[This is a comment left by Shiloh on a previous thread. I’ve edited it a bit to make it “stand-alone,” rather than quoting other posts. The post title was suggested by Kim (basement variety). –Amp]
I will agree that sexual power is about one’s “value” in the world of dating and relationship. What [some people] seem to be missing, however, is that the higher a woman’s sexual power, the lower her value as a person. Female sexual power, by definition, is dehumanizing. Female sexual power silences women.
First example – when I was fourteen, I took a summer class in typing at the local high school, because it wasn’t offered at my jr. high. One day, as I’m halfway to school, crossing this big field, a guy I’d met precisely twice before grabbed me and started kissing me and feeling me up. He informed me that he was a star wrestler, and that I was going to be his girlfriend. I informed him that my tastes ran to skinny bespectacled geeks who read a lot, and I had no interest what-so-ever in being his girlfriend, thank you very much. He insisted that I only said this because of a “poor self-image,” that he was going to make me popular and happy, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
No matter what I said, this guy “translated” it to fit his preconceived notions. “No” meant “yes.” “Not interested” became “interested but won’t admit it.” “You’re not my type” becaome “she’s just shy.” Many feminists argue that pornography “silences women.” This is what they mean. The woman is only allowed to say what the man wants to hear – even if what she actually says is completely different. Pornography that plays with the rape myth tells the story of a woman who says no, but ultimately means yes. That is what this guy was doing to me. He was insisting that whatever I said meant what he wanted it to mean.
Another real life example of how a woman’s sexual power silences her. I was not one of the “popular kids,” partly because I had little interest in being one, but one of my good friends was exactly what you describe when you are discussing a woman with a lot of sexual power. She was a cute, feminine blonde, popular, intelligent, cheerleader, upper middle class, dressed conservatively but was perceived as sexy. The guys I hung out with – who, like me, were NOT socially powerful – said she was the most beautiful girl in the school. What did all this sexual power get her?
Well, in 10th grade it got her raped by most of the guys on the football team. She was dating one of them, he slipped her something stronger than she was used to, then passed her around to his buddies. When she told people about it, most of her friends basically said she got what she deserved – if you’re going to be beautiful, them’s the hazards. Mind you, she did not disagree – she accepted that this is just the way the world is. When I pointed out that being pretty is no excuse for rape, she said I was probably right, but what can you do about it?
Nothing. There is nothing a beautiful woman can do about it. From her perspective, and in her experience, woman’s “sexual power” means that she does NOT get to choose her mate. If she was not interested in the most “alpha” guy around – tough. If said alpha guy laid claim to her, she was stuck, because he viewed her as his property, and any guy hanging around too close would be chased off. In high school, at any rate, if said alpha male was on a sports team, not only would he monitor her activities – his buddies would monitor her activities. If she was interested in another guy, she had no chance of talking to him or getting to know him.
Of course, once you get past high school (and college, in some cases, but she deliberately went to a college that did NOT have any sports teams), this male control is less blatantly obvious. But it’s often still there. Look at Kathleen Parker’s story (on the web). J*** R*****’s harrassment of his ex-wife’s family. Paul Corey. Eric Bleicken. A dear friend’s husband, who called everyone on her side of the family (including me, a non-relative) to tell them what a whore she was when she left him – this despite the fact that his adultery had so destroyed her reproductive system she had to have a hysterectomy and ovariectomy at 27.
Another friend, whose husband used to rape her when she was unconscious from the drugs they were using to help her sleep – this despite the fact that she was undergoing radiation treatments for her cancer and despite the fact that she was in constant pain and his rapes only exacerbated it. Yes, she’s blonde, long-legged, charming, and popular. What did all this “sexual power” get her? Abuse, plain and simple.
Most of the kids at my second high school were upper middle class. I used to hang out with actors, artists, engineers in the aerospace industry, millionaires who owned their own company. I’ve talked to the “beautiful people” of both sexes. Men who are beautiful complain that “she dumped me because I shaved my head” or “I never know whether she likes me for my self or for my looks or for my cash.” Women who are beautiful worry about being raped, about being abused, about ending up in a marriage to someone who will try to completely control them.
Again, men have access to sexual power, too – more access, through more channels, than women do. And the risk of sexual power for men is minimal. For women, sexual power is often outright dangerous. For women, sexual power is as disempowering as it is empowering. A woman weilding sexual power is easily silenced.
[…]
Rape exists primarily because a man decides that his version of reality is more important than the woman’s – he decides he gets to tell her what reality is. Whatever his motives (sex, power, anger), a rapist’s reality is that the woman’s sexiness somehow justifies his treatment of her. Everytime a male non-rapist treats a woman as a sex object, rather than a person, he is supporting the rapist perspective.
Arguing that a woman’s sexual power in any way “evens things out” between the sexes is to miss the point entirely. A woman’s sexual power is used to justify rape; a woman’s sexual power is used to silence her; a woman’s sexual power is used to dehumanize her. The fact that some women manage to use their sexual power in some instances to their benefit doesn’t change any of this.
oops, in #199 I left out a “not” – in ‘Otherwise, even if I’m doing him a favour – which is cleary different from unwanted sexual contact (and I’m NOT making a comparison here!)’
Oh, and that there are women who can indeed be pretty bad or clueless at communicating too, whether it’s about sexual attraction or any other social interaction – is not at all inconsistent with saying “Why is it universally accepted that every person knows how to behave with other people in every other context but sex?”. Because there is this double standard of civility, not so much capacity. Perhaps I phrased it badly – what I mean is, yes of course there are a lot of people who are clumsier in all kinds of social interaction, including the kind involving sexual attraction. But as I said above, genuine insecurity, clumsiness, shyness, usually goes with lower self esteem, not inflated egos. Actual ‘ability’ in social communication does not contrast civility. The disrespectful kind are not insecure or clueless. They’re arrogant. They’re so full of themselves they only think about themselves and their precious need to get laid.
So yes, we expect everyone, even the nerdiest types, to be able to tell the difference between civility and incivility in behaviour with other people. But people make a lot of excuses for the *voluntary* disrespect of that difference when it comes to sex. Because of the notion that men are expected to pursue and women be pursued. Blah blah blah. I mean, it’s obvious enough.
This notion of ‘abilities’ and ‘skills’ and ‘results’ is precisely what I find so wrong and unappealing. I don’t care about supposed ‘skills’, I care about respect. Human interaction is not a job for which one needs special qualifications, or a competition to assess who is most popular. Shouldn’t be any different when sex is thrown in the mix. Aetually, the interaction should be even more laid-back, and fun, and respectful, precisely because “the stakes are higher”, if we really want to put it like that.
I still take issue with your statement: “That a man should genuinely be incapable of understanding if a woman is as attracted to him as she is to her is, in my experience, a complete myth.”?
Ok then, read it in context of everything else I wrote, Aegis. If it’s not clear yet, let me rephrase it and clarify: That a man who makes a sexual advance out of the blue without anything leading up to it, should genuinely be incapable etc. is a myth.
Because, again, it’s not incapacity that makes someone an obnoxious asshole. It’s being an obnoxious asshole. If he doesn’t do anything, or waits to get to know the person better to understand if they’re reciprocating or not, or even asks or takes a chance to make his attraction clear in a more nuanced way than planting his tongue in your mouth, or maybe gee even asks the help of another friend as mediator – I’ve acted as mediator a lot of times – then that is not obnoxious at all, it’s how a normal, civilised person behaves.
Civility and respect doesn’t even have to be associated with shyness (if you consider shyness a fault, which I don’t) or ‘ineptness’, at all. Being confident, seductive, even bold, does not mean being uncivil or obnoxious. There’s a million ways even of being confident and bold without being an asshole. It’s not up to women to teach men the very basic principles of human behaviour, is it?
Well I could go on and on but I hope the point is clear enough now.
I should point out that a woman doesn’t need the word “wimp” in her vocabulary to look down on a male who asks for a kiss. She could think that he is simply inept (especially if the way he asks happens to be a turnoff).
Ok, I think I’ve been unclear also because I’m talking about something slightly different. I’m not talking about a guy jumping a woman out of the blue. Say that they are on a date, or they have been firting. The woman has given the guy some favorable signals, and initiated or reciprocated physical contact with him. Say they are even sitting together with physical contact. At this point, the situation is ambiguous. The woman seems to be displaying attraction to the guy and she is obviously comfortable with him. But she hasn’t given any concrete signals that she wants to be kissed. Nevertheless, it wouldn’t be completely out of the blue if the guy did make a move (so it wouldn’t be molesting her).
