#MeToo Hysteria Is A Pretext For Women To Take Power And Money Away From Men - Page 59 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14968903
Okay, so you are doing your deflecting thing again.

Now, it is bad to grope a woman without her consent.

It is still bad even if this woman works as a stripper.

Verbally asking for consent is okay. It may be unromantic, but for people who have trouble with non-verbal cues, the chances of spontaneous and non-awkward romance are slim anyway.
#14968912
Okay, so you are doing your deflecting thing again.

How do? It is a fact I already made the argument.

Now, it is bad to grope a woman without her consent.

Disingenuous.

It is still bad even if this woman works as a stripper.

Irrelevant.

Verbally asking for consent is okay. It may be unromantic, but for people who have trouble with non-verbal cues, the chances of spontaneous and non-awkward romance are slim anyway.

This is a reasonable statement. I have no problem with it as is.
#14968943
One Degree wrote:How do? It is a fact I already made the argument.

Disingenuous.

Irrelevant.

This is a reasonable statement. I have no problem with it as is.


I have no idea what your argument is. If you want me to address it, please repeat it.

Since you have not made any substantive rebuttal to any of my comments, the claims still stand.
#14968999
I think that One degree has a point but is not stating it as elegantly as you would like.

If we pause and look at two young people just learning the "ways of love and sex" then that alone is a mitigation of the rules that we would hold someone in their mid 20's to. If, for example, an inexperienced young woman touches her boyfriend's penis thinking that he would like it, she should not be held accountable for sexual assault when she is 50. It is a non-issue. A young man touches a woman's breast while they are kissing in the car should not call him to account in his 50's unless the girl says no and he persists.

Do we really want to take spontaneity out of sex? Do we really want to stop and have "the talk" before every encounter? I think not.

Society will tell us that we all know what a boy is doing when he tries to get his girlfriend to come to his room in private. Somehow we are shocked and appalled when she follows him and then years later complains that he tried to have sex with her and she didn't want to.

Maybe we ought to raise the age of consent to 45 for women. This discussion seems to imagine no time in their lives when they are responsible for sexual outcomes.

Now before some pea brain goes off about forcible rape, please note that I did not say it is ever OK to proceed when a woman clearly says no. Or a man for that matter.

I brought this issue up earlier. One degree has agreed with me that there is real danger in trivializing rape by applying it to very minor encounters.

We live in a world where not everyone is spot on their game all of the time. We also live with a society which, in many parts of the world (and the US not excluded) the expectation is that the man be the "aggressor". Poor word but apt. What might be the case in Boston may not be the case in West Virginia.

Do we want a campaign worldwide to pull this social meme down and replace it with some Spock-like contractual protocol every time we wish to be intimate? I hope not.

We teach our kids to understand that no means no. It may not mean never but it means no, now.

We teach our kids (and recalcitrant adults) that the marketplace is never an OK place to initiate sexual advances. That it is never OK for a boss to make a pass at a subordinate. (What Bill Clinton did was not wrong because he did not have consent. It was wrong because he was in a position of power over Monica adding the fact that they were at work.)

Verbally asking for consent is okay. It may be unromantic, but for people who have trouble with non-verbal cues, the chances of spontaneous and non-awkward romance are slim anyway.


This is a cop out. There are no "experts" in non verbal cues. It should be the both people's responsibility to firmly say NO if things go to fast or their limits are exceeded. It is not OK to "let someone go to far without protesting" , agonize about it for 40 years then bring it up.

Finally. What people are thinking in the heat of the moment is not always the way they will feel a year down the road. Or even in the morning for that matter. Both of them should be taught to understand this. They should be taught to take responsibility for their own action or inaction. And just maybe we should teach women to forgive themselves rather than blame someone else for their actions.

Now potential pea brain. Did I anywhere say it is OK to proceed after someone says NO? I did not.
#14969009
Drlee wrote:Do we really want to take spontaneity out of sex? Do we really want to stop and have "the talk" before every encounter? I think not.


