"In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement. "
At this point in the thread I started to think that perhaps you were just trolling a little.
There are many the things that you could say about that statement which erindubitably already has much more eloquently than I could ever could but it also something that can be equally applied to young men too (she won't put out so you move onto the next girl that will). When I was growing up there was a huge peer pressure on /everyone/ to react positively to sexual situations and even if they were to a certain extent uncomfortable or unwelcome there was always an understanding that this was to be expected.
But it shouldn't be expected. It shouldn't be the norm for anyone. Sexual actions should be comfortable for everyone all the time and if they are not then they shouldn't happen. By not defining things with the words they deserve we are perpetuating this notion and normalising it.
I have been the victim of the worse kind of sexual assault and when it was over my very best friend who I relied on for advice and guidance treated it like it was something that due to the circumstances was okay and could be brushed off. 15 years later and I am still traumatised in many many ways by the encounter. The fact that it was not treated by my peer group with the language it should have (rape) meant that for years I endured many other very unwelcome sexual advances and allowed myself to get into situations that I really did not want to be in because I felt that this was how the rest of the world functioned. I have been the victim of repeated sexual assault many times over since then - because I was lead to believe that if I didn't acquiesce to male advances they would loose interest in me and therefore I have never learnt to say no. But I have still be assaulted and the more we continue to take away from that definition of that term then the this will continue.
I didn't want to jump in here with all my own personal crap but statements like the ones you made (even you are trolling) are just maddening to hear.
First let me salute your frankness. It says a lot about you that you can set any of this down. And it's why, with some trepidation, I'm dropping back into the discussion.
Really, I'm not trolling. I am actually bewildered and horrified having fallen into a looking glass world where all relations between the sexes are fraught with peril, and where it's possible to commit "assault" without realising your doing it, regardless of your actions or what precautions you take. Think about that from the male point of view for a moment.
Obviously, a "yes" obtained through bullying and implied threat is not consent. What you describe is rape, assault and abuse compounded by friend-fail. It is high time - and quite horrifying that this is even an issue in the C21st West - that we called such things what they are.
All that said, we're left with the question of how the sexes should interact sexually in the real world.
The statement you disliked was in response to the proposal of a protracted and delicate mating dance, perhaps lasting weeks, in which the male assures himself through friendship and so on that "yes" real does mean "yes".
My problems with this are practical and ethical.
Practically, people tend to lose interest if a relationship doesn't move forward. If we're looking for a new etiquette, then this isn't it.
Ethically, this asks the male to take responsibility for the sexuality of an adult female. It also dictates that only one sort of sexual encounter is permitted. To me this denies her agency and is downright sexist.
As you describe it, your experiences have damaged your agency. However, is that really *on its own* enough to turn every sexual encounter into an assault?
Practically, people tend to lose interest if a relationship doesn't move forward. If we're looking for a new etiquette, then this isn't it.
Er, what's wrong with talking? Doesn't that keep the relationship moving forward and help ensure that the speed with which things move is acceptable to both parties concerned?
"In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement. "
Repeat: Talking. Asking if things are okay, asking what people want (it's amazing how many people don't do this or are afraid to talk about what they want), and then working from that. It's all about communication and the importance of learning how to communicate, rather than trying to go on unspoken signals which can be so very easily misinterpreted.
Not everybody wants to talk, or can articulate about sex. Not everybody values conversation. And, as you point out yourself, not all such communication is truthful.
I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.
I know and agree; but I also think this lack of communication comfort is a big problem and that learning to communicate would do a lot to solve some of the ambiguities surrounding definitions of assault.
I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.
Again, completely agree, but inherent in that is the responsibility for ensuring other people know what your desired pace is.
Yes, exactly. Hence my original comments up thread - some time back in the Jurassic. :)
Look, a good few years ago I was mugged by teenage chavs. It was in its own way traumatic - a black eye is also a violation of self etc etc.
For a long time, I had difficulty coping with crowds of teenage boys going about their own teenage business; couldn't walk through them, felt an adrenaline surge if they asked the time, couldn't assert myself easily if they were out of line.