In a situation like this where the signals genuinely are mixed (unlike with the guy you went on a date with), it is difficult for the guy to know what to do. Simply paying attention to the person in front of him isn’t good enough, because the person in front of him is being ambiguous: he basically has to try to read her mind. If he asks for a kiss, he risks rejection, and it is very frustrating to get rejected for doing the nice, civil, caring thing. If he doesn’t ask, he also risks rejection, but probably not such a high chance of rejection (at least in my estimation).
So I agree with you that most of the time, when a guy makes a move on a woman totally out of the blue, that he is an asshole. Though what about when a guy makes a move in a situation with mixed messages like the one I described above? The problem is that he must try to read the woman’s mind, and that places an unfair burden on his shoulders.
I do mean “wowed” as in sexually attracted. And it won’t always be charming. Several women have told me that they consider it a turnoff when a guy asks for a kiss. I would like to believe that they are just flukes, or sexist, or not “enlightened” as far as gender roles go. But that isn’t the case. One of them said she makes it very obvious when she wants to be kissed, so she tries to make it so the guy doesn’t have to ask. I can understand that way of doing things. The problem is when females expect the guy to initiate the kiss, don’t want him to ask, and don’t give clear signals. I suspect that a large percentage of females has this set of expectations, and I wish I could pretend otherwise.
There are at least two problems with that set of expectations:
1. They are unfair. A man who must kiss a woman without asking and on minimal signals is doing a lot more work than she is. These expectations can create resentment in males.
2. They give males an incentive to be sexually aggressive and take risks without being certain of consent. Of course, in the case of kiss, this isn’t too bad (because she has given him some signals). The problem is the picture this paints of male-female interaction, because it maintains old romantic scripts and constructions like “a real man knows what he wants and knows how to get it.” These constructions could contribute to rape myths. (there, I’m back on topic!)
Okay, fine. It takes a big man to get past stupid gender stereotypes and treat women like humans whose opinions count for something. You are spared from having to push yourself on women to prove yourself now.
Your “naughtiness” doesn’t impress me. Explain to me how we evolved a resistance to asking for kisses.
They do because they are S-E-X-I-S-T. Explain to me again why feminism isn’t the cure for sexist beliefs that damage people’s lives.
I can’t vouch for all feminists, but I assure you, your belief that women freak at being asked for kisses as if we were human beings with feelings that deserve respect doesn’t upset as much as you seem to hope. Even non-feminist women like respect.
If kissing is such hard work, why not just give it up?
Jeez, I’ve been the first to kiss before, I’m sure of it. Bas-ackwards gender stereotypes and consent issues are what feminists excel at. All this confusion would be less confusing if people actually listened to feminists.
Hmmm, this topic has shifted right back into avoiding discussing rape as it applies to the notions of sexual power, and instead talking about how dating dynamics are rough on men.
That sort of bugs me.
Well there are dangerous consequences to discussing rape you know… we might start noticing who does it and then we might start noticing that men aren’t the primary victims and by then we’ll all be well on the way to – gasp! – feminist analysis!
Damn those tricky block quotes… [Fixed! –Amp]
This kinda reminds me of the latest few strips from Doonesbury. The sorta, “well, sexual assault happens, and that’s too bad, but what should we do? Ruin men’s prospects?” attitude.
Um, yes, Aegis, the idea that men are always required to “make the first move,” and that sex is something that is initiated by one person on another person is a central underpinning of rape culture. Given that it is, it is bizarre to try to argue that it benefits women more than men.
Yes, if you define your question extremely narrowly, then possibly, but once you have defined your question that narrowly, who cares.
To have it work out so it is men who are worse off, it seems to me you have to do the following things (all of these are points that have been raised repeatedly, and yet you still write:
)
First, you have to ignore that the expectations you are describing are an underpinning of rape culture, so unless they lead to harm to men equivalent to rape, they are worse for women.
Second, you have to ignore the fact that women who buy into the standard cultural model are at a disadvantage in terms of controlling their situation (since being the active person in a passive-active situation always involves a greater degree of control), and must operate at a continuously higher level of anxiety (“Will he call? Is he about to kiss me? Am I showing just the right level of subtle influence? Did he ignore that subtle clue because he’s oblivious or because he’s not interested?) since all of these questions are only resolved in the standard model by the man acting, so the woman in the standard model must always be in a state of preparation without the ability to initiate.
Third, you have to ignore the fact that women who buy into the standard model spend much, much more money and time on appearance, because appearance is the manner in which they are expected to communicate.
Fourth, you have to ignore the fact that communicating by appearance sucks, because you can’t turn it off, and it is very hard to communicate only to a specific person through appearance. Even worse than communicating by appearance is the expectation that you are communicating by appearance, since other people’s expectations are not controllable.
Fifth, having ignored everything that happens in this interaction except the instant in which it is happening and you are thinking, “Does she want me to kiss her? Would she be upset if I leaned in towards her to kiss her?” you now have to ignore the fact that that nervousness is not really any different from thinking, “Am I conveying the fact I want him to kiss me? Is he not really interested or is he just missing my signals?” Actually, you also have to ignore the biggest difference at the level of immediate worries, which is that men in the standard model don’t have the additional worry of, “Does he get it I’m not interested, or is he about to try to kiss me?”
Sixth, you have to insist that you are only going to talk about romantic interactions where a significant degree of signalling has already taken place, but not so much that the progression of the situation is reasonalby clear and mutual, and you have to insist that men being jerks and molesters is unconnected to men deing pretty sure they are expected to kiss their date but worried that they may be wrong, even when they are exactly the same situation. This, again, frees you from recognizing the connections to rape culture (other than the dating is unfair to men, which makes them resentful, which makes them misogynists, whihc makes them decide to be rapists angle) and frees you from recognizing the equal or greater anxieties women face in the same situations.
Finally, you have to treat some sort of energetics as the all important metric. If two people interact, and one of them expends more physical energy by, say, leaning forward and raising their arm to mid-torso level, and also the supposedly greater iota of mental energy required to think, “I think I’ll reach forward and put my hand on her arm, and then kiss her,” then in your opinion this man has suffered a grevious injury sufficient to drive him to misogyny.
I think all of these things have been pointed out to you repeatedly, but it always gets back to “Dating interactions are unfair to men.”
The final icing on the cake is that the response you’ve gotten to the “Dating is unfair to men” argument has been at least as much, “Um, sexual attraction doesn’t have to work along those lines, there are other ways to deal with those situations. For instance, if you’re unsure, ask.” Yes, the whole standard model sucks, so make a new one. It doesn’t help to say “The situation is unfair to men, but we couldn’t possibly change it so it was less destructive, because there might be some women who would find a communicative style of romance unsexy, and that would mean more rejections, and rejections are so horrible that they drive men to become rapists.” Which of course you never do, but you do say each piece of that string.
I realize that this is something you are trying to work through, having gone through a misogynist phase which you feel was based on this dynamic, but I think you need to accept that you are never going to get anyone here to agree with you that the dynamics of rape culture are worse for men (something which you don’t mean to be saying), and you aren’t going to get anyone to agree to limit the discussion to the extremely narrow terms you need to have your argument that the standard model of romantic interaction is unfair to men make any sense. Given that, you need to look at what it is you want to get out of this argument. In the frame everyone else here is using, your argument doesn’t make much sense, and while you are willing to make nods towards the larger framework, you don’t seem very interested in it.
There a lot of excellent arguments in this thread if you are interested in the larger framework. Even if you don’t feel up to addressing them, I hope you are thinking about them.
You have said a number of times that you are trying to make sure everyone is on the same page with you. We aren’t. Maybe you’d like to come over to the same page we’re on?
And yeah, it sucks that this thread lost its focus on rape culture somewhere back there, and there is something particularly obnoxious about a thread on rape culture becoming a thread about the traumatic dating difficulties of men. Actually, I think the thread half-way lost its focus back where it became a discussion about stripping (about 100 comments in?).
In a situation like this where the signals genuinely are mixed (unlike with the guy you went on a date with), it is difficult for the guy to know what to do. Simply paying attention to the person in front of him isn’t good enough, because the person in front of him is being ambiguous: he basically has to try to read her mind. If he asks for a kiss, he risks rejection, and it is very frustrating to get rejected for doing the nice, civil, caring thing. If he doesn’t ask, he also risks rejection, but probably not such a high chance of rejection (at least in my estimation).
You know, this is sounding like the depiction of an autistic mind. Like it’s all about him, other people aren’t there; only this is not an illness, it’s just total self-centredness.
