If you are in the middle of intercourse, all consensual, and you say, “Can I stick my penis in your ass?”, and she says, “Hell no!”, does that mean that you have to ask her for consent to keep kissing her or fondling her breasts or to continue having intercourse without going back through the consent of all of that again?
If she says no to a specific request, then it is only that specific request that has been denied.
I’m finished talking to you in this thread DSeid. I’ve shown you no disrespect whatsover, even in my earlier more angry posts.
I’ll address that but note it’s different from what I was talking about–I was talking about her indicating no to something currently happening.
As to your case, it still seems like you should say “oh shit sorry should I keep going or…” or something to that effect. I mean, all of this is pretty hypothetical. That’s why I keep specifying “between relative strangers” because I know that for example if there have been prior explicit or implicit-over-time boundary-settings that allow for such requests or actions, that changes things.
Having said all that, in the case you describe, though I think the guy should stop and be sure, I also think it is more reasonable to think it important also to emphasize that the woman in that example would have done better to say “hell no and also stop everything I’m mad you even asked.” In other words, if he just kept going with other stuff after she said “hell no” I would think he should have stopped and asked but I wouldn’t think she’d be very reasonable to call it a violation.
That’s me, I’m a dude, I’d have to hear from a lot of women about that to be sure.
No, it is specifically to humiliate them, to shame them, to cause them harm.
That’s what courts are for, not the public.
Right but I was trying to think of examples where the point isn’t to humiliate and shame them by showing them as laughable.
I think you might have misread me or skipped over a key phrase.
I’m not sure I follow. You are talking about when he asked if her how she wanted to be fucked, right?
That she indicated that she didn’t want to have intercourse did not mean that she was indicating that everything else that they had been and currently were doing needed to be re-consented to.
Or, “okay, I won’t stick my penis in your ass.”
But continue doing what was already going on.
Showing someone as “laughable” is attempting to humiliate and shame.
I think you might have misread me or skipped over a key phrase.
[/QUOTE]
No, I just disagreed with it. My point is specifically that the court of public opinion is not the place to deal with this issue at all. If you have legal concerns, take it up with the courts. If what happened did not break any laws, then it is you (the shamer) that is being unethical for publicly sharing without consent.
Good question–I’ve lost the thread of what specifically I was talking about, because I made a mental leap to the more general and hypothetical.
Going through the article, here are situations that apply:
When she moved it away, he should have checked in. Now I don’t mean he had to stop everything and say with words “is it okay for me to continue doing anything at all?” If, while moving her hand away, she’s also pulling him in or caressing him or whatever, noticing that is a check-in. I wouldn’t fault him for continuing. And in fact it’s compatible with what’s written that this is what was going on.
Pulling on her hand again, multiple times, after she keeps pulling away, is an ethical violation, but not related specifically to my thing about checking in after a negative.
Her getting up and moving away is a very clear and serious negative indication. He should at that point stop and say “Are you comfortable? Do we need to take a break?” Words to that effect.
People have focused on the mumbling, but what strikes me here is the pulling away. That’s a clear negative indication. Especially if it happens repeatedly. He should have stopped and said are you comfortable do we need to take a break
After he rammed his dick into her ass, she registered a no and he actually did desist going all the way back to clothes-on tv-watching, so that incident doesn’t fall under this topic (though for other reasons I would still count it as a sexual assault in itself).
Then we have:
When she registered a negative here, he should not have asked what she meant and forcefully, grossly kissed her. Asking what she meant was fine, but he should have waited for an answer. That counts as a check-in.
It seems like you are saying the only things that it is okay to publicly shame people about are legal violations. Ethical violations that are not legal violations are not apt for public shaming.
My assumption is that you don’t actually think that–but without attributing that idea to you it’s hard for me to understand why you would think it’s not okay to attempt to publicly shame someone who did what Ansari did if you genuinely believe what he did was unethical.
Yes, and LHoD was saying revenge porn isn’t necessarily about laughability etc. So I was trying to think of examples where you’re trying to humiliate and shame a person, but not show them to be laughable. Hence my example–where you show off how attractive they are (like, “yeah, I hit that”). Here you’re trying to humiliate them (by displaying their body without their consent, and possibly by making them appear low by having been ‘conquered’), but not trying to show that they are laughable. In other words, it’s an example in support of what LHoD was saying.
Yes, I do think that, for private individuals, it is not okay to go out and air things that are not illegal. People have different ideas of ethics, and there are many opinions on what is ethical behavior.
That’s why we have laws.
Your assumption that I am lying about my position is wrong and very unappreciated. I will not continue this conversation, and discourage anyone else from doing so, if you are going to question the motives of the other posters here.