I remember that old Dave Chappell skit where he was about to have sex with a woman and right when things were getting hot, he whipped this contract and made her sign like five pages :lol:

If you haven't seen it, go look it up. It is hilarious, and every man who watched that probably though like, yeah I know it is a joke and all but I could see something like that happening one day

Apparently, only 15 or so years later consent videos are becoming a thing. Admittedly a creative man could make a consent video to be much sexier than a woman signing a consent contract.

CONSENT MATTERS Women are being asked to record ‘consent videos’ before sex by men who are afraid they’ll be accused of rape or assault

A WORRYING new trend is seeing women being asked to record "consent videos" before having sex with men who fear they will be accused of assault afterwards.

This post #MeToo dating trend involves one partner filming the other giving them verbal consent before they engage in a sexual act.

This then allows the person who recorded the video to use it as "evidence" that their partner gave consent before having sex.

In a recent Evening Standard article, one woman recalled how her partner had whipped out his smartphone before they became intimate in order to film her verbal consent.

Despite "sleeping together a few times before", her casual fling grabbed his phone "suddenly and without warning" right before having sex to confirm she wanted to sleep with him.

Switching on the camera, he said: "Could you really quickly just say that you want to have sex with me?"

Unsurprisingly, the woman didn't know how to respond and so he asked again: "Could you just say that you consent to having sex with me"

After this worrying exchange, the woman also describes how a "friend of a friend" shared a similar experience with a "minor celebrity" on a recent night out.

After flirting all night, "she accompanied this man back to his hotel."

However, when they returned to his room the star "explained that his contract was very strict and that she would need to record a video of herself giving consent."

After this, the celebrity "asked her to state her full name, that she was there of her own accord and that she consented to having sex with him."

In other words, these worrying videos function as an insurance policy if someone is accused of assault or rape afterwards.

Weighing in on the matter from a legal standpoint, barrister Kate Fortescue told the paper: "In this digital age, a jury is nearly always asked to look at material from phones and computers to help them decide the issue of consent.

"Evidence of pre-recorded consent is clearly relevant and something a jury could consider. However, even if consent was freely given, such recordings could never provide a blanket defence."
#14969049
One Degree wrote:Because stopping to talk is a real turn off for both. Why do you think we describe it as passion?


:lol:

One Degree wrote:I am not going to ask permission before every escalation of our encounter. That is not sexual assault, that is showing sexual interest.


Yeah, that sexually interested woman who slapped you seemed really into it.

Jeez, the entitlement of some old white men is.....not even surprising, actually. :D
#14969058
skinster wrote::lol:



Yeah, that sexually interested woman who slapped you seemed really into it.

Jeez, the entitlement of some old white men is.....not even surprising, actually. :D


And here you are with dishonesty in debate. I already said twice it was a pretend scenario. It never happened. Amazing how the truth has no meaning for some people. A lie is as good as the truth if it serves your purpose? Lol.
I will choose ‘honest old man’ over ‘dishonest morally correct’ any day. If you guys prefer your passionless sex, that’s your problem but you are missing a lot. You should try sex being who you are instead of who you are pretending to be. :) It must be weird always pretending.
Last edited by One Degree on 03 Dec 2018 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
#14969066
skinster wrote:"I was pretending" :lol:

Lol also at not groping people equating to being "dishonest morally correct".


Yes, because you are pretending to prefer ‘sanitized relationships’ to what normal people enjoy. I can’t imagine anyone being honest when they say they prefer having legal fears part of their sex. Lol. What fool really believes that?
#14969170
Whilst no means no and other common phrases express a sentiment, get the feeling the way people intiate sexual encounters is kinda abstract. A fictional account of seduction and such would possibly be better for a shared basis of discussion rathet than the framing of discussing and intuiting boundaries with monotone would you like to X or ignoring percieved cues.