Once again: *not* acting like an asshole is no guarantee that you will get laid; acting like an asshole is no guarantee either, for that matter, unless we’re talking *forcing* people to have sex, but we don’t want to go there, do we.
If all you want to do is get laid, there’s million ways you can do that without having to fake interest in the person. Going around with a “I wanna get laid” t-shirt is more honest than pretending to be interested in conversation. And why is it the man who is supposedly the only person interested in sex? Women aren’t? Wether you just want to play around for fun or are interested in something deeper, it’s not that difficult to find a willing sexual partner of either sex or sexual orientation, you know, unless you live in some godforsaken place in the desert.
You speak like being civil or nice, at a very basic normal level, not some soppy pseudo-romantic hollywood crap notion of ‘nice’, is somehow in contrast with being a Man. Hmm, I wonder why that sounds so very appropriate in a thread like this that started out about rape.
Once again: no, having some basic sense of respect and interest in the other person won’t automatically get you laid. Get over it. It’s not automatic for women either, you know. That’s no reason to abandon that basic sense of respect and interest.
No one’s talking of treating flirting like a burocratic process where you need papers signed before you even say a word. It should really come natural, if the interest is there; the object of that interest is not a military target for which you need special intelligence to suss out their supposed strategy. It’s a person.
If someone is really getting mixed signals from the person they’re attracted to, how about being cautious and actually enjoying the process, whatever its ‘results’? How about finding ways to clarify whether there’s a reciprocal interest or not, without having to assume anything on your own? Otherwise the problem is not the supposed ambiguity of the woman, it’s the obvious duplicity of the man you’re talking about, faking an interest in the process of seduction when all he can think of is his dick.
I do mean “wowed”? as in sexually attracted. And it won’t always be charming. Several women have told me that they consider it a turnoff when a guy asks for a kiss.
Here’s somethign shocking: yes, it may even be a turnoff, depending on the circumstance and the person; maybe the woman wasn’t interested in the first place, how about that; but it won’t be an asshole thing to do, it won’t be creepy and unpleasant as getting a tongue shoved in your mouth before you even realised it.
Again, respect and ‘scoring’ are not synonyms. This is a ‘problem’ only for men who don’t respect women.
And there’s not just asking directly. There’s such a thing as waiting for clearer ‘signals’, asking common friends, dropping more obvious hints yourself that you’re attracted to that person, and a whole lot of things that anyone who’s not a jerk can do. If you do like human beings, you will be interested in them for real, and the whole idea of getting to know each other will be more appealing than ‘scoring’ per se. If on the other hand you just won’t take no for an answer, and think the possibility of you being rejected is worse than the possibility of disrespecting the other person, then we’re not talking of flirting here.
It’s not that difficult. Civility, respect, is not a tool to use to get something for yourself. It is a given that’s due to any human being, including those you actually are sexually attracted to. In fact, more so.
I suspect that a large percentage of females has this set of expectations, and I wish I could pretend otherwise.
Oh well, you may think whatever you like about what ‘most females’ want or do or behave like, but no single individual male of the human species flirts with ‘most females’ in one go. He will be flirting with one at a time, usually. So it doesn’t really matter what *he* thinks that all or most women think, if it’s that particular woman he’s interested in, how about actually bothering to interact with her, not some stereotype or what’s written in some manual or his own mental masturbations about his own ideas of women?
They are unfair. A man who must kiss a woman without asking and on minimal signals is doing a lot more work than she is.
Oh dear… This really is a massive waste of time. I wouldn’t even know where to start with that notion, there’s about three levels of fucked up in it.
These expectations can create resentment in males.
Oh really? And where do these magical expectations come from, when they’re ideas that are formed independently of that actual person right in front of the man in this situation? You’re talking of a man who’s having this self-centred dialogue in his mind about what he’s supposed to do according to what he thinks all women like, and ignoring the actual person in front of him, and somehow this is ‘unfair’ – on *him*?
I’ve never heard more of a convoluted excuse for behaviour that’s unpleasant – at the very least.
You have just perfectly described the nature of mysoginy, Aegis. Lack of respect and objectification engenders resentment. Yep. It’s all in the man’s head, though.
And again, are women magically free of having to make any effort whatsoever, when they’re the ones attracted to someone else, man or woman? They just go up to them and wiggle their ass and it’s done? They never get rejected, never have unrequited attractions, sexual or romantic or both? Stop press: they do. So…? Where does that leave this charming model of sexual relations you described?
Well there are dangerous consequences to discussing rape you know… we might start noticing who does it and then we might start noticing that men aren’t the primary victims and by then we’ll all be well on the way to – gasp! – feminist analysis!
Oh, god forbid!
It’s interesting that even when the discussion shifted towards ‘initiating kissing’ and relatively innocuous sexual advances, it keeps being pushed back to discussion of women’s ambiguity and men’s discomfort or inability or disadvantage…
Very telling.
Um, yes, Aegis, the idea that men are always required to “make the first move,”? and that sex is something that is initiated by one person on another person is a central underpinning of rape culture. Given that it is, it is bizarre to try to argue that it benefits women more than men.
Well put, Charles. The rest of your post, too. Especially about that attempt by Aegis to narrow down the question more and more with each response. When other commenters and I had been giving examples of that kind of unwelcome move to explain how it has so littel to do with supposed or perceieved ambiguity, the response is, let’s talk about this example I’m thinking of again where I define the woman’s ambiguity as the main problem, which is not like that example you described from your own experience…
By the way, Aegis, ‘that guy I went on a date with’ – it wasn’t even a date at all. In none of the examples I made. That’s the problem. The guys imagined it all by themselves, played this little movie in their heads, whereby being nice enough to engage in chit chat with them for three minutes in the pub while in a group of twenty people I knew far better than him, or to go see a film with them one summer evening, was enough of a ‘signal’ to them that I would reciprocate any sexual interest. Go figure.
Some people have a very wide concept of ‘mixed signals’ and ‘ambiguity’ and ‘sexual interest’, you know. Anything is a sexual signal to them. Because they’re only interested in getting their own fix.
This thread is making me happier than ever that I don’t have to traverse the dating pool anymore. Come to think of it, it’s a reminder of why I’d given up on the dating pool for something like a year when I met the guy who became my current partner.
Oh, hell. :p I’m a genuine card-carrying gummint bureaucrat (soon to be ex, though) of six-odd years. I can vouch for the fact that long conversations with customers are possible without them having to produce or take away a single paper–depending on the question. I can also vouch for clarity from customers being just as welcome as it would be from a prospective date.
OTOH, if I’m not clear, I just ask for clarification as many times as it takes to get it. Or to find out that the customer was interested in something other than what I orginally thought he/she was. Amazing how well that works, eh ?
noodles, I admire your stamina. 8) Once I find a new job, can I buy you a nice coffee and a nice dessert somewhere, sometime ?
Some really good posts from Charles and Noodles. Thanks, you two.
What I’m finding most chilling about the way this thread has gone is the Aegis’s absolute inability to understand that the trauma a woman suffers from rape is much, much greater than the trauma a man feels when the object of his lust doesn’t reciprocate. It’s like to him, women who are out on public display are sort of empty shells of meat who should fuck him or not based on whether he primes them with the correct pattern of stimuli. When they don’t, he responds with the same sort of impotent (no pun [or, for that matter, insinuation] intended) rage & incomprehension the computer-illiterate amongst us feel when our machines crash on us.
There’s no recognition on his part that women can have individual preferences (rather, he seems to view differences in sexually-related preferences as soulless prick-teasing), no recognition that no woman is required to respond sexually to any given male (rather, if they’re out on display, they should be available on a first-come, first-serve basis), no recognition, as far as I can see, that women might actually be thinking when dealing with the men who approach them for sex and making real choices (as opposed to automatically responding to stimuli) based on something more than whether the right code has been punched in.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t Aegis one of the original ones who said he doubted the existence of “rape culture”? It seems to me that seeing getting laid by the woman of his choice as a right rather than a privilege is a pretty strong indication that a man buys into rape culture wholeheartedly.
And enough of the PHMT crap: as Amanda said, if you think societal norms around dating behaviour are shite, then listen to feminists and it’ll get fixed pretty quickly. But please, enough about how hard it is on you just because supermodels don’t immediately drop their panties when you feed them your line. No one, anywhere is obliged to give you sex. Ever.
Now that we’ve had an extended, highly detailed example of the monstrous sense of entitlement and the inability to relate to women on a human level that rape culture instills in men, can we get back to the real topic?
