You realize that, after she'd sent out all the right signals and spoken all the right words, for her to announce later that she didn't really mean it, the lesson that he would most likely take home from this scenario is that "that chick is totally batshit crazy and you can't trust her", right?
I pretty explicitly don't want him to know that she'd retroactively rescinded the permission she gave. The fact that this hypothetical* chick is, in this arena at least, a completely non-functional person shouldn't have to hurt the people that she interacts with.
(* I'm continuing to use the hypothetical because it seems like an excellent one to me, that I've seen in day-to-day encounters frequently. I know a woman who divorced her husband and then three years after the divorce announced to the world at large that she now "realized" that he'd raped her ten years ago. Since it was the first he'd heard of it too I--unlike you, I imagine--am not inclined to give much weight to the declaration. I can specifically name other situations that largely map onto this hypothetical. )
By announcing that "he could have not kissed her" even though she was clearly sending signals that she was open to being kissed, you are setting up a paternalistic world which I, for one, would be unable to tolerate.
This is not hyperbole: I would rather be raped than have everyone I ever came onto second guessing my motives, honesty, integrity, and ability to say what I mean. And yes, I've been raped, so I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I am willing to do people the courtesy of assuming they mean what they say, and I would prefer they do the same for me, and the people who routinely lie, even if it's only about certain subjects, should be distrusted, not catered to.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
Re: Flesh and Stone
I pretty explicitly don't want him to know that she'd retroactively rescinded the permission she gave. The fact that this hypothetical* chick is, in this arena at least, a completely non-functional person shouldn't have to hurt the people that she interacts with.
(* I'm continuing to use the hypothetical because it seems like an excellent one to me, that I've seen in day-to-day encounters frequently. I know a woman who divorced her husband and then three years after the divorce announced to the world at large that she now "realized" that he'd raped her ten years ago. Since it was the first he'd heard of it too I--unlike you, I imagine--am not inclined to give much weight to the declaration. I can specifically name other situations that largely map onto this hypothetical. )
By announcing that "he could have not kissed her" even though she was clearly sending signals that she was open to being kissed, you are setting up a paternalistic world which I, for one, would be unable to tolerate.
This is not hyperbole: I would rather be raped than have everyone I ever came onto second guessing my motives, honesty, integrity, and ability to say what I mean. And yes, I've been raped, so I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I am willing to do people the courtesy of assuming they mean what they say, and I would prefer they do the same for me, and the people who routinely lie, even if it's only about certain subjects, should be distrusted, not catered to.