But to the recent topic, many women can generally tell the difference between assault and something that was awkward/simply poorly performed.
https://dacemirror.sci-hub.tw/journal-article/9f19590267edca37b59fcd16e78380fc/henderson1992.pdf
Contrary to MacKinnon's assertion, women also can tell the differ- ence between rape and "bad sex". Many women have had heterosexual intercourse with little pleasure, but without feeling frightened or coerced at the time or dirty, shamed, or in pain afterwards. I use the common phrase "bad sex" to capture this realm of experience which needs to be understood in the context of beliefs about women, rape, and heterosexuality. 1°1 The phrase "bad sex" covers a range of hetero- sexual interactions for women: their partner was clumsy; their mood or their partner's mood affected the interaction; they lost their desire but felt they should let the man continue to orgasm, either because they believed things were "too far along" to stop and they wanted to avoid a hassle or because they cared about the man; and so on. The movie "Annie Hall" contains a scene, which prompted much knowing female laughter in the theater when I saw it, in which Diane Keaton "leaves" her body and sits on the edge of the bed while Woody Mlen carries on. I do not think there would have been that kind of warm laughter if we thought he was raping or frightening her. Women - and men - have sexual relations that they later regret. Nevertheless, in "bad sex", women do not feel raped,if for no other reason than they are exercising some agency.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/rebeccarc.com/2014/04/10/whats-the-difference-between-flirting-and-harassment/amp/
Of course, this can all be done badly, with comic, embarrassing, or even distressing consequences. Some Flirts are terrible at reading other people’s body language, and blunder on, oblivious to the discomfort and awkwardness of their target. This is unfortunate, and it would be better for everyone if the useless Flirt would desist. But nonetheless, we can all recognise that this behaviour is largely harmless, causing not much more than some mild irritation or social embarrassment. When someone proceeds in flirting with us, despite our trying to make it clear that this is not welcome, we feel awkward and embarrassed, but not usually threatened or intimidated.


So I at best think there is an overlap between the awkwardly failed execution of seduction from harassment if not a wualtiatively difference. One where a person is often rejected gracefully or not the other being more confrontational or aversive. The overlaps is perhaps found in those who are thought to have an intention of seduction but seem only to deploy means which don’t really regard the woman as a person to be seduced but more as an object of their desire where they splutter out crudely comments and acts. Such a person even assumed to have the most noble of intentions would still be seen as a problem in their behaviour.

Perhaps the recent neil degrasse tyson news would be fruitful in this matter. Where he recounts the same facts and events but from a different perspective.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/technology/2018/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-sexual-harassment-allegations-response.html
Where one response would be framed to the sensitive postmodernist age.
http://www.lacan.com/freedom.htm
he obvious reproach that imposes itself here is, of course: is the basic characteristic of today's "postmodern" subject not the exact opposite of the free subject who experienced himself as ultimately responsible for his fate, namely the subject who grounds the authority of his speech on his status as a victim of circumstances beyond his control? Every contact with another human being is experienced as a potential threat - if the other smokes, if he casts a covetous glance at me, he already hurts me; this logic of victimization is today universalized, reaching well beyond the standard cases of sexual or racist harassment - recall the growing financial industry of paying damage claims, from the tobacco industry deal in the USA and the financial claims of the holocaust victims and forced laborers in Nazi Germany, up to the idea that the USA should pay the African-Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for all they were deprived of due to their past slavery... This notion of the subject as an irresponsible victim involves the extreme Narcissistic perspective from which every encounter with the Other appears as a potential threat to the subject's precarious imaginary balance; as such, it is not the opposite, but, rather, the inherent supplement of the liberal free subject: in today's predominant form of individuality, the self-centered assertion of the psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the perception of oneself as a victim of circumstances.