[sigh] Don’t wait up, Crys. I’d just be thrilled at this point if Aegis or his ilk could comprehend that if confusion is insurmountable (which I doubt, if he’s really determined and not just playing games), it would be far better for a man to just go home alone and beat off if he’s not sure what he’s seeing. You know, rather than take the risk of being an asshole and/or rapist.
I’ve never died of being verbally rejected/rebuffed by someone I’ve had my eye on, nor even brought home any physical scars from it. Nobody does. You wouldn’t know it from the way some of these men carry on, however. Hell, the fact that they can’t comprehend that women can, and do, make overtures and suffer rejections all the time is just one more way that they deny women the chance to be 3-D human beings.
Good point, Alsis. OK Aegis, why is going home alone & jacking off seemingly not an option for men*? Hell, I’ve done it enough times in my life & it never hurt me any.
And, really, truly, I’d like an explanation as to why when I went after a guy and got rejected, that rejection hurt me less than it would have had the roles been reversed. Oh right…..because of course if you have no conception that women are anything other than passive, empty vessels, it’s impossible for them to a) go after the object of their lust (which they wouldn’t have in the first place) actively and b) even if they could rouse themselves from that vegetative, passive state and act, women are incapable of being wounded by rejection anyway. Just because.
Aegis lives in a sick and scary world. I’m glad that it isn’t the real one, but it does concern me that people who thinks like he does probably do go around in their daily lives as if the things they believe were actually true. Because if you do truly believe that merely by producing the “correct” behaviour you are entitled to the sexual service you desire by the individual of your choice, and that any failure on the part of that individual to automatically comply when presented with said behaviour is the “wrong” result & indicates either a fault within that individual or the malicious intent to defraud you of your “due”, then you are bound to eventually end up causing someone serious harm.
Not, I suspect, that that really bothers a lot of the guys who think that way.
*or, at least the men on Planet Aegis
noodles, I admire your stamina. 8)
Heh, thanks… I do tend to get passionate in discussions especially when I bring up my lousiest (non-)dating memories. =)
Once I find a new job, can I buy you a nice coffee and a nice dessert somewhere, sometime
alsis, that is such a nice offer, I’d be delighted to, but that would have to be… next time I take a transatlantic flight *gulp* (guessing you’re based in the US of A too). And right now I’d also need a new job for that ;-)
(of course if you want to chat, you’re welcome – my email is my nickname here plus at europe dot com)
I’ve never died of being verbally rejected/rebuffed by someone I’ve had my eye on, nor even brought home any physical scars from it. Nobody does.
Yup… especially once you’re past your teen years, where even the littlest disappointment can get on such tragic heartbreak dimensions – but that’d still be a more ‘romantic’ notion of rejection than what I got the impression was being talked about here…
I replied to this point in the other thread.
not come yet, because too many women still have anachronistic expectations.
Feminists need to recognize the fact that there is a large subset of females that give males incentives for behavior that, while it may not be exactly molestation, is over-sexually aggressive, unempathetic, and downright inconsiderate. I’m not saying it’s right for males to respond to those incentives and adopt such behavior, but some males will do so nonetheless rather than endure long periods without sex or relationships. Sexuality is a strong enough force that it will often punch through ethics, at least to a small degree (such as kissing without asking). I am not saying that this is ok, only that this is what happens. Males will never behave ethically in the area of sexuality/relationships until a large subset of women stops giving them substantial incentives to behave unethically.
That’s not the issue. There is no dichotomy between “wanting to get laid” and “wanting a relationship.” Romantic relationships do have a sexual component. If nothing sexual happens, the relationship usually fizzles and goes back to being just friends. Kissing is usually going to have to happen somehow, and it is usually considered the man’s responsibility to initiate it.
I gotta go now, but I will try to respond to the rest soon…
Hmmm, I don’t have time to rewrite it now, but for some reason a paragraph of my last post got cut out for reason (the part in bold was the end of the paragraph)…
Because women are responsible for the behavior of men. Because men are not capable of behaving ethically all on their own.
I am not sure which concept annoys me more.
Apparently Aegis can’t be expected to treat women in a non-sexist way, or ask that anyone treat him in a non-sexist manner, until almost all women stop buying into our sexist cultural beliefs all by themselves. ‘Cause, you know, that works so well for feminists – I mean we go around complaining amongst ourselves all the time, but its not like we ever try to do anything about all this, or hold anyone else accountable. I mean, the only goal is to decide whose life sucks more right? Not, you, know, actually use any of this information to change anything.
Also, I like how Aegis apparently thinks I “have been one of the more astute people in this discussion” but he:
A) turns around and tells me “but please read my posts a little bit more carefully!” (But wise one, isn’t lack of reading comprehension evidence against intelligence? – Oh, that’s right, I’m “astute” because I agreed with you on a single point for all of one or two posts.)
B) either missed my point entirely or was trying to claim that he never said that rejection hurts men more, or that he never tried to argue that it does because men are “active” and women are “passive”. But, I’m sure it was my inabilty to communicate or lack of reading comprehension, not his inability to “read my posts….carefully!” that is the root of this “misunderstanding”.
C) has yet to respond to pretty much anything else I’ve said. I don’t take it personally though, I know it’s not me, but that I’ve yet to discuss the trials and tribulations that men face in the dating world, or agree with him, since then.
But, you know, I shouldn’t be so hard on him, after all he did promise only three days ago that I “made some good points…..that [he] will get to soon.” Aegis, I wait with bated breath for your reply.
For everyone else: One of my managers got pissed at me today because I was I was grumpy and didn’t respond with smiles and sunshine to his hello and later snapped at him when he took the books for the display I was working on and showed me how he thought it could be done without bothering to simply ask me if I even needed help. What is it about guys and feeling the need to do stuff for you? Why the hell did he assume I needed help at all, and even if he thought I might, what the fuck is wrong with simply asking first? (A request that he made fun of later.)
Feel free to discuss the underlying sexism in his actions (or mine – or my unprofessionalism), but in the end what I’d really like is some advice on how to deal with this (aside from getting more caffeine in the morning so that I can form actual sentences), because it will happen again at some point, and even if he deserves a bitchy reaction, its generally not a good idea to deliberately piss off your managers on a regular basis.
Apologies for going off on a tangent, but I figured my question had as much to do with female sexual power, rape culture, and sexism as at least some of the posts on this thread, and you all seem to be good people to ask.
and it is usually considered the man’s responsibility
Nice passive voice. “Is considered” by whom? By just the woman?
If men want those expectations to change, they will have to change theirs, as well. Assuming that women set all the rules and it’s not fair and it’s women’s job to fix things is simultaneously lazy, whiny and incorrect.
Again, this may be so on Planet Aegis, but it certainly isn’t where I live.
You know, maybe not hanging around with such unenlightened, ghastly people might change your perspective on things.
Nahhhh, because that would mean having to act as if women were, y’know, Real People with minds full of thoughts and feelings instead of cardboard cutout stereotypes, and then where would you be?
This reminds me of a conversation I just had with my husband about one of his old school friends: this guy is a dedicated misogynist, so of course when choosing a woman to pair up with, he chose the least independent-minded, most traditional type of woman he could find–because that’s how women should “properly” be in his world. Now they’re planning on getting married and all he does is piss and moan because she wants the big fuck-off wedding with all the trimmings and of course that’s expensive. Well what the hell does he expect?
What is it in the minds of such men that makes them insist that women should be fluffy halfwits, yet then fly into rages when those women don’t behave sensibly?
Aegis, the solution to your problems is just as simple as it is for my husband’s friend: if you don’t want to have to play silly-arse mind games around negotiating sexual encounters, stop trying to fuck Barbie dolls. How hard is that to figure out? But of course, if you choose to sleep with enlightened women, you’re going to have to act as if they were human. Which apparently you consider a demand so impossible as to constitute an outrage.
And you aren’t a full-fledged product of rape-culture mentality exactly how?
Feminists need to recognize the fact that there is a large subset of females that give males incentives for behavior that, while it may not be exactly molestation, is over-sexually aggressive, unempathetic, and downright inconsiderate
Aegis, for one thing, that would really depend on what you mean with ‘over-sexually aggressive, etc.’. How can it be aggressive and inconsiderate without being molestation? Are we still talking a kiss out of the blue or what else?
