[Drlee]

Why don't you jolly along off somewhere and pray to that non-existent god of yours about what a victim you are, drlee?

Naa. I just jolly along and purchase a woman to take my mind off of my troubles. They are, after all, cheap and plentiful.

[Ter]

The craziness that descended upon Hollywood reminds me of the McCarthy era.
Everybody is guilty as charged, there is no due process, and anyone speaking up to ask for clarifications is attacked viscously by the fanatical accusers and defenders of the accusers.

We can see it here in this thread as well.

Noice.

I personally don't care about celebrities, they can (almost) all go to hell as far as I am concerned. They are an inbred nepotistic bunch of spoiled stinkers but that is besides the point here.

[Drlee]

Ter has it right.

This is a politically correct feeding frenzy. In the end it will do more harm than good.

A powerful message against someone like Weinstein would have been helpful.

Look at Cosby though. He really is a rapist it would appear. Yet when the confronted with court cases there is a long and drawn-out process. Nevertheless, he couldn't get a gig as an extra in a crowd. There is justice. I fear though that there are many indiscretions blown completely out of proportion.

No one has addressed my question about what happens when the woman initiates the offer for sex. No condemnation for that even though it harms the "nice girls" who want the part.

[Wellsy]

No one has addressed my question about what happens when the woman initiates the offer for sex. No condemnation for that even though it harms the "nice girls" who want the part.

As in if an actress was trying to seduce possible employers for roles and career advantages?
There would be no crime because from such a description one would assume consent.
Even with a power disparity or what ever one want's to emphasize wouldn't negate it, and nor should it necessarily.
As considered with the Tavis Smiley example where it seems he was fired for consensual sex with employees. Where he asserts that whilst it's not encouraged it is not forbidden, which seems agreeable. It's outside the realm of law and is only concerned with ethics of a company. Like how one there can be consensual sex between a professor and university student, but it still basis for firing due to standards of conduct for the profession.

Sure one could condemn them advancing such women advancing their careers that way, but comparable to the subject of allegations of harassment and sexual violence, it seems minor relatively due to it not being as morally problematic, lacking the same moral weight.
Unless one presumes some allegations false and are characteristic of career advancement via sexual favours, or the more malicious intent of advancing their career somehow through allegations. Though this intention seems more murky as I'm not sure how such allegations improve one's career prospects.
But people trading sexual favours seems distinct from criminal allegations, as they'd be more on ethical grounds than legal ones if both parties are consenting. It offends a sense of meritocracy, but it doesn't necessarily break the law.

But if one's thought is that sexual harassment is in part promoted by a subcultural norm where sexual favours become common place for work favours, so much so, that it becomes expected of actors. Then it could be that such a problem is difficult to root out because the ethical standards such as in the case of a teacher and uni student may be difficult to apply to the weird world of Hollywood.
But then this may be a big shake up moment, which is why I think its going to the point that people are scared of the cases that are included. Because like in say a revolution, a lot of innocent people die, because the build up is explosive, which then creates the reaction that tries to die that thing down, to stabilize it within certain limits.
because it seems that many people in Hollywood already knew a lot of the things as rumors, but now aired as true stories, they got a different character to them, makes it more real I guess. Lot of folks speaking up about things they never did.

That at the very least I imagine some are in want of some accountability in the case of crimes.
The NYPD is gathering evidence to arrest Harvey Weinstein for rape
NYPD calls Harvey Weinstein rape allegation credible, says it's gathering evidence for arrest
If that can't be addressed, then I'm not sure a culture of debauchery could be handled. Can't make people scared for when they do wrong, then its a struggle to try and compel them to do right when they lack the moral character they should have in the first place.

[Pants-of-dog]

[Wellsy]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sam-bee-goes-off-on-ashleigh-banfield-for-defending-aziz-ansari?ref=home?ref=home

The #MeToo backlash has arrived—and Samantha Bee has a lot to say about it.