The other being the dismissive nature of this that treats women as likely or possibly inherently unreasonable where mens interpretations take precedence over that of women’s. For a more extreme characterization than Tyson’s
https://philpapers.org/archive/WOLPDA-3.pdf
The authority given by social and legal norms to men’s projected desires above women’s stated preferences creates an additional concern for women regarding their clothing choices and behavior. Knowing that, despite one’s intentions and clearly stated preferences regarding sexual attention from others, one could still be accused of “wanting it” or “asking for it” is highly disempowering; it means that a woman cannot control how her intentions and desires will be perceived, since her own desires and intentions are likely to be viewed as less reliable than those that are attributed to her by observers.


Intentions are important to weighing up a punishment such that an intended murder is equal to a successful one morally. But sometimes intentions absolve one entirely but quite often not entirely if one does cause harm and notmatove expectations suggest they are to be held to a higher standard of behaviour. One paints men as hopelessly naive and making mistakes another extreme frames many men as willfully ignorant in terms of ignoring women in order to assert their desires rather than being hopelessly stupid on understanding women.

Seems to me need to examine culpability for ones actions, the purpose of an action and the intention of ones series of acts.
To which Hegel may be of conceptual use and claritu.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/hegel-on-action.htm
#14969915
skinster wrote:Grabbing a woman's boobs is, or should not, be considered normal. I would've punched you in the throat. :D

A woman in my neighborhood always grabs my sexy legs at parties.

I don't particularly like it, but I'd never punch her in the throat for something this harmless.

I just move away, and avoid her after she's had a few drinks.

Should I call the police instead next time, or simply immobilize her with a tazer myself?
#14970005
Sorry Skinster, but i'm with Drlee on this one. A boy trying it on is normal. If she is okay with it, no problem. If she isnt there might be consequences. he needs to know there are good ways and bad to approach women, and we're not cut by cookie cutters, and neither are The laws.

The trouble with teenage boys is that they're often akward and inarticulate. So are girls some times. There's far too much room for crossed wires. But boys need to be aware if they run around trying to feel up girls, they're facing getting kneed in the naughty bits if she is scared or offended.

Parents could do a lot to alleviate this. Girls need to know what they are potentially getting themselves into if they agree to be alone with a boy. They need to learn what to say to defuse (as politely as possible) a situation long before they're alone with a boy who has worked himself into a state. Boys need to know no means no, and paternity means monthly payments. She needs to be aware of videos and life online is the short route to immortality. And avoid alcohol at parties.

I'm glad the only thing I had to worry about was pregnancy
#14970011
Stormsmith, you're wrong, If a boy goes around trying to feel up girls he's committing sexual assault, which is a crime.

It's neither a normal or an acceptable thing to do. We need to din that fact into our son's heads.

He could end up with a lot worse than a kick in his "naughty bits".

Claiming to be awkward and inarticulate will not be considered an adequate defence.

And stop blaming the victim.
#14970013
QatzelOk wrote:A woman in my neighborhood always grabs my sexy legs at parties.

I don't particularly like it, but I'd never punch her in the throat for something this harmless.

I just move away, and avoid her after she's had a few drinks.

Should I call the police instead next time, or simply immobilize her with a tazer myself?


You seem to know this woman quite well, so just tell to stop doing it, as you don't like it.

It's what I told my male friends to do when they used to feel my arse as a way of saying "hello" at parties.

They didn't do it to women in general. Just me and maybe a couple of others they knew well.

They didn't mean any harm by it, but it wasn't something I appreciated.

On the other hand , if a strange man was to feel my arse as a way of saying hello, I'd push his hand firmly away and warn him I'd call the police if he did that again.
#14970020
Albert wrote:Soon giving a dirty look to a girl will be considered sexual assault
. Oh, the melodrama. :roll: You're being purposefully silly, and you know it.

If you think this way, however, maybe it'd be better if you just didn't talk to women, period. Future generations will thank you.


:D
  • 1
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 68

Actually, I think SO proposes judging them based […]

Do American presidents create video games, so that[…]

Leftists typically like to say the rule of law is […]

Do old men create God and magic, so that any type […]