I gave you a couple of examples of unwelcome but still harmless advances. Annoying, creepy, slimey even but not that big a deal. The point I was making with those examples is, however minor the annoyment was, what was amazing was the level to which those guys interpreted even a three-minute introduction as ‘incentive’. Apparently you don’t seem to think that kind of example is relevant and you just want to talk about how ambiguous women are, maybe you think my examples would be completely atypical because, hey, I’m a feminist so I’m not like all other women and/or don’t understand not all women are supposedly ‘enlightened’? Speaking for myself, that’s not how I see feminism at all, and that’s not how I see women or all human beings for that matter. I know women of all ages, grew up in a large family where feminist writers were as foreign as sushi back then, and I’ve never ever heard one woman go wow over a slimey, annoying, creepy unwelcome advance that involved physical contact that was most definitely not being sought and not being ‘signalled’ at. On the contrary, I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t been the object of relatively harmless molestation of all kinds, from acquaintances or perfect strangers.
It seems to me you’re deliberately confusing the classic cliché of a bold, confident, seductive man who courts women, with the asshole who just makes a move of them out of the blue.
They’re not the same thing, dear Aegis. Even that traditional don juan figure doesn’t have to be an asshole, you know?
There is a pretty clear dividing line between the two.
(Just like on the opposite end of the scale of stereotypes, there is a very clear line between the asshole molester and the shy, reserved, insecure guy…)
And yes, there’s women who fall for the “bastard” types, just like there’s men who fall for the equivalent female type – if we have to generalise about ‘types’. Usually, in my world at least, that doesn’t mean the slimey asshole who splashes a hand on your bum just because he’s the man and you have a bum or tits or a pretty face, but the guy (or woman) who will behave cruelly and play with your emotions and be egotistic and self-centred etc. etc. after you’ve already established a relationship with them; or the guy (or woman) who will play all “I’m soo above your league honey” and still “lead you on” – but even leading someone on, again, is not necessarily the same thing as physical molestation.
You’re making a mess of stereotypical but different behaviours to justify your assertions. You’re confusing mental attitudes with actual behaviour, emotions with actual physical moves.
When a physical contact is ‘initiated’ out the blue without any preceding hint at interaction, a boundary is crossed that has nothing whatsoever to do with seduction. That’s why it’ll be unwelcome.
When it’s welcome, it’s because there was something leading up to it…
And anyone who was there and actually engaged with that person, will know the difference.
Sexuality is a strong enough force that it will often punch through ethics, at least to a small degree (such as kissing without asking).
That’s not even about ethics at some deep philosophical level, it’s about simple human interaction between two people, not one person and his own mental convolutions.
I am not saying that this is ok, only that this is what happens.
Tsk, sorry, doesn’t seem that way from all you write, especially when you contradict that statement right in the very next one:
Males will never behave ethically in the area of sexuality/relationships until a large subset of women stops giving them substantial incentives to behave unethically.
You want the women discussing with you here to agree with your idea of women being responsible for ‘provoking’ men into even the mildest molestation behaviour. That’s not ‘I’m not saying it’s right, just the way it is’. That’s taking your own idea of how things are, ignoring any example that doesn’t fit into that – including women speaking of having ‘initiated’ (I hate that word) things themselves, or having had things develop quite happily and pleasantly in a reciprocal way (you know, examples that actually reflect well on men too, oddly enough eh, as pleasant beings capable of interaction and not all obnoxious molesting assholes) – and keep going back to your own perfect model of women being duplicitious, ambiguous, passive, masochist and men being just too tempted into that trap to be able to behave normally – not with some superhuman efforts at being ‘nice’, but normally.
There is no dichotomy between “wanting to get laid”? and “wanting a relationship.”? Romantic relationships do have a sexual component.
I don’t know what straw man you’re responding to, Aegis. The dichotomy I was pointing out in your model was not between “just wanting to get laid” and “wanting a romantic relationship”. It was between “just wanting to get laid” – no matter what, no matter with whom! – and actually being *interested* in the other person as a paerson, as that particular person, that you’ll be paying attention to them, not to your own fixed thought of getting laid at all costs.
Even if it’s a one night stand, the two people involved will have to have started out with some interest in each other to get there… you know, damn, basic human interaction, even if they’re both on e and sweating horniness from every pore. Otherwise, it could be anyone else and it wouldn’t make a difference. But where would be the sexual chemistry in that?
Kissing is usually going to have to happen somehow, and it is usually considered the man’s responsibility to initiate it.
Is that another of your ‘not saying it’s right but that’s what happens’?
Who is the subject of that “it is usually considered”? None other than the man who thinks like that, Aegis. He’s making up his own justifications for not bothering with the actual other person. And you’re validating this line of reasoning, not just describing it.
It is not what happens ‘usually’ at all – again, women get attracted to other men (or women) too, and approach them, and flirt with them, and get rejected too (maybe you keep ignoring this because you haven’t had enough experience of the world so you genuinely don’t think such a thing can happen?) – but it is what those men, those who think they’re entitled to attention and/or sex just because, think, what they tell themselves to feel good about themselves when they are acting, at best, like pathetic jerks.
This has nothing to do with feminism, really, well it does, but even before that, it is about basic human behaviour in society. I have male siblings and friends and colleagues like anyone and they’re not particularly ‘enlightened’ or interested in discussions about gender roles and whatnot, but the ones who aren’t assholes do know the difference between a normal, nice way to interact with women they’re attracted to, and an asshole way to do that. Whether they’re more or less shy or bold or attractive or clumsy or whatever.
But I guess we can go round and round and round in circles, and you’ll still be saying the same thing and implying everyone else is out of touch with the rest of humanity…
Crys T- if you don’t want to have to play silly-arse mind games around negotiating sexual encounters, stop trying to fuck Barbie dolls
LOL, that’s a good idea, too…
No matter what Aegis’s men think though, molesting a barbie doll is still molesting, and unwelcome obnoxious aggressive inconsiderate advances are still unwelcome, obnoxious, inconsiderate, etc.
I don’t think he is interested in wanting to change his own attitude to women though, I think he’s just intersted in showing the feminists, this oh so pretentious bunch, that they’re the ones who are out of touch because they don’t agree that things he talks about are just ‘the way it is’…
You all are very nice folk who clearly want to help Aegis but the only way that this post is going to get back on track is if you just ignore him. It seems pretty obvious by now that he is a kid who thinks he is mainlining truth and so he is the only person who anything of importance to say.
I see this kind of thing happen on feminist blogs all the time — some guy comes in and hijacks the post and instead of telling him to stick to the subject (and ignoring him if he doesn’t), everyone keeps trying to reason with the person, pretty much killing off the original subject.
Maybe it’s time for a new thread which tries to figure out why we let this happen (and it would interesting to see the hijack attempt that would undoubtedly appear.)
Feminists need to recognize the fact that there is a large subset of females that give males incentives for behavior that, while it may not be exactly molestation, is over-sexually aggressive, unempathetic, and downright inconsiderate.
Funny how it’s all womens’ fault again, Aegis. What a shock.
Amp, is this really productive any longer? The above poster said it perfectly.
You’re so right, AndiF…
Maybe it’s time for a new thread which tries to figure out why we let this happen (and it would interesting to see the hijack attempt that would undoubtedly appear.)
I’m picturing an infinite series where hijacking of feminist discussion gets discussed, discussion of hijacking gets hijacked, hijacking of discussion of hijacking gets hijacked, rinse, repeat.
The Russian Dolls of hijacking ;)
Yeah, AndiF, I actually agree with you, even though I’m one of the ones who’s been feeding the bear in question.
I don’t see why we’re wasting time on a person who feels that “women” (defined as “hot babes I wanna fuck NOW”) are basically fuck toys who owe him one and preens about like he’s God’s gift though we’re too stupid to recognise it.
This may be crossing a line, but at this point I’m too disgusted to care: I think it’s blatantly obvious why he has so much trouble getting laid. What woman in her right mind would put up with such monstrous attitudes?
At least on the posts I’m in charge of (Pseudo-Adrianne sets her own rules, of course), civil debate and disagreement is allowed on this blog. I’m sorry you’re not enjoying this thread, but I think there have been a number of excellent posts that I’ve enjoyed reading.
The comments on “Alas” have never been intended to be a feminists-only area.
I very rarely lock threads; I usually figure that if people are tired of posting to a thread, they’ll let the thread die.
You all are very nice folk who clearly want to help Aegis
Speaking only for myself, I’m neither nice nor do I want to help Aegis. It’s pretty clear that he would rather blame “females” than consider his own privilege and whether sexism gives him any bennies. I’m more interested in presenting information for other people, who may have similar beliefs but are not as invested in them.
Amp: At least on the posts I’m in charge of (Pseudo-Adrianne sets her own rules, of course), civil debate and disagreement is allowed on this blog. I’m sorry you’re not enjoying this thread, but I think there have been a number of excellent posts that I’ve enjoyed reading.
