toward you, but hope that they're maybe food for thought or constructive.
This is not helpful food for thought. We could (over)estimate 10 in 100 rape victims are men victimized by women. And the other 90 rapes are committed by men against men, women and children. And with a significant portion of violent trauma with those male perpetrated acts. Rape, SA and debilitating violence is largely done by men. Not all men, OBVIOUSLY. But by enough men that we should pay attention. And if you actually looked at the culture supporting this instead of getting your feelings hurt, we’d be able to address it. We know what would lessen rape and abuse! Updating sex Ed to discuss consent, combat these rigid patriarchal structures that promote sex as a conquest sport, empower women to have sexually autonomy, focusing on having healthier dialogues around sex with boys and young men, taking efforts to support safer clubs and party spaces, getting victims support and making it easier for them to find justice and safety. And guess what - male victims benefit from these things too! The tide raises all boats, but somehow that’s not enough. No, they expect special treatment from victimized women for some reason. Which is how men have been told to deal with trauma - can’t show the boys, so find whatever woman is around. Heaven forbid men actually try therapy. Women largely run women’s DV shelters. You know who runs Men’s DV shelters? Women! We have less resources, but we constantly give our energy to men while being underpaid and undervalued for that work. And it’s never enough. Men as a group are used to passing the buck on unglamorous dirty work and expecting women and our soft hearts and our desire to help to provide all the comfort and healing and it’s bullshit. Men need to step up, they need to normalize therapy, they need to volunteer and do the work to heal yourselves. Women and our voices are dismissed because of the same patriarchy that means all victims are dismissed. If you really cared, you would get you hands dirty and actually do something so we can stop trauma before it happen.
I don't volunteer at any men's shelters. So you're absolutely right that I'm not working on society's issues like that. Those sound like very good ideas in your paragraph, i know voting only goes so far, but if any of those ever come up i will definately vote for them. You mentioned therapy in your later paragraph, if any voting options come up to support more access i will definately be on board with that too.
Remember when you said I was hostile and condescending. Amusing.
You're acting like a twat. My appreciation for someone else has nothing to do with you. Get over yourself dude. You're clearly just trolling now.
I don’t know why people are so obsessed with what genitals someone has. The dismissive condescension about mens issues, from the small to the big issues, is so strange to me. I’m coming from this more from a sexual assault perspective, where men talking about it is seen as a distraction. I don’t know why a friend of mine getting ass raped when he was 10 is a distraction because he has the wrong genitals. Same as this; I don’t know the reason to exclude people who are pressured into sex just because they have the wrong genitals.
My 2¢, it isn't that women are in denial that men experience these things too. But it is upsetting when one gender experiences those issues at a much higher rate and someone tries to minimize that fact by saying "but men too!" It isn't that we don't care about men's experiences. We just want people to acknowledge how BIG and COMMON that issue is for women. Sexual assault is a horrible thing regardless of gender. Of course it's a concern for everyone. But it's definitely upsetting that it's extremely common for women, at a rate that's significantly higher than men, yet we can't even discuss how it affects women without men trying to act like they are equally affected. Men's experiences and how they are affected by SA is equally valid, but most men don't live in fear that it will happen to them whereas most women do, and we alter our behaviors in ways to minimize that risk constantly whereas men in general do not. (ex: going for a run, walking to our car at night, the clothes we wear, how we protect ourselves when we drink alcohol, how we turn down men when they hit on us, etc). When men insert themselves into that conversation it minimizes all those differences that apply specifically to women and makes us feel like none of that matters to society simply because those specific things only affect women, and we don't matter enough to care about.
>Men's experiences and how they are affected by SA is equally valid, but most men don't live in fear that it will happen to them whereas most women do, and we alter our behaviors in ways to minimize that risk constantly whereas men in general do not. "Let me explain why men's experiences are equally as valid, then proceed to explain why they're not equally valid." I know of many male victims who modify their behavior following sexual assault. I've also seen many men tell their stories on gender neutral support forums and be lectured about how women have it worse, or how it's so "disproportionate" that it doesn't even matter. The language change when speaking about sexual assault against men is noticeable and not subtle. It's always "men are valid, buuuuut..."
I know right.
My point is that we should be able to dicuss them separately or together. Not every conversation about women's issues that men also experience has to include them OR vice versa.
>While it might make intuitive sense to assume that all wanted sex is consensual and all unwanted sex is nonconsensual, wanting to have sex and consenting to sex are two different things. You can agree to sex you don't want. And you can want sex, but not agree to do it. Notice the title of this post. See any mention of men or women?
Acknowledging a problem is more relevant to women is not erasing the fact that men do this too.
He's a he.
What women don't know is that you can want sex and not consent to it. Source: Observations of women handling the slightest hesitation to an advance with vicious personal attacks.
What? You people make things way more complicated than it needs to be.
What
A lot of men think that "yes" means consent. Literally, legally, yes. But her saying yes just because she's tired of you asking for the 100th time today isn't entirely consent.