So, in a thankfully limited way, I have some empathy with the way a trauma can damage a person's ability to function normally in certain contexts.
However, then and now, I wouldn't expect society to change in order to cushion me from the effects of my trauma. (Well, OK, I fleetingly wanted to hire Serbian mercenaries to clean out a certain city-centre estate with fire and steel.)
Nor would it be fair for me to point at a crowd of oblivious and loud lads on a street corner and say, "They are victimising me by being boisterous."
It was the half-dozen chavs who mugged me that victimised me. Other groups of lads might unknowingly trigger uncomfortable feelings, but that would not be their problem or moral responsibility.
The alternative would be to return to a Conservative wet dream where young people live in fear of violence from their seniors, backed up by rule-bending police.
The price of not living in a deferential society is the suffering of people whose experiences have kicked them outside the psychological norm. I think it's worth it.
In the same way, if we are to have sexual freedom and sexual equality between the sexes, then people have to take responsibility for communicating their wishes and expectations either verbally or non verbally.
Those who can't, will have triggering experiences, which is horrid, but not the fault of the other party. That's the price.
Making the defition of assault entirely subjective is a sinister attack on the freedoms people have fought for.
(Sorry. I really have to stop here. I only dropped back in because I'd obviously said something triggering.)
In the same way, if we are to have sexual freedom and sexual equality between the sexes, then people have to take responsibility for communicating their wishes and expectations either verbally or non verbally.
Er, isn't that what I was just saying too? Though with emphasis on the verbally part, because it's harder to misinterpret than non-verbal signals. (still possible though, of course!) Anyway, with this statement I *completely* agree. It needs to work both ways though, o'course.
Statement: I don't disagree with everything you've said/agree with everything everyone else has said, I'm just pointing out small things which I feel I can discuss; I haven't been making statements about assault and definitions thereof because I've never been assaulted, by *anyone*'s definition {including of course my own}, which is why I've only commented on things relating to communication and whether or not my body can be constituted my private space. I don't have enough experience of assault to feel my opinion on it is worthy; that, or I'm too chicken-shit to dare express one. *wry grin*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
Re: Flesh and Stone
At this point in the thread I started to think that perhaps you were just trolling a little.
There are many the things that you could say about that statement which erindubitably already has much more eloquently than I could ever could but it also something that can be equally applied to young men too (she won't put out so you move onto the next girl that will). When I was growing up there was a huge peer pressure on /everyone/ to react positively to sexual situations and even if they were to a certain extent uncomfortable or unwelcome there was always an understanding that this was to be expected.
But it shouldn't be expected. It shouldn't be the norm for anyone. Sexual actions should be comfortable for everyone all the time and if they are not then they shouldn't happen. By not defining things with the words they deserve we are perpetuating this notion and normalising it.
I have been the victim of the worse kind of sexual assault and when it was over my very best friend who I relied on for advice and guidance treated it like it was something that due to the circumstances was okay and could be brushed off. 15 years later and I am still traumatised in many many ways by the encounter. The fact that it was not treated by my peer group with the language it should have (rape) meant that for years I endured many other very unwelcome sexual advances and allowed myself to get into situations that I really did not want to be in because I felt that this was how the rest of the world functioned. I have been the victim of repeated sexual assault many times over since then - because I was lead to believe that if I didn't acquiesce to male advances they would loose interest in me and therefore I have never learnt to say no.
But I have still be assaulted and the more we continue to take away from that definition of that term then the this will continue.
I didn't want to jump in here with all my own personal crap but statements like the ones you made (even you are trolling) are just maddening to hear.
Sorry for the long ramble.
Re: Flesh and Stone
Really, I'm not trolling. I am actually bewildered and horrified having fallen into a looking glass world where all relations between the sexes are fraught with peril, and where it's possible to commit "assault" without realising your doing it, regardless of your actions or what precautions you take. Think about that from the male point of view for a moment.
Obviously, a "yes" obtained through bullying and implied threat is not consent. What you describe is rape, assault and abuse compounded by friend-fail. It is high time - and quite horrifying that this is even an issue in the C21st West - that we called such things what they are.