I like debate and I certainly wasn’t suggesting that there shouldn’t be any on this blog — the level of debate is one of the chief attractions of this blog and divergent points of view are a necessary component. Robert, for example, is someone with whom I would rarely agree but whose arguments are usually to the point and interesting. But when a poster not only derails the subject but essentially just wants to repeat the same points over and over, I think the result is that the blog gets bogged. (*grin* And since I’m on a dial-up, it takes a long time for a lengthy comment page to load which means that I have a truly vested interest */grin* )
mythago: Speaking only for myself, I’m neither nice nor do I want to help Aegis
Good thing I didn’t go with my first impulse which was to say ‘maternal’. Anyway, if not nice, then how about amazing patient and civil?
That should be “amazingly patient and civil”.
Accusing me of “hijacking” this thread is both inaccurate and unfair. First, there had already been several digressions already before I joined the thread. Second, unless people feel like I coerced them from long-distance with my “male power,” I did not force anyone to reply to me. They did so of their own free will, hence they are equally to blame for any digression of this thread.
That being said, I am moving out of this thread and posting all my replies in the previous one.
You may return to your regularly scheduled programming.
…
Huh. That’s educational. Rape culture is about a culture of rapists, but Aegis wants to discuss the power of victims, and that’s not a digression. Changing the discussion from the responsiblity of the rapists and their enablers to the responsibility of the victims is not a hijack. Dismissing all the women who disagree with him—-that’s not a hijack.
Yeah, there are some days I wonder why I’m a feminist. Thanks to Aegis, this will not be one of those days.
But Giiiiiiiiiiinmaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr, if we all focus on the “power of the victims” then we won’t have to talk about the rapists……and, more importantly, who they are.
Don’t you get it?
Well, I’m getting something but I don’t think that’s it. The word of an eighteen-year-old boy is more accepted than that of women twice his age, who have lived the lives he’s dissecting for his pleasure? Yeah, I don’t get it at all.
You know, it’s like trying to discuss fishing from the perspective of the fish, only to have the fisherman criticize his prey for their cruelty in refusing to be caught.
Well, to be honest, I really don’t think that anyone here is accepting his word.
I’m still waiting for a reply to
As a woman who did and does the initiating, Aegis, I can confidently say that you are flat-out wrong.
on either thread. Not holding my breath, naturally.
No, he’s apparently taken to posting long long posts one after the other justifying his continued righteousness.
It seems to me, that Aegis is pointing out that culture is something that is created by the interaction and communication BETWEEN individuals, and is not something that is foisted by one gender onto another. If this is so, then there is more than one party that needs to understand what is being said on both sides.
It is a straw man to reduce that argument to somehow posit that Aegis is justifying anything. If we can get past the vicious name calling long enough to listen and understand, I’ll offer some personal examples, to put it in a real context.
I’ve dated several women who, when things got heated, said variations of “No,”? and “We can’t,”? or “we shouldn’t.”? And when I stopped, somewhat abruptly, they were surprised and disappointed. One of them flat out said so, and the others certainly showed it through body language. In hindsight, I suspect part of the psychology they were enjoying was the idea of being swept into something morally questionable or overwhelmingly pleasurable, and my response to their stated intentions was not part of the fantasy. It’s certainly not an uncommon thing ““ you never will see a romance novel titled “He Stopped When I Said No”?. What’s more, many if not most of my male friends have similar stories. These are not “tough guys”? or people who I would consider stupid or socially inept.
Clearly, my experience with some women (most likely not the kind of people you will meet in a feminist forum), shows that if change in a sociological scale is needed, it is not something that need be imposed on men only. There is a dynamic happening, and as man women support that dynamic as do the men.
In another example, I dated a pretty girl who used her sexual power over boys/men to tease them, to see how hot and bothered she could get them and then shut them down. It was not a thing where she would change her mind at the last moment – she clearly “got off”? on the feeling of power she had and enjoyed it. It made me angry, because it was a naked attempt at control and manipulation. When she would suddenly pull back and giggle, she made what had a moment before been an intimate and open act of sexuality turn into some kind of deception and falsehood. Caricatures of male sexuality aside, sexuality is generally an act of intimacy ““ not violence ““ and men can have that violated as well. I broke up with her eventually, and warned her that if she kept it up, she would be raped one day. She kept up the routine, and eventually was raped by someone who she likely made feel as foolish as she made me. My response, when she told me, was compassion, of course. Nobody deserves that, certainly not for a comparatively minor social transgression. But she was clearly under the illusion, based on her experiences with me and other “nice guys”? that she wielded the power in the bedroom. But there were other kinds of power too, that she had not counted on. And what she was doing was not an intimate act ““ it was a hostile one. It was certainly provocative.
As for Ampersand’s essay, about how beauty saps women of their power, I don’t quite buy it. Surely these women have had many encounters, daily, where men do not rape them, and where they are taken seriously as human beings. It seems to me that the examples given are more indicative of the state of mind of the individual rapists in those scenarios, than they are of the general effect a woman’s beauty will have on men. If we are going to generalize in such a way, isn’t that a more reasonable place to start?
Re: This statement
” It’s very seldom the guy himself reporting it…it’s always a buddy he evidently told it to, which makes an interesting counterpoint to all those people who complain that rape is so much worse for male victims than it is for women…to the point where the guys can’t talk about it.”
I drunkenly escorted another drunken female friend home after a night at the pub. I passed out, but was vaguely aware of telling her “No” – that I was dating someone else. I awoke later to her having sex with me. I then woke again in the morning not really sure what to think. A friend from my feminism seminar spared no effort convincing me that I had been raped. Frankly, I didn’t know – I was put off a bit, but my sense from that night was that it was an enjoyable experience on some level. At that time, I realized that perhaps the whole thing was much more complicated than I had understood previously.
As a side note, I’m a bit bewildered that we have lesbians in the thread still defining this as a problem of male aggression. Certainly both rape and domestic abuse is something that rears in lesbian and gay male cultures as well. I have a gay male friend who was raped at a party by another man, and who contracted HIV as a result.
My wife has a female friend from a noted feminist theater who lived with someone who she thought was a man, but turned out to be a woman posing as a man – details are vague, but darkness and prosthetics seem to have been involved in carrying on the charade. Yes, just like the movie.
In a prior relationship, the same woman apparently smacked around her lover (while she was playing a prominent role in a theatrical production decrying men’s violence against women, touring colleges). Given that some aspects of dyke culture seem to appropriate or even caricaturize stereotypical “tough guys” – it isn’t a far leap to see that negative aspects of that culture would be appropriated along with the positive ones.
It saddens me when I see the dialog develop in such a way, ignoring aspects of violence and sexuality that don’t quite fit the Talking Points, because I think the focus on “male” aggression, looking at masculinity as the sole element that must be changed – that this takes us farther from understanding. Why must rape among men be brought up?
To that, I ask, “What is gained by dividing the efforts of the advocacy along gender lines?”
It seems to me that in looking at the same behaviour where men are the victim, or among lesbians, or any other scenario that doesn’t fit The Script, we can immediately either reveal the double standard, or we can put misandrist undercurrents aside, and address the real issues more directly.
It
Frankly, I didn’t know – I was put off a bit, but my sense from that night was that it was an enjoyable experience on some level
It probably wouldn’t be if you’d ended up with a sexually-transmitted disease or unplanned fatherhood.
^
It would certainly have made muddy waters more clear, wouldn’t it?
My point in that example was that clearly, on some level, I enjoyed the experience, and as far as I know, I participated in it. As I recall, in the morning, I initiated my own advance with this person (who I did know), partly to “reclaim” the experience for myself, because I didn’t want the evening to be defined as this girl jumping on a passed-out guy.
Also, she was nearly as drunk as I was. I honestly don’t know the level of my own participation in the nights events, except to say that based on our relative physical positions, I was in a more passive role.
I think we tend to paint these things in black and white, when the bulk of the sexual relations and communications are much more organic, that is, they are constantly renegotiated and redefined as they occur, and even after. If you talk to your friends, if they really think back, you will likely find as I have found – which is that nearly everyone has had experiences like this.
Do I feel traumatized by the event? No, though I might if I had caught something.
Do I remember it fondly? I don’t remember much of it at all.
Do I feel victimized by her – no, certainly not. I’ll cut her slack because I highly doubt I was clear and firm in my communication to her.
My friends in my feminist grad courses were urging me to cry rape, I think, because it somehow validated their checklist. Over a decade later, I’m pleased with how I dealt with it, and with how I chose to think of it.
