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
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