Admittedly I’ve only read the first and the last page of this behemoth but I’m sure the same hashed and rehashed arguments were bandied about with minor twists to it. That being said, there is some interesting stuff here and just to leave a few comments (in order of relevance):
Not to put words into MOL’s mouth, but I don’t think she intended this to be the forum on sexual assault but rather just a rant about an idiot doing idiot things. It’s not fair to make analogies that span the entire spectrum of unwanted sexual advances and frankly it a) demonizes men and b) diminishes the magnitude of the more illicit behaviors.
Guys need to be told when because (theoretically) women hold the keys. For the most part women decide who gets to have sex when and where. Guys have to be told no because the limiting reagent in this sexual chemistry is with the woman. The man will take it as far as he’s allowed and women are the ones dictating how far it should go. Problems arise in reconciling the expectations but that just reinforces the need for women to be strong, vocal, and actualized as Nzinga and others have alluded to. Acquiescing only snowballs the problem.
The handicapped analogy is a fascinating one. I’m still not sure why Ambivalid isn’t admitting fault here other than just sheer vanity. The parallels are striking. A statute is broken but with no authorities present and punishment is a tenuous and iffy process. In the absence of justice, should the wronged take the law into his/her own hands and confront the behavior or should he/she play the odds of safety and just submit?
The analogy strains a bit here because a man is much more likely to take things sexually a bridge too far than haul off and punch a handicapped guy (sad but true). However, it’s not stretched so far that a person would defend one action and condemn the other.
Anonymous User, while I’m sure you think the thread is interesting and you did take a posting sabbatical, nobody else cares enough to warrant you posting. Even if you have something to add to the conversation (which as a HS sophomore is doubtful) this is probably one conversation you should stick to the sidelines on. Emotions run high in threads of this nature and the usual suspects involved are among the most impassioned posters on the SDMB.
Amelia999, welcome to the boards. I hope you stay. Now dial down the narcissism. Just because someone ignored your post once, twice, or even three times… just because someone said something that you disagree with… just because someone said something that you know to be factually incorrect doesn’t mean you should throw a hissy fit and threaten to leave. Maybe your great intellect is being unappreciated. However, it’s pretty much just how message boards work.
That said, as per your request, my responses to your posts would include:
I’m unfamiliar with the term “farrow” much less in relation to impotence.
Women in the 30’s-50’s were treated with much more disrespect as they are now.
Would you want to bring back the idea of slut shaming: making a woman feel ashamed or embarrassed for having a sexual appetite as a good thing? Perhaps help decrease the number of slut girls out there? If so, your new friendship with Troppus may be a short lived one.
Brush up on your grammar. It may only be the internet but people on this board are fanatics about grammar. You will be roundly ignored if you continue to use ellipses in place of periods, have questionable capitalization, write in run on sentences, write incoherently, and (imo most importantly) not attribute who you’re replying to in your posts. The indefinite “you” only makes sense to you. I have no idea who you’re raving against seeing as how I am not you.
Except accepting the illegal parking in handicapped sections isn’t about personal safety and one’s own life. Accepting the fact that dangerous men exist out in the world is.
And there are many ways of “not accepting” such illegal behavior short of a face-to-face confrontation with the offender. Calling the police and reporting the vehicle is one. Photographing the vehicle and license plate, etc. is another. And even alerting the management of the business is a possible way of ‘not accepting’ violations of handicap parking without risking one’s personal safety in any way. And in more long-term aspects, working to affect legislation supporting stronger disability rights also expresses this sentiment.
So in a way I agree with the comparisons. For the sake of this argument, yes, the face-to-face confrontations with illegal parkers isn’t the safest behavior on my part. It is not the only avenue for fighting such behavior, however, as I’ve already pointed out. I don’t either have to “wistfully hope for the day of change” or come face to face with each and every driver I see parking illegally. I can fight to make that change happen and stay safe at the same time.
Well, I for one am glad he posted. I don’t subscribe to the idea that just because someone is young and inexperienced they have nothing of value to say. Furthermore, the fact that he is an adolescent is especially important, given that he is going to be exposed to more and more of these situations as he goes through high school. Anonymous is among the next generation of men who will either accept ‘‘No’’ for an answer or disrespect women. If participating facilitates his ability to get the message or to communicate that message to other guys his age, I’m all for it.