I *heart* rape apologists.
I *heart* rape apologists who hit every cliche, too. Nope, beauty empowers women. Men get raped, too—and by women! And, gee, surprise surprise—-Aegis isn’t that bad at all. He even gets in mentioning his feminist friends.
My favorite part, though, is the ideat that women have to change yet again for the good of society. Not just men, you know, —women are part of the problem, too. Nice subtle jog of victim-blaming there, too.
I’m not sure I follow your point.
I was in feminist grad studies at the time – I should not have mentioned my friend and what she urged? Those were my experiences – those happened to me. Would you prefer I make something up?
I’m sorry that they don’t conform to a misandrist script, but that’s the way the ball landed, and it is an honest account, and a rather unremarkable account at that. Those things happen all the time.
The point is not to say “AHA! Women are evil too!” or that “Women are more evil than men” It’s not about that.
I’m simply saying that we are both human, and the bulk of sexual interaction exists on a level that isn’t all “ones” and “zeroes”. While you may be dressing your foreplay in a series of safety checks, power balancing and politics, there are a lot of women out there who are revelling in the “Sweep me off my feet” stereotype, where good girls can’t say “yes” even if they want to.
Forget about the prescription to solve it all for a moment and on blaming anyone – and just understand the culture first. If we are talking on a sociological scale here, then women – including women like the ones I mentioned upthread – are indeed contributing to that culture. This is not an excuse for any man who rapes, nor is it an apology for them, and I question the motivation of any person who would characterize it as such.
If you have as much zeal for fixing the problem as you do for demonizing men, then you will try listening for a while as well. Defining me as a rape apologist really doesn’t help you or victims.
*yawn*
I for one didn’t even read your “account”. I didn’t need to get that far to see that you are more apologetic of rape and rape culture than you are of trying to change that rape culture. Which is fine. You’re not alone.
I’m simply saying that we are both human, and the bulk of sexual interaction exists on a level that isn’t all “ones” and “zeroes”.
Uh, yeah. Well, humans come divided into two genders, one of those genders rapes a lot and the other hardly at all. First one blames the second one for what the first one did to it, and then people like you talk about ‘both.’ Like it’s all equal.
It’s not.
I’d see about getting a refund from your feminist studies class if I were you, dude. YOu didn’t get your money’s worth if you sound like somebody from the IWF.
there are a lot of women out there who are revelling in the “Sweep me off my feet”? stereotype, where good girls can’t say “yes”? even if they want to
That’s what safewords are for.
Outside of BDSM, why are you messing with women who buy into that stereotype? Have you never had such a woman welcome you with open arms, and then the next day tell you she wasn’t all that into it?
So, because some woman was a tease and because you were raped and think you kind of (maybe) liked it and because some lesbians beat the girlfriends that means…
Not really sure where you’re going with all this. Just seems like you keep coming up with different things to discuss because you don’t really want to confront male initiated rape for the problem it is.
mythago Writes:
“Outside of BDSM, why are you messing with women who buy into that stereotype?”
Mythago, under what circumstance do you think I would find out for the first time that a woman buys into that kind of sexual experience? Read again my responses to discover what my responses were when I discovered that scenario.
Mythago, under what circumstance do you think I would find out for the first time that a woman buys into that kind of sexual experience?
“Women” is plural, you may have noticed.
Mythago, under what circumstance do you think I would find out for the first time that a woman buys into that kind of sexual experience?
Well, here’s a shocking thought: You might try asking her.
Oh, wait, look. It’s a guy asking for dating advice on the rape culture thread.
^
Where is a guy asking for dating advice?
Huh. So, anyway, how come some guys don’t think it’s significant that they ignore what a woman asks them to do? I mean, essentially, it’s refusing to take ‘no’ for an answer. That’s kind of disturbing, especially when it happens while consent issues are being discussed. It’s even more disturbing when these guys have a solution for rape: women should just put out and then men wouldn’t rape them!
Nephandus, go read the thread you claim to have read. For real this time. And if I have to hear one more damned time about those alleged classes you took, it won’t be pretty.
Ginmar, you forgot the rape apologist cliche that women actually like being raped! Which of course is the implication behind the story. Whether or not we like the part where we’re held down or beaten, though, I can’t say.
Oh, shit, that’s right. And then there’s the good Samaritan clause: “Hey, she only said no when she meant yes because she didn’t want to be thought of as a bad girl, so I just ‘swept her away’ and solved her problem.”
I”m still marvelling at the ‘men wouldn’t rape if women would just put out more’ one, though. And the idea that that kind of thought isn’t in and of itself offensive, but becomes just positively disgusting during a rape discussion.
Definitely a bunch of click moments going on here. What year is it again?
ginmar said:
So, anyway, how come some guys don’t think it’s significant that they ignore what a woman asks them to do? I mean, essentially, it’s refusing to take ‘no’ for an answer.
Nephandus says:
Ginmar, since you are now determined to make another thread about me, rather than about anything else, I’ll tell you what happened in that thread.
I wrote one response simultaneously with P-K’s diatribe and posted. The window was open while I wrote, and thus P-K’s post did not show until after I posted. You can see the length of my post and the time stamp and see for yourself.
Much of her incredibly unfair response was merely about her apparently baseless speculations and straw man arguments of my character and personal life, as were others – things she knows nothing about. Some people, you included, implied “I had trouble getting girls”, and that I was a rapist. I thought P-K deserved a chance to clarify her stance, or to express regrets for going too far in her anger, and so I asked for clarification in another post.
If the desire was for me to leave, then plainly – don’t make the thread about me, or about whatever straw man you want to stuff in my place. It’s readily apparent to me that maybe one person here – noodles – has the mental capacity to actually engage and discuss a post as presented, without trying to substitute some other lame-ass cliche to spar against in its place. Prove me wrong. I’ve been where you are. I’ve been on your “team” as it were – and likely a more active activist than you are now. Over time and study, I encountered enough within the advocacy to consider alternative ways of conceptualizing gender relations that were focused on the same stated goals, but through what I think are more effective means. By all means – disagree with what I say – even I hold that there is more than one approach. But do me the courtesy of allowing that one may disagree, and may do so without being characterized as a rapist.
Have you read The Crucible yet?
Regardless of what you think of how that went down, the act of someone failing to act as directed because a woman asked him to do something (such as responding to a perjorative characterization when he was told not to) , is not the same as raping a woman. If you try foisting that equation on a bona fide rape victim, I highly doubt you will find an ally. It’s extremely inappropriate to treat it so lightly.
If you think they are equal, then you are either an incredibly naive person who I hope never has to learn the difference, or you are a rage-filled hatemonger ready to snap at anyone who comes near you, and willing to trod over the feelings of real rape victims in order to do so – and I am so sorry for you and for whatever happened to you that drove you to live in such an ugly place.
Neph, don’t appoint yourself the guardian of rape victims. You are the worst guardian we could have, due to your willingness to side with our victimizers’ accusations that we are cock teases and otherwise complicit in our own attacks.
Uh, Nephandus, when people pull shit like this:
I am so sorry for you and for whatever happened to you that drove you to live in such an ugly place.
they pretty much invalidate whatever it was they had to say. They also reveal their true colors. Your arguments have too many flaws to enumerate, but hey, that little statement there finally laid it all out.
Guys like you are the problem, Nephandus. I had one just like you on my blog recently. He proclaimed—as you do—that he was a feminist. I guess being a feminist is like getting home to Kansas—-you click your ruby slippers together three times, and presto you’re home. Or you’re a feminist. Either way, it’s magical.
Anyhoo, this guy proclaimed that because men have such overpowering sex drives and women have none, that men actually deserved commendation for not committing more rapes. He whined that it was all a mistake, what was the big deal? He was a feminist, after all.
YOu know, if somebody says they’re a member of the NAACP and yet they talk about welfare queens and the bell curve and how blacks are just not as intelligent as whites, they can wave that damned NAACP card around as much as they want—the proof belies them.
Your claim of feminisn is not borne out by the evidence, and you don’t even get that.
He’s now going to deny that, Amanda, just watch. YOu know he never said the word ‘cocktease’? See? You lied! You made that up. You’re just a bitter hysterical old feminist, and he pities you.
Guys like this always say they pity you for being so whatever the cliche du jour is, but of course they don’t. The subtext is pretty clear. He pities you but other men would probably get pissed off at your anger, and you know what happens then, right?
I really can never tell if these guys are as clueless as they seem. I mean, do they really believe this crap?