On Wednesday night, the Full Frontal host began her show by saying, “Now that we’re finally listening to women, some people are asking an important question: Should we stop listening to women?” She was referring to everyone from Catherine Deneuve to Liam Neeson, who have been wondering aloud whether the campaign to end sexual misconduct has led to a “witch hunt” atmosphere.

From there, Bee moved on to the “Shitty Media Men” list, or as she called it “the Scaramucci of lists,” because of how fast it had to be taken down due to threats against the women outing their colleagues as predators.

“The list also let women know they weren’t alone. You know, the whole ‘me too’ component,” she said.

The backlash began when men started to fear that rapists and bad dates were being painted with the same brush. “Literally nobody is saying they’re the same,” she said. “The list wasn’t called ‘Rapists and other people whose 100 percent-verified crimes I considered to be equal to rape.’”

What many fail to understand is that it doesn’t have to be rape to ruin your life and it doesn’t have to ruin your life to be worth speaking out about,” she continued to applause. “Any kind of sexual harassment or coercion is unacceptable. So what the fuck are women supposed to do to protect ourselves? If we go public with a story, we’re petty crybabies hell-bent on destroying men’s careers. If we write a secret list to protect each other, we’re gossipy shrews telling lies in the shadows. What men literally can’t understand is, this isn’t about them!”

“Unfortunately, not all the backlash is from willfully blind men. Some is from women who have seen way too much, especially in the wake of the article about Aziz Ansari and the horrible night an anonymous woman said she had with him,” Bee said. “The conversation about this article has been tentative and difficult, largely because a lot of women disagree about it and women actually like to be careful with each other’s feelings, except, perhaps, Ashleigh Banfield.”

The HLN host has been the most outspoken critic of the woman who accused Ansari of “sexual assault,” calling her efforts to destroy his career “appalling” and arguing that she should have just left the comedian’s apartment as soon as she felt uncomfortable.

“It’s harder than you think to leave when you’re uncomfortable or scared,” Bee replied. “For example, you’re scaring the shit out of me right now, Ashleigh Banfield, and I can’t leave. And it’s not just Ashleigh. A lot of people are worried about Aziz’s career, which no one is trying to end because, again, we know the difference between a rapist, a workplace harasser, and an Aziz Ansari. That doesn’t mean we have to be happy about any of them. People like me had to wade through a sea of prehensile dicks to build the world we now enjoy.”

“And part of enjoying that world is setting a higher standard for sex than just not rape,” she continued. “And women get to talk about it if men don’t live up to those standards, especially if that man wrote a book about how to sex good,” Bee said, referring to Ansari’s guide to Modern Romance. “And if that seems harsh, I’m sorry. In fact, you know what? I’m sorry for a lot of things.”

“I’m sorry if you thought the contents of that list or any of the other ways we protect ourselves from men were your goddamn business,” Bee added. “I’m sorry you thought you got to choose what experiences we can share or how we react to the shitty ways we have been treated. And to men, specifically, I’m sorry our request to be respected makes office culture a little less fun and flirty. And I’m sorry we tattled about that stuff you did on us even when it was totally not rape. But listen, if you don’t want to tune in to your partner’s feelings throughout sex, maybe you shouldn’t be fucking a person at all. May I suggest a coin purse or a ziplock bag full of grape jelly?”

“Men, if you say you’re a feminist, then fuck like a feminist,” she concluded. “And if you don’t want to do that, take off your fucking pin, because we are not your accessories.”

I like the bolded point, which relates well back to something mentioned earlier or perhaps elsewhere that the standard of discussions around sex shouldn't be whether it's illegal or not, as legal standards aren't for an ideal sexuality.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, the Anzari case really shows how consent cannot be the be all and end all of discussing sex and sexual assault.