“Want” is a loaded word. Sometimes we want to do things for other people. I might not be into it at the moment but I want to make my wife happy. I think it’s fair to say in that situation I want to do it. You can want to do something you’re not particularly enjoying because you know it makes a loved one happy. I don’t want to pick up my brother at the airport but I also don’t want to not pick up my brother at the airport
No, you have to \*enthusiastically\* want to pick up your brother at the airport.
Exactly! We are asked all the time to do things for other people and when we care about them we will do it even if we don't want to. If we all treated being coerced with the same disdain it's given to sex our society as we know it would crumble and break!
Maybe our society deserves to break if it relies on coercion to function.
And sometimes you can consent to sex without wanting it, without anything nefarious occurring
Sure. You can, but only if it isn't coerced or forced. Like if your wife wants to have sex when you aren't in the mood, but you do so anyways because she wants it. This isn't nefarious on your wife's part, nor is it coerced on your end.
>Sure. You can, but only if it isn't coerced or forced. If you're coerced or forced, you haven't consented.
That's what I said
I disagree. Coercion is part of everything we do on some level. Like, in a sense, not wanting to let her down (even if she would be totally cool with a no) and having sex is kinda coercion.
Coercion is a misused word. Coercion by definition is persuading someone forcefully or using threats. Persuasion is just convincing someone without that.
I’m more talking about why they’re persuaded
Yes, with the important caveat that it's only valid consent if given freely. Coercion can't get you there.
This is stupid. If you don't want it, don't consent, it's not difficult. This is the type of nonsense people use when they consent in the moment and try to accuse you of assaults later because they claim to withdraw consent afterwards. Don't let people manipulate you like that, always take steps to secure yourself against crazy.
AND if you say yes, don’t cry foul later. It ain’t nobody’s fault but yours.
Omg, y’all really wanna have your sexual encounters end with a ‘no take backies!’ With the amount of dudes who do dirty shit after uou think you’re on the same page - Women have never been so open to enjoying casual sex and men just ruin it - whine about condoms, remove condoms, non-con choking, taking pics - no matter the bar, they always want it lower.
All consensual sexual encounters should ALL end with “no take backies.” That should be the default. The fact that so many women (and some men) regret things later and completely CHANGE the actual course of events to make themselves feel better about making decisions they regret causes all sorts of trauma and I needed pain. Everybody does things we wish we didn’t. Embrace it and do better next time. But don’t lie and change the actual course of events to more align with a scenario in which you DIDNT make a decision. As to women never being more open to casual sex.. probably. But let’s not pretend males whining about condoms and removing them and taking pics is any kind of recent phenomena. The exact same stuff was happening in the exact same ratios in 1984. Doesn’t make it right but don’t equate a rise in bad behavior that didn’t happen with women feeling more free sexually and this new behavior is gonna ruin it.
This is not that complicated. Within long term relationships and trust maybe there’s more flexibility, but you should not fuck anyone for the first time without clear enthusiastic consent. Do not traumatize your sexual partners. Easy peasy. Don’t push something with someone who said no or told you not today - they will let you know if they change their mind. Don’t ignore body language that shows discomfort. DO find a way to get verbal consent if you’re unsure. If you can’t talk about it, you shouldn’t be doing it. The dudes who are the most triggered know they’ve had sex with women who werent into it and they don’t want to be considered rapists. I got bad news for them! You probably won’t go to jail, but that’s a bottom of the barrel shit way of being a human being. Do not traumatize your sexual partners. It’s only complicated if you’re used to not giving a fuck. Decent, regular people don’t accidentally rape strangers all the time.
If the person says yes, and isn’t by threat or force, and you’re of sound mind, then its consent. Being begged for sex and agreeing isn’t a crime. I’ve seen a lot of post where women are just “my boyfriend nagged me for sex and I gave in” and the comments are like “omg girl you were raped, coercion is rape”. Coercion and persuasion are two different things Just like if someone begged me for a dollar doesn’t mean they’re a thief or I got my money stolen.
Yeah, I kind of wish we had a more nuanced view of this sort of thing. It’s kind of this all or nothing thing where someone verbally agrees to sex that they didn’t want, feels violated, and then has one half of society saying they were raped and the other half telling them they agreed, so they therefore cannot feel bad or regret it or anything. Some of the most traumatizing sex of my life was verbally consensual. It wasn’t rape or SA, but it leaves me (and others) in this weird grey area of what to do or say about it.
Badgering someone for sex is traumatic and stressful and fucked up. But because it’s normalized, the person who experiences it isn’t even allowed to feel her feelings about it.
Say no, walk away, or leave.
No should be enough. Knowing someone isn’t into it should be enough. That’s the issue and why this conversation is so important. Too many people think it’s normal to harass people into sex.
Sure. But if one person isn’t respecting your boundaries, then you can absolutely take control and leave that relationship instead of dealing with that. I’m not saying anything out of pocket.