Ambivalid, I think we can all agree that if there is anything that you are known for, it is the times that you decided it would be a good idea to wait by the car of someone who seemed to be parked illegally in a handicapped parking space with the intention of personally confronting the offender when they came to retrieve their vehicle.
I’m sorry, but that is considerably more likely to lead to trouble than inviting a man into your apartment. Hell, I’ve invited shitloads of strange men into my apartment without getting raped, molested, or banned from a gym. If that makes me incautious, it makes you a complete moron.
What is this nonsense?? You are acting as if the man brutalized her, raped her, and then said that she led him on, and was begging for a taste of a real man.
She played the dumbass, and thinks that by saying “I know, I know…” that this makes her a victim, or by inviting a man into her small apartment, she made clear for him to act as if he were alone in a public setting.
Listen, if the OP had wanted to be clear, she should have called a taxi from her cellphone before they even left the vehicle. She sent out conflicting signals. Yes. No. Separately, they are clear. Combined, they are unclear.
You “signals” guys are a hoot. Acting like we’re some endangered non-verbal avian species with complicated markings and exotic, choreographed courtship displays.
Hey, humor me, wouldja? What subtle, complex, intricate and inscrutable “signals” do you fellas practice when you wanna get some? I’m afraid if I find myself single again that I’ll overlook some esoteric hint of romantic interest or misinterpret a fidget, a sneeze, or a facial tick as the go-ahead. Since I can’t trust your words at all. I mean, barring helicopter dick. Diosa already told us to watch for that one.
LOL. Didn’t you just threaten to slink away butthurtedly because the mean words I said made you sad? Now you’re back with a fucktarded vengeance and telling me to leave my own thread? Confirmed: you are stupid.
But you have directly confronted people, yes? Blocked them in while waiting on the cops? If someone had jumped out of the car and beaten the shit out of you, and you vented about it here, would you have considered it appropriate for people to respond with"Well, you shouldn’t have done that"?
In any other arena, when people stand up for their rights and get hurt, they are lauded as heroes. When it comes to women and sexual violence, they are stupid and careless and therefore deserve no sympathy.
That said, I do think you and many others in this thread are trying to actually talk about the issue, and the “You’re either with us or a rapist” rhetoric is not helping.
I wouldn’t say we’re taking it quite to that extreme, but what should we call someone who doesn’t take no for an answer and persists with sexual advances in the face of being told no — repeatedly?
My point is that someone saying “Sometimes relationships and communication get really fucked up” is not the same as saying “If she says no, she likely means yes, just keep pushing”.
I mean, on one extreme we certainly have assholes who think that no means maybe until she’s actually called the cops. Everyday I see little pregnant 15 year olds that I feel confident had no real understanding that they even had the RIGHT to say no to the 17 year old boyfriend that “chose” them, and that’s something fouler than rape. I 100% agree that we have a world of assholes that think that if they can get her to say “yes”, it means it’s not rape, and that means it’s ok, because it’s not illegal: guys that wouldn’t cajole their buddy into spending $20 he didn’t want to spend because it would be a dick move think that pulling out all the stops to cajole a woman into sex is just proving what a man they are. I agree with all that.
But relationships are fucking complicated, and some people in this thread have tried to talk about that, only to be shut down and lumped in with rapists. That’s ugly. The other extreme is that any sexual attraction to a women is inherently disrespectful, and that sexually desiring a woman diminishes her, and so you have to separate the world into “women I respect” and "women I want to fuck’. That’s not so good for gender relationships either. No means no, but there’s often no clear no or yes, and it’s ok to be confused about what to do in that space of ambiguity.
And the “tard” thing really pisses me off. You know who really get sexually victimized in this world? The developmentally delayed. To go off about “tard” this and “tard” that in this context is in poor taste. It’s especially in poor taste to keep going on about it after being called on it by a guy whose daughter has developmental issues and who, I suspect, lives daily with the reality that he is pretty fucking helpless to be sure she’s properly protected in the world.
I can’t think of a better reason than to use heated language than with posters who not only insist that no doesn’t mean no, but also confess to coercing women who told them no. Of course, the tales are just as likely to be pure fantasy, as every internet lothario thinks he’s learned the skills to drive women wild online, but just in case some up-and-coming internet pick-up artists are reading along, someone needs to say NO MEANS NO loudly and apparently, repetitively.
I encouraged **Anonymous User **to start a respectful discussion of complex dating matters, but this particular example of consent/denial gone sideways seems to operating at the level it deserves.