Enthusiasm should be the higher standard to which Ms. Bee is referring. If Ansari had stopped trying to get inher pants when she was obviously not enthusiastic, he would not be the centre of this discussion now.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I like the bolded point, which relates well back to something mentioned earlier or perhaps elsewhere that the standard of discussions around sex shouldn't be whether it's illegal or not, as legal standards aren't for an ideal sexuality.

This is shifting the goal posts. If women want to talk about their disappointment with one night stands, male sexuality or behaviour by men during sexual encounters, they are of course free to do so. What they shouldn't do is establishing a connection to sexual misconduct, harassment or rape.

The latest inane complaint I read was that it was unfair that women are regarded as "sexual gatekeepers". Apparently, women don't want the power they actually have, presumably because that power also comes with some responsibility, e.g. the incredible burden and injustice that we might have to say no or leave when a man doesn't get the hint.

[Wellsy]

This is shifting the goal posts. If women want to talk about their disappointment with one night stands, male sexuality or behaviour by men during sexual encounters, they are of course free to do so. What they shouldn't do is establishing a connection to sexual misconduct, harassment or rape.

The latest inane complaint I read was that it was unfair that women are regarded as "sexual gatekeepers". Apparently, women don't want the power they actually have, presumably because that power also comes with some responsibility, e.g. the incredible burden and injustice that we might have to say no or leave when a man doesn't get the hint.

Indeed, it expands the topic. As many others have also done in wanting to discuss more broadly than allegation of harassment with things such as the sort of culture of hollywood where sexual favours seems perhaps normative. Nothing wrong with that, as you agree people can talk about such things.
Which seems to have come about beause of the list of men in media alleged to have done things of which many aren't crimes (ie sending dick pics unwarranted).
To which I guess the point arises...

“The list also let women know they weren’t alone. You know, the whole ‘me too’ component,” she said.

Hard to know how to respond to the point about gatekeepers without it having a further point, otherwise it seems that simply made an assertion and hard to consider it reasonable or ridiculous without a point.
I can see how sex can be used for leverage, though I imagine many people associate the gate keeper thing within a certain view point in regards to women's sexuality like controlling the supply of sex in order to dictate men's civility and other things.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Indeed, it expands the topic. As many others have also done in wanting to discuss more broadly than allegation of harassment with things such as the sort of culture of hollywood where sexual favours seems perhaps normative. Nothing wrong with that, as you agree people can talk about such things.
Which seems to have come about beause of the list of men in media alleged to have done things of which many aren't crimes (ie sending dick pics unwarranted).
To which I guess the point arises...

A demarcation is required though. I also have a problem with turning everything into some kind of therapy session where all people do is venting their frustration and receiving cyber-hugs. If we want to actually have a constructive discussion about these types of encounters where women are left disappointed, we first need to talk about their unrealistic expectations, which are in no small part based on the notion that men and women are identical in behaviour and hence women, if they are allowed by society, will on average be just as keen on one night stands or sex without commitment as men, which has been the progressive position for more than 50 years. What is happening now is simply the realisation that this is not true, but instead of owning up to the faulty premise that has led to this disappointment, it is as usual portrayed as women being vicitmised.

I had never heard of Anzari before but from what I read part of the problem was that his professional image as a feminist and man who understands women did not match his actual personality, which it turned out involves being a rather typical horny man. The fact that he is rather famous probably also played a role in her reluctance to be a bit more forthright about what she wanted and didn't want and in his expectation that the date was about sex, so we may well put this incident mostly down to Hollywood culture as well anyway.

Hard to know how to respond to the point about gatekeepers without it having a further point, otherwise it seems that simply made an assertion and hard to consider it reasonable or ridiculous without a point.
I can see how sex can be used for leverage, though I imagine many people associate the gate keeper thing within a certain view point in regards to women's sexuality like controlling the supply of sex in order to dictate men's civility and other things.