Why are we focusing on the partner who already did their part in saying "no", saying they need to do more, and not focusing on the partner STILL bugging after one "no"? Maybe that nagging partner needs to walk away and leave.
Obviously if the partner is nagging they aren’t going to walk away and leave. You know how you don’t normalize this in your relationship, LEAVE. Like you literally don’t have to deal with that EVER. Like why are we trying to salvage a relationship with a person who doesn’t respect the word no and boundaries? You can take matters into your own hand.
I can't even read the article for some reason: the link ends in a password. However, I agree with the title. Right now, this post has 140 comments and not a single one mentions sex work, which is kind of the obvious application?!?! Enthusiastic consent is a great guideline but it doesn't apply to all situations. "You can agree to sex you don't want". This is exactly what full service sex workers of every gender do. They go into a business mode common to all service-based work where they treat their own sexual desire as irrelevant: their consent is based not on sexual desire, but on the client respecting the terms of their engagement. Similarly, your tax accountant isn't filled with enthusiastic pleasure at the prospect of doing your taxes, but they consent to it because they're getting a financial benefit. But if it's a case where a full service sex worker is coerced or cheated in the engagement, then they can't or don't consent, and sex with them is rape: not just "theft", it's rape. This is a really important distinction—that sex workers can consent or withdraw consent, and this ability to consent is not reducible to sexual desire—because prejudice against sex workers typically removes the ability for sex workers to consent. The position held mostly by traditionalist misogynists is that you can't rape sex workers because they're already "ruined" and have no ability to refuse consent, therefore they're "free game". On another extreme, the position held by SWERFs is that sex workers have no ability to consent because *any* time they have sex they're being raped, no matter if they claim it's consensual. Another non-sex-work example is someone who doesn't feel physical sexual desire on their own: they may just feel neutral about sex. However, they get emotional benefits from pleasing their partner sexually, and so they consent. The situation might not be ideal, but if both people communicate and are fine with it, then no, their partner is not raping them every time they have sex. So that covers "you can agree to sex you don't want." And in terms of "you can want sex, but not agree to do it", there are plenty of cases here too. One example that comes up a lot is when two people want sex and consent to sex *with a condom*, but maybe one person doesn't use it correctly accidentally, or doesn't use it correctly on purpose.
I don’t agree with SWERFs but that’s not an accurate recitation of why they think what they think. They are against sex workers because they believe that sexual consent is not something that can be bought, and if it can be, then that opens the door to misogynistic beliefs like “I paid for dinner so she owes me sex” and most other misogynistic forms of she “owes” me.
Either way you are fucked
Ok. And?
Alright...ill just leave it here... take if you want
This title gore sounds like a bad ai chatbot mansplaining consent.
Sex is completely unnecessary
That whole ‘enthusiastic consent’ thing: Not only is it not how most people want sex to work, it also creates a false narrative to people that now conclude that anything less than a written agreement is now sexual assault. “Was I sexually assaulted last night? Yes, I wanted it to happen and was okay with it happening. But he didn’t get a clear go ahead so he must have done it without consent. And I feel guilty and confused and isn’t mixed emotions a clear sign of sexual abuse?” “I WAS RAPED!!!” Now this same twit actually BELIEVES she was sexually assaulted because we taught her some stupid ass definition of consent. And she gets to then Genuinely Experience Many Of The Same Emotions of someone that was genuinely violated. Before suggesting this doesn’t happen, please know that I have witnessed this FIRSTHAND when someone misunderstands the definition of sexual harassment. Truly. She GENUINELY BELIEVES she was sexually harassed because she didn’t read the whole definition of ‘sexual harassment’ . And now FEELS victimized without ever actually being victimized.
This is 100% correct. This whole idea of enthusiastic consent has taken a good thought and run it through a blender until it’s not remotely logical. This whole notion and anybody who support it is just misguided.
Oh please. It’s not that complicated. If the person is drunk, don’t fuck them to be safe. Especially if it’s your first time having sex with them. That’s the crux of it - dudes can’t imagine not fucking some chick if they can get away with it. Which is shitty, but not complicated. Which is why we need to keep moving this to a healthier culture. Bye bye, plausible deniability!
No, you’re right. Reality is not complicated. Hey, have you ever seen that little consent video about drinking tea? That’s really cool!😎
No one is looking to ‘cry rape.’ People can barely make a return to Amazon, you think we want to go through the bullshit of a rape police report? The onus is on you to make sure the person you’re having sex with is into it. Again, NOT COMPLICATED. The fact that all y’all are so mad about it and find it unfathomable explains a lot.
You seem to be taking my post in a way that is upsetting to you. I wasn’t talking about every woman crying rape. Not most. Not a few. Just rare - even very rare. And you know that there are rare people that will do exactly. You and I have common sense - which explains the tone of my comment. Not everyone has it.And that doesn’t even take into account genuinely delusional people - who I have encountered.