The problem is that your first sentence opens the door. You’re trying to rectify that by qualifying “outside of narrow specific criteria” but that has no logical basis.
Sure. But there’s a middle scenario. Suppose there are no “regulations or attitudes” but the nature of the business tends to be done - for historical or practical reasons - in a way that does not appeal to many women. Suppose, for example, that it does not lend itself to flexible hours. Is that a “problem” that needs to be overcome? Or is that just the way things are?
Caution is fine. But the issue is rarely she says ‘yes’ and indicates otherwise. The problem is when she says ‘no,yes,no,yes’ in several different ways at once. Caution is a good idea, but we’re talking about something that started out as consensual, not the guy jumping out of the bushes. When a couple are making out and it gets hot heavy and he’s got both hands and other parts of his body in contact different parts of hers, and she the same, and she says ‘no’ and doesn’t disengage do you really expect the guy to pull away? Do you think if they continue and it leads to coitus he is then raping her because of her ‘no’ some non-specific act earlier on? When you reduce advice to sound bites you get this kind of confusion. Saying ‘no’ should be specific, loud, and require physical disengagement to be taken seriously.
I’m not saying this because I think women don’t know this, and I’m sure they’ll say they’ve done that and it didn’t help, and I’m not addressing that at all. I’m talking about how you discuss this subject and educate people. The problems aren’t a result of the clear cut cases.
If she said “no” and he’s not sure what she’s saying “no” to then he should ask her what she’s saying “no” to. How does that contradict or sit in tension with anything I’ve said?
I would disagree that “no” requires physcial disengagement or loudness to be worth taking seriously. In every case what is said is of paramount importance in determining what is communicated. All other signals are much, much more unclear than what words are actually being uttered.
When she says ‘no’ while she’s stroking your johnson it’s not likely to be heard correctly. Trite sayings aren’t going to resolve that problem. If ‘no’ doesn’t have to meet a standard like Clear and Convincing then it has no meaning.
I am honestly confused about what you’re trying to say here. If she says no while stroking his penis, he needs to ask her what she means by “no” doesn’t he?
Let me be clearer. ‘No yes yes yes’ does not mean ‘no’. I don’t ‘know’ does not mean no. Whispering ‘no’ does not mean ‘no’. Writing ‘no’ on a note and giving it to Suzy to give to Scotty in math class does not mean ‘no’. ‘No’ means ‘no’ when it’s clear and obvious what you are saying ‘no’ to, and you don’t follow it with ‘yes’.
I don’t know how often cases like that happen, but that’s not the point. The point is that when your argument consists of a trite saying it gets ignored by anyone who can think of the obvious exceptions. And that’s how the ignorance propogates.
This is a really important point to this conversation. It’s one side of the rape culture argument distilled to its essence, and, even though I know you said it was tangential to the initial question you asked about defining misogyny, but from… well, I don’t know if there’s an “us,” but from my perspective, it’s the same point.
You’re making an assumption about what the tipping point is between the green light and everything other than the green light. What you’re saying is, if me and a chick are on the couch after a date, it’s fine that the assumption is that we’re having sex until somebody very coitus-interruptus-ly says otherwise. If we’re making out, there needs to be clear and convincing evidence that it’s not OK for me to get up in it; if that’s not the rule, then the whole idea of coming down hard on non-consensual sex can’t be taken seriously. Right? That’s how I’m reading you.
The reason there’s a cliche about the feminist “no means no” is that, all due respect, it’s exactly what you need to hear to understand what the objection is here. The problem is that the assumption you’re making is extremely deferential to what the guy wants (and by guy I mean the person who isn’t saying no, which isn’t the way it has to be, and so on, but for simplicity’s sake), to the point of being completely reckless to the other person’s desires. It makes perfect sense, from the guy’s perspective, that he’s going to plug away until something pierces the boner-generated veil of disregard he’s operating behind. It makes perfect sense that she would have to say “wait wait, I’m saying no, don’t put your dick in me. Do not do it.” But that’s not the only perspective. Think about it from the other one. Why exactly should he be allowed to make that assumption? As long as we’re out here in the classroom, and not the laboratory, can we articulate a single rational purpose for having everyone just understand that a person who doesn’t want sex has a burden of proof before we should take that person’s wishes seriously?
Whispering or not, she’s saying the word no. Who the fuck is the guy to determine that it isn’t a powerful enough no?
Well, the specific rule that you violated was threadshitting.
I did not accuse you of “being a troll”; I accused you of trolling in the context of this thread.
If you refrain from further activity that looks just like trolling, you will not acquire the epithet “troll.” If you continue to submit posts that are facetious, off topic, and obnoxious, you will earn the epithet “troll.”
Any further discussion of Moderating regarding this thread should be taken up in the ATMB forum rather than further hijacking this thread.
I don’t know why I bothered. I’ve changed my mind. Tell your daughter to whisper ‘no’, and then stick her hand down a guy’s pants. He’ll understand she means no. And keep up your ‘no means no’ campaign, it’s been working great so far.
I also don’t know why you bothered. I intend that my daughter’s first line of defense, incidentally, is going to be outliving the dinosaurs currently walking the earth.
And yet, I wouldn’t be a troll. I mean you should look at my other posts.
And as far as trolling in this thread alone, even then the reason I posted like I did is cuz this debate is largely pointless. It’s one of those issues which one’s opinion on or one’s attitude towards is on average determined entirely by emotion and other things not strictly conscious like self-image and tendency towards empathy.
Even, say, the most controversial political issues always have at least a slight factual dependence, even if some public figures ignore this.
And so I wouldn’t call it trolling.
P.S. Facetiousness and text being obnoxious to you is hardly a good reason to exercize moderator powers. And as far as being off-topic, not really. It’s not as though I posted an article on “Tomato cultivation in temperate climes” or something.
I’m not even sure I’ve actually typed the words “no means no” on this thread (or anywhere else ftm). My argument has consisted of quite a bit more than a trite saying.
You may be reading something into my posts that’s not there. (That is… if you’re reading my posts at all…)
What you’re saying here does nothing to contradict, indeed hardly even addresses in any particularly informative way, anything I’ve said.