Women are in the habit of construing everything as a disadvantage or oppressive. Considering that women are much more choosy than men and also take into account status more than men when it comes to attractiveness, the average male seems to be at a disadvantage overall. Not only that but he's also expected to make the first move and assume the risk of being rejected and sometimes humiliated. Excluding events that involve actual force, women quite obviously have the upper hand as far as sex is concerned, at least if they shed the progressive dogma that they are exactly like men in their sexual behaviour.

[skinster]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sam-bee-goes-off-on-ashleigh-banfield-for-defending-aziz-ansari?ref=home?ref=home

I saw that earlier and it was amusing and very much on point.

Yeah, the Anzari case really shows how consent cannot be the be all and end all of discussing sex and sexual assault.

Yes. Consent is an ongoing process and should be given without pressure, for all involved.

A demarcation is required though. I also have a problem with turning everything into some kind of therapy session where all people do is venting their frustration and receiving cyber-hugs. If we want to actually have a constructive discussion about these types of encounters where women are left disappointed, we first need to talk about their unrealistic expectations, which are in no small part based on the notion that men and women are identical in behaviour and hence women, if they are allowed by society, will on average be just as keen on one night stands or sex without commitment as men, which has been the progressive position for more than 50 years. What is happening now is simply the realisation that this is not true, but instead of owning up to the faulty premise that has led to this disappointment, it is as usual portrayed as women being vicitmised.

Women are allowed to speak about their experiences. If you don't like what we say, you are welcome to ignore us, as you probably do anyway. The "unrealistic expectations" you talk about sounds like you're talking about male entitlement, where womens' feelings are regularly ignored in favour of male pleasure. That's what women are talking about with the Aziz story; men need to consider the women they're trying to fuck as people rather than objects to get off to, their wants should be considered too and that includes not pressuring them into things they appear reluctant about.

Women are in the habit of construing everything as a disadvantage or oppressive. Considering that women are much more choosy than men and also take into account status more than men when it comes to attractiveness, the average male seems to be at a disadvantage overall. Not only that but he's also expected to make the first move and assume the risk of being rejected and sometimes humiliated. Excluding events that involve actual force, women quite obviously have the upper hand as far as sex is concerned, at least if they shed the progressive dogma that they are exactly like men in their sexual behaviour.

It's quite sad to read this coming from a woman, but okay, auntie tom. Kind of weird you oppose women for being what you think are fake victims yet at the same time claim men are the actual victims, something that's not really grounded in reality at all. Perhaps where you live things are different, but the metoo movement didn't become so popular so quickly because women just like to complain. That happened because we were sick of dealing with shit that's unfortunately all too common, where we aren't the ones with the power, doing all that sexual harassment and rape that is an actual thing that happens every few minutes. Of course obviously #notallmen since some of you might get triggered and think I'm talking about you in particular when I'm talking of something much bigger than you, but yeah, the end.

[AFAIK]

So revenge porn against men is ok now? Even if there was no workplace component or power dynamic and he already apologised for his behaviour, women feel entitled to every intimate detail told by a potentially unreliable narrator and claim his public shaming is a warning or some kind of public service.

[skinster]

[colliric]

Lol, she has zero empathy for men, placing us all under one banner as all wanting "contractual relations". Yet expects men to be empathetic to women?

Lol.... What a heartless bitch!

I bet she doesn't even care how difficult it is for men to read female body language and understand female thinking. She doesn't empathize with us, why should we be forced to empathize with women like her?

Men like "contractual relations" because we're been made fucken terrified of putting a little finger in the wrong place without facing a change of sexual assault, or a woman wanting revenge making up a fake story of "where his hands went without my permission". Most of us can't read female body language very well at all. The "contractual relations" is our compromise.