A troll wrote:
I wrote one response simultaneously with P-K’s diatribe and posted. The window was open while I wrote, and thus P-K’s post did not show until after I posted. You can see the length of my post and the time stamp and see for yourself.
Yes, I can see for myself. P-A posted her request that you stop commenting on that thread at 11:40 AM. Your comment has a timestamp of 2:12 PM. By my calculations, that is 2 hours and 32 minutes before your comment. Not to mention, that you continued posting comments after that.
No means no. Except maybe P-A really meant yes and you didn’t want to ruin the mood?
John Reed, Ten Days That Shook the World
Ah, ginmar, I am up to my neck in fake pity from people who I fear will pop a hernia with the strain from trying to convince themselves that I’m undersexed or humorless like I’m supposed to be, as a feminist.
Just to clarify the context: John Reed was a socialist journalist who went on to help launch the Communist Party in the US — take that into consideration when reading that passage and think about what point he may have been making.
Yet? Because there’s this list of books that makes you “officially as educated as this great man” and you know you’ll need to read them to reach his level.
Neph, your insulting comments to ginmar are way out of line. Casting aspersions on other people’s intelligence and mental health is becoming a habit for you, at least on this blog, and it does nothing to further your cause or compel anyone else to take you seriously.
Also, even if you have had frustrating experiences with some feminist groups you were involved with, that really isn’t a good justification for assuming that the whole movement has “gone off course”. Even if we accept your assertion that the movement’s goals have changed (which I don’t entirely agree with), who are you to decide that that’s unacceptable? All political movements change over time, and no one appointed you guardian of feminism’s idealogical purity. Deciding what the movement focuses on is not up to you.
Now, about your comments on the fact that you’ve encountered women who say no when they mean yes. I am not at all sure why you’re blaming feminists for the behaviour of these women. There are indeed women who seem to see themselves as some sort of Scarlett O’Hara, but the reality is that these women are not feminists, and in fact usually do not like feminists or feminism at all. Notice what I’m saying – the women that you’re describing exist, but we are not them, and feminism as a whole focuses very strongly on promoting exactly the opposite paradigm. I can’t think of a single example since the mid twentieth century of a prominent feminist promoting this idealogy. I don’t see any feminists on any of these threads promoting the “pure and innocent flower of a woman who needs to be swept off her feet” model of womanhood. In fact, I have seen multiple people specifically condemning that idea and proposing increased sexual agency for women as a better paradigm. Who exactly do you think you are arguing with? Your comments would be more appropriately addressed to the IWF.
Idiot question alert!
What is the IWF?
I googled, I did, really. I got 4 hits, in order:
1: International Weightlifting Federation
2: Internet Watch Foundation
3: Independent Women’s Forum
4: Independent Wrestling Federation
Now I am betting on either #1 or #4 as to what you were referring to.. But it bugs me not knowing for sure.
#3, an anti-feminist group from the Ann Coulter “I can do whatever I want but other women need to get back in the kitchen” school of thought.
#3, an anti-feminist group from the Ann Coulter “I can do whatever I want but other women need to get back in the kitchen” school of thought.
Thank you! That does make more sense. :)
Now I shall start catching up on replies…
Fellow 19 year-old, I’ve been bending over backwards trying to communicate with you, but now you can just go to hell. It is precisely because I still had respect for you that I made that post to clarify an inaccurate accusation that Nephandus made against you. Now that respect is gone, because you have shown nothing towards me but spite and petulance. (For those who didn’t see my post before Pseudo-Adrienne deleted it: Nephandus accused P-A of making up a quote, when in fact the quote was from me. I made a post, with apologies to P-A, stating that the quote was mine, and that P-A wasn’t making it up.) I should have known that you would ignore my attempt at goodwill and use my post as an excuse to ban me. I find this a direct slap in the face. Looking at your banning of Susan in your new thread, it seems that you are learning how to fully abuse your authority (which, in my opinion, you do not merit). Congratulations. I suggest that in the future, you put a note on your threads reading “anyone who disagrees will be banned,” so your current policy will be clear to everyone. That will probably be good for you, because you seem incapable of dealing with any disagreement without heaping childish verbal abuse on the people involved. Rest assured, I have absolutely no intention of commenting in your threads in the future.
You know, I have to say, when a guy reacts to being told not to do what he wants and at long last it sinks in and he realizes he can’t do what he wants any l onger—-and throws a tantrum—-that that is quite bad enough. When it’s on a thread where he’s been whining on and on about how hard men have it—and it’s about rape—it’s especially chilling.
Really? Oh please please please mean it this time.
Oh and what Ginmar said too.
Sorry P-A – I’m afraid I’m with Aegis on this one.
If you’ve apparently deleted the evidence, it’s a bit harder to see what’s going on – but it is clear to me that Aegis discusses matters in good faith, and affords much more patience than he is given, and that he posted IN YOUR DEFENCE because of an unfair or mistaken accusation from Nephandus – who you also banned (and I’m not really sure why the initial warning was given to him – since it seems the usual suspects were the ones lobbing the personal attacks – initially.).
I haven’t necessarily agreed with everything Aegis said during my lurking time, but even so, I thought the point of a moderator was to MODERATE. That is, rather than fanning flames with a parting shot – whether it is deserved or not – good mods, like a good bar bouncer – try being nice or at least business-like rather than inflamatory. Your “fucktard” statements against these guys were so unfair and inflamatory that Ghandi himself would likely post again for a clarification. And you walloped them when they did.
The guy posted to corect piece of information that maligned you, and you banned him for it. It is obvious you simply were looking for an excuse and that you settled for this instead.
And as for the peanut gallery who is trying to equate the rape of a woman with someone posting on a BBS to defend himself or correct a mistake – GROW UP! I find it disgusting that anyone could demean the suffering or real rape victims in such a way, capitalizing on the pathos felt for their pain to fuel some idiotic personal vendetta.
^
Not sure what happened there, but Spicy didn’t write that. I did. My apoligies for the format problem.
Thanks for providing such an (unfortunately) accurate assessment, Robin. I’m amazed that more people haven’t pointed out Pseudo-Adrienne’s Kafka-esque moderation policies. The original thread was here: https://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/06/15/yes-some-guys-are-assholes-but-its-still-your-fault-if-you-get-raped/
Oh, for FUCK’s SAKE. Christ, Robin, I was wrong to waste any fucking time on you and Aegis—christ, Aegis, there’s a reason women won’t fuck boys who whine that rape is awful because it makes it harder for men to get laid. It’s called taste.
Oh, poor widdle wuzzums was just trying to correct himself? Christ on a crutch.
The only problem we have here is failing to ban people faster, frankly.
Aegis, your implicit claim that you’re just incapable of understanding hyperbole would hold more water if you hadn’t just called P-A “Kafkaesque.” Do you really think your “suffering” here on Alas is the same as the way Kafka’s characters are punished? (If your answer is “yes,” then you desparately need to get some perspective). Why are you allowed to use hyperbole, but no one else is?
Nor do I appreciate you and Robin using my threads to pile on P-A. The subject of this thread is not “what Aegis and Robin don’t like about P-A’s moderation.”
Robin, the purpose of moderation is for the blogger to try and create the kind of discussion she wants. If P-A wants a discussion where feminists kick ass and Aegis is ungently shown the door, that’s a perfectly legitimate thing for her to do. If you don’t like it, don’t post on her threads (also a perfectly legitimate thing to do).
Ginmar, I’d prefer you not make those kinds of attacks on other posters on my threads. Please keep it civil, or post on someone else’s threads. Thanks.
Well, quite frankly, Amp, I’d find it possible to be more civil were the trolls not permitted to run roughshod over your threads. I guess I’ll just get out my white gloves and picture hat, then.
I didn’t see your post before going out of town…
It sounds like you are interpreting “Kafkaesque” to mean something a lot stronger than what I intended, Amp. Perhaps I should have used a word that was more clearly defined. I used it to mean something like “employing authority in an arbitrary manner to punish infractions of rules that are not made clear.” I was trying to describe the principle behind the problems I had with P-A’s moderation, not the degree to which they impacted me. There are other terms, such as “Machiavellian” for example, which are used to point out the principle behind someone’s actions, but not the degree of their impact. Calling someone “Machiavellian” wouldn’t mean that you thought they cut people in half and left them in the city square.
I don’t recall saying anything about “suffering.” I don’t understand why you have it in quotes (perhaps you intend it as a jab?). If you think I protest the treatment I receive on Alas too much or that those protestations are misguided, then I invite you to come out and say so directly (and why), and I will consider it.
Ok, I won’t do that in the future.
Pingback: Feminist Critics