All that said, we're left with the question of how the sexes should interact sexually in the real world.
The statement you disliked was in response to the proposal of a protracted and delicate mating dance, perhaps lasting weeks, in which the male assures himself through friendship and so on that "yes" real does mean "yes".
My problems with this are practical and ethical.
Practically, people tend to lose interest if a relationship doesn't move forward. If we're looking for a new etiquette, then this isn't it.
Ethically, this asks the male to take responsibility for the sexuality of an adult female. It also dictates that only one sort of sexual encounter is permitted. To me this denies her agency and is downright sexist.
As you describe it, your experiences have damaged your agency. However, is that really *on its own* enough to turn every sexual encounter into an assault?
Re: Flesh and Stone
Er, what's wrong with talking? Doesn't that keep the relationship moving forward and help ensure that the speed with which things move is acceptable to both parties concerned?
"In case you hadn't noticed, most young women tend to lose interest very quickly if a young man fails to respond to positive encouragement. "
Repeat: Talking. Asking if things are okay, asking what people want (it's amazing how many people don't do this or are afraid to talk about what they want), and then working from that. It's all about communication and the importance of learning how to communicate, rather than trying to go on unspoken signals which can be so very easily misinterpreted.
Re: Flesh and Stone
I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.
Re: Flesh and Stone
I think each person has to set their own pace and be responsible for that, and not expect the other person to second guess them.
Again, completely agree, but inherent in that is the responsibility for ensuring other people know what your desired pace is.
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2009/08/13/11123-the-leith-agency-creates-scottish-government-sex-health-ad/?corder=DESC
Re: Flesh and Stone
Re: Flesh and Stone
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2009/08/13/11123-the-leith-agency-creates-scottish-government-sex-health-ad/?corder=DESC
Re: Flesh and Stone
Look, a good few years ago I was mugged by teenage chavs. It was in its own way traumatic - a black eye is also a violation of self etc etc.
For a long time, I had difficulty coping with crowds of teenage boys going about their own teenage business; couldn't walk through them, felt an adrenaline surge if they asked the time, couldn't assert myself easily if they were out of line.
So, in a thankfully limited way, I have some empathy with the way a trauma can damage a person's ability to function normally in certain contexts.
However, then and now, I wouldn't expect society to change in order to cushion me from the effects of my trauma. (Well, OK, I fleetingly wanted to hire Serbian mercenaries to clean out a certain city-centre estate with fire and steel.)
Nor would it be fair for me to point at a crowd of oblivious and loud lads on a street corner and say, "They are victimising me by being boisterous."
It was the half-dozen chavs who mugged me that victimised me. Other groups of lads might unknowingly trigger uncomfortable feelings, but that would not be their problem or moral responsibility.
The alternative would be to return to a Conservative wet dream where young people live in fear of violence from their seniors, backed up by rule-bending police.
The price of not living in a deferential society is the suffering of people whose experiences have kicked them outside the psychological norm. I think it's worth it.
In the same way, if we are to have sexual freedom and sexual equality between the sexes, then people have to take responsibility for communicating their wishes and expectations either verbally or non verbally.
Those who can't, will have triggering experiences, which is horrid, but not the fault of the other party. That's the price.
Making the defition of assault entirely subjective is a sinister attack on the freedoms people have fought for.
(Sorry. I really have to stop here. I only dropped back in because I'd obviously said something triggering.)
Re: Flesh and Stone
Er, isn't that what I was just saying too? Though with emphasis on the verbally part, because it's harder to misinterpret than non-verbal signals. (still possible though, of course!) Anyway, with this statement I *completely* agree. It needs to work both ways though, o'course.
Statement: I don't disagree with everything you've said/agree with everything everyone else has said, I'm just pointing out small things which I feel I can discuss; I haven't been making statements about assault and definitions thereof because I've never been assaulted, by *anyone*'s definition {including of course my own}, which is why I've only commented on things relating to communication and whether or not my body can be constituted my private space. I don't have enough experience of assault to feel my opinion on it is worthy; that, or I'm too chicken-shit to dare express one. *wry grin*
Re: Flesh and Stone
Z