[Zag Note: Please avoid that kind of language]

[Wellsy]

A demarcation is required though. I also have a problem with turning everything into some kind of therapy session where all people do is venting their frustration and receiving cyber-hugs. If we want to actually have a constructive discussion about these types of encounters where women are left disappointed, we first need to talk about their unrealistic expectations, which are in no small part based on the notion that men and women are identical in behaviour and hence women, if they are allowed by society, will on average be just as keen on one night stands or sex without commitment as men, which has been the progressive position for more than 50 years. What is happening now is simply the realisation that this is not true, but instead of owning up to the faulty premise that has led to this disappointment, it is as usual portrayed as women being vicitmised.

I had never heard of Anzari before but from what I read part of the problem was that his professional image as a feminist and man who understands women did not match his actual personality, which it turned out involves being a rather typical horny man. The fact that he is rather famous probably also played a role in her reluctance to be a bit more forthright about what she wanted and didn't want and in his expectation that the date was about sex, so we may well put this incident mostly down to Hollywood culture as well anyway.

Indeed it is required, which the subject evokes such a discussion which would be helpful to those that haven't given serious thought to the matter and seem to make errors in their assertions.
Problematic expectations can certainly be an aspect of the discussion, although I'm not sure how prevalent what you're describing is.
I see with the Aziz thing that it's opening up general discussions about sexuality and communication in the context of things that aren't criminal. It seems a simply embarrassing and unfortunate story but one that is useful for people to leap off more generally into personal experiences and thoughts.

Women are in the habit of construing everything as a disadvantage or oppressive. Considering that women are much more choosy than men and also take into account status more than men when it comes to attractiveness, the average male seems to be at a disadvantage overall. Not only that but he's also expected to make the first move and assume the risk of being rejected and sometimes humiliated. Excluding events that involve actual force, women quite obviously have the upper hand as far as sex is concerned, at least if they shed the progressive dogma that they are exactly like men in their sexual behaviour.

Some do.

Regardless most people end up in relationships with people of similar backgrounds and qualities.
So if status is an issue, I imagine it's for those of really low status relative to those they're attracted to.

Well I guess for women in regards the status they can some cases have a lot to lose with ideas of sexual purity still having cultural purchase. Which perhaps feeds into that mentioned choosiness, to which the social costs typically effect those already of low status.
Seen it detailed how rich girls may not endure the consequences as their poorer female peers.
Part of the dichotomy women are placed in regards to their sexuality, virgin - whore. One an idealization, the other a demonization when the idealization is broken, the case of an mental image taking precedence over a sensible and empirical comprehension of women as just people in all that is disgusting and beautiful of humans.

So revenge porn against men is ok now? Even if there was no workplace component or power dynamic and he already apologised for his behaviour, women feel entitled to every intimate detail told by a potentially unreliable narrator and claim his public shaming is a warning or some kind of public service.

I don't think peeps think it is okay for the most part, that its gone viral even though it wasn't meant to has become simply another point of why it was problematic.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/shitty-media-men-list-is-a-shitty-way-to-change-the-media

[AFAIK]

I don't think peeps think it is okay for the most part, that its gone viral even though it wasn't meant to has become simply another point of why it was problematic.

The silence from feminists who are active in this thread creates the impression that they are OK with revenge porn directed at men. In fact they're using this violation of privacy to further their agenda and don't care how this damages Aziz or society more broadly.

Of course obviously #notallmen

Sweeping generalisation about men

I wonder if men (not all men but, yeah actually all the men) struggle to pick up women's cues because they receive contradictory signals and mixed messages.

[Tainari88]

I have to admit I don't know who this Aziz guy is? Who is he?

How many women actually watch porn and even see it frequently? Especially unmarried women? I don't think women really dedicate that time to it like men do.....who knows?

Revenge porn? Aziz? I am not up to date on any of this stuff....I am getting old....Tainari is out of the loop with all this stuff.

[colliric]

I wonder if men (not all men but, yeah actually all the men) struggle to pick up women's cues because they receive contradictory signals and mixed messages.

My point exactly, alot of Feminists don't empathize with men in any way and fail to accept the scientific fact that the male brain interprets visual stimulus very differently to the female brain. We need you to say "Yes" out loud or "no" out loud because female body language is more difficult to read for us.