I will not, however, go to a tabloid magazine and tell of the time you implied I was a liar without my consent, even though I consider it highly unethical for you to do so.
Yes, I do in fact think that, for private individuals, it is not okay to go out and air things that are not illegal.
I still don’t think that it’s okay to actually just go out to a tabloid and shame someone for illegal things either, that’s what the courts are for. The court is a bit public, so the illegal things that are done do become public, but that is a big difference to going to a tabloid and gossiping.
I didn’t assume you were lying, I was assuming I misunderstood you.
You clarified that I didn’t misunderstood.
There is no problem here.
We disagree about whether it’s okay to air ethical dirty laundrey that’s not illegal. If the ethical violation involved involves harm, especially, it’s fine for airing IMV.
I think I am missing something. Why does your “cashed out” version of the sexual assault statute not include mention of threats, physical attack, incapacity or deception? One of those seem to appear in each section I see.
Article 120(b)(1)(B) from the link:
Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—commits a sexual act upon another person by—causing bodily harm to that other person; is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Where “bodily harm” is defined as: any offensive touching of another, however slight, including any nonconsensual sexual act or nonconsensual sexual contact.
And sexual act is defined as: the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
Does that help?
Most lies are not crimes, but we should feel free to warn people if someone is a frequent liar… should we not…? Even if the lies are typically told “in confidence”… Right?
Either sex is different, or it’s not.
Clearly sexual behavior is different from other behavior. If you don’t see that, that might explain a lot of the disconnect here; but it is different.
One thing we’ve not talked about, but that is pretty freakin’ clear, is that lust makes people stupid. (One hopes we don’t have to debate this point). The stupidity, the brain-fog, that lust sets up is one of the biggest reasons why clear communication around sex is so important.
I absolutely agree that Ansari should’ve been more questioning about what’s going on. He likely didn’t do so because he was lusty and not thinking clearly. When he’s thinking clearly, he should make a firm decision that when he’s in the moment, he’ll err on the side of backing off and talking.
But it’s precisely because of this brain-fog of lust that everyone needs to commit to clear communication. Grace should commit also to saying, “Hey, back off,” or words to that effect, if she wants things to stop; and should commit to using her body to communicate that. Short clear phrases.
Neither party communicated clearly here. Ansari needs to fix his shit. Grace needs to understand that public shame is not an appropriate response.
I was responding to k9bfriender, who made a blanket claim.
I just don’t understand why sex is different significantly when it comes to publically outing people who do bad stuff to other people. I’m not getting the difference in this regard, between being unethically pushy in sex and unethically dishonest in confidential conversations.
The brain cloud doesn’t seem relevant here–presumably he’s not always in the brain cloud, just during the sexual encounter. And as you said, he can reflect after (since he didn’t before) and resolve. So it’s amenable to reason. Hence the secondary purpose of public shaming (to get the person to acknowledge and change) still applies. And the brain cloud is completely irrelevant to the primary purpose of public shame–to warn other people.
I think both of them should work on their communication about sex, but I don’t see the problem with publicly shaming a person who does bad stuff to people in sexual encounters, even if they stay on the safe side of the law. You’ve stated upthread categorically that there is no out clause on revenge porn if what you were trying to do is warn other people away. But… I don’t know why you would think that.* Preventing harm to many is more important to me than saving the dignity of one.
*I hope you weren’t relying on some legal reasoning about revenge porn!
Well said.
Again you dismiss the harm public shaming causes. Public shaming has led to suicide. It is an intensely awful thing to do to someone, and there needs to be a real goddamned good reason to do it. This is not one of them.
But since you don’t seem to understand why it’s a bad thing in general, I don’t expect you to understand why it’s a bad thing here. You’ve repeatedly belittled and dismissed the harm it causes; the closest you’ve come is some jokey bit about how you sexually humiliate yourself. YOU DON’T GET IT, which is fine, but learn that just because you don’t grok something doesn’t mean you can’t understand intellectually that it’s a big deal to other people.
This key thing is indeed what we need to get dudes to understand about sexual aggression.
This is completely different because she was an innocent girl who did no wrong. She was bullied by a person with great power over her. There is hardly any relevant similarity between these two cases.
That… was not a joke…
I mean. I get why it’s wrong to humiliate people for no good reason. I get why it’s wrong to humiliate from a position of great power, in a bullying way, when your victim is an powerless innocent. I also get that you have less of a problem with the idea of humiliating a liar for lying. So it’s specifically that there’s something about sex here. And yeah, I have to admit. I think Ansari is very embarrassed, but nowhere even close to suicidal over this. Do you think he is? If not, why are you bringing up barely relevant other cases that involve suicide?
Hell I’m not even sure he’s embarrassed. For all I know he’s just aggravated.
Dude’s going to be fine.