No it is not simply that "the man needs to immediately understand what the woman is feeling and the body language and know immediately when to stop". He mostly won't be able to understand this. Women need to have empathy for men as well as need to tell us verbally exactly what they are trying to communicate with their body language.

Revenge porn? Aziz? I am not up to date on any of this stuff....I am getting old....Tainari is out of the loop with all this stuff.

It refers to when an individual releases publically a sex tape or sexual/Intimate photo involving their victim, against the victim's wishes just to get some kind of psychological or sociological revenge on that victim(maybe the Victim dumped them or upset them in another way). It may have been, and usually is, recorded without the victim's knowledge. Should be considered a criminal act, breeching invasion of privacy laws. It is a form of non-consentual sexual abuse, after the consentual act.

[B0ycey]

I think one of the issues we have today is cultural perhaps. If we take the women's testimonial of the Aziz case as a "fact", what we have here is a man who pays for everything during a "first date", invites the person back to their apartment and expects sex when they hardly know each other. I do think the women needs to be more vocal in order to establish 'non-consent' and certainly shouldn't rely on cues but we do seem to live in a time where romance is dead and we need to lose our viginity as quickly as possible.

Am I old fashioned In thinking that we should at least get to know people before having sex with them? If we did there be less STDs or unwanted pregnancies going around I suspect. Not only that men would know the type of women they are trying to court and would learn quickly how to get consent or whether they would get consent. I don't agree with @Kaiserschmarrn that women have the upper hand here. The reason there is confusion in this case was lack of patience in when to establish a sexual relationship. And to be quite frank, if a women does want sex on the first date, a male would know. Sexual frivolous women tend to be quite vocal and confident actually. Not all women are timid in expressing sexual interest.

Men of power, regardless of femininity, should not pressure people into having sex with them that they hardly know. Aziz, in regards to the womens testimony, did this. He was morally wrong, but didn't break the law. He should be able to bring his side forward to defend himself however, because of the nature of the incident, the lady should also be able to air her thoughts. There is a moral issue at play in this case and people should be able to debate it.

[Drlee]

lol, she has zero empathy for men, placing us all under one banner as all wanting "contractual relations". Yet expects men to be empathetic to women?

Lol.... What a heartless bitch!

I bet she doesn't even care how difficult it is for men to read female body language and understand female thinking. She doesn't empathize with us, why should we be forced to empathize with women like her?

She also uses the term "love" when she is talking about sex. A common mistake on the part of women.

Note to women: Men rarely even use the term love or even 'making love'. When they do they are usually talking about their wives.

Men like "contractual relations" because we're been made fucken terrified of putting a little finger in the wrong place without facing a change of sexual assault, or a woman wanting revenge making up a fake story of "where his hands went without my permission". Most of us can't read female body language very well at all. The "contractual relations" is our compromise.

This is true. There was a time when men could legitimately be accused of treating sex as a commodity. These days it is equally true that some women would have us treat it as as a game with very specific rules. These women do the thing that women a generation or two ago bemoaned the most...That men treat sex unemotionally; as a game to be won.

Well you got equality ladies. Your feminist friends would have the same rules in the bedroom as they do in the boardroom.

Since I lived through the so-called sexual revolution I can tell you that there were many who predicted this exact eventuality. They saw the removal of love from the equation as the natural consequence of more freedom in sex. They said that sex outside of marriage (which for us then was the ultimate expression of love) would cheapen the entire act and cause problems exactly like this.

I will also posit that after a whole lot of years, I have come to the conclusion that in any sexual relationship it is very difficult to determine and almost always true that one of the partners is more invested than the other or invested in a different way. So they see what is going on in different ways. Then when they look back on the relationship they come to very different conclusions about what happened. (I am not talking about forcible rape here so don't even think of going there.)

Want some scenarios?