You COULD do that, but why not just tell him directly that he is not invited if the subtle clues fail? You want to destroy his reputation in the community because he showed up at your house instead of just politely telling him not to show up?
“Responsibility” for what? Again, if nobody is making an accusation of criminality, then there is no “responsibility.”
If it is as you claim, a mutual mistake that caused hard feelings, then the charge is on the party who has these hard feelings to make a change. I’m just gobsmacked that a man should have to change his behavior so that he does not upset someone who does not express that she is upset.
Each of these situations is unique, and you would admit that we could change the facts of the Aziz situation ever so slightly and it would mean that she did not want sex on this first date, or at this moment (give it some romancing and maybe in one hour) but that he should keep trying.
I’m not sure why this issue is different than others. My buddy wants me to come out tonight and have a few beers. I would rather stay at home and go to bed early, but in any event, I don’t like drinking with him because he gets mouthy and wants to fight.
I first tell him that I am tired. He calls me a pussy and says he is coming to pick me up. I tell him that my wife wants me to do some work and/or that she has made a special dinner. He makes a whipping sound.
When I go meet with him, it was neither of our “responsibility” to stop that meeting UNLESS I want to complain. Then it was my job to be forthcoming with my buddy instead of playing 20 questions.
Because of course it’s not just my one party. He also crashes other people’s parties. And he’s really pushy. I mentioned that he wasn’t expected, and he pushed through my door saying “good thing I came anyway”. It’s actually pretty hard to get rid of him without being persistently rude. The effort of getting rid of him is unpleasant, and maybe a little frightening, since he’s a big guy. So I let him in this time, because it’s the path of least resistance. But I take steps to avoid him in the future, and to protect my friends from him.
I was hoping this wouldn’t become a debate directly about Ansari. Manda JO where have you been in the other thread? I’m drowning over there! 
Anyway, the thread is of course free to evolve however it will!
I haven’t been around the SDMB much for a year or two.
I can’t remember. Do we say “this” after quoting a post here?
Because this very much.
Do you have any problem with what I said in post #92?
I’m guessing not and that you do not endorse a standard in which “yes” means “no” unless it is “YES!!!”
And that both parties should attempt to express their wants and do-not-wants clearly and that both parties should do their best to understand the communication that the other is expressing.
Also that this seems to be an issue more in circumstances of casual sex with a relative strangers. Partners in longer term relationships are more likely to understand each other better and hopefully to be more comfortable in saying what they do and do not want.
Now that said let’s use the Ansari case as a case study. Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Stupid maybe he wasn’t, ignorant might be a better term, but clearly she was completely aware that he was behaving as if he was not getting her cues. It is completely possible that he was doing his best to understand them. Call him too stupid or socially awkward to read that her not moving her hands as much was a sign to stop rather than a sign to try something different if you want, call men as the general case that way too for that matter. And too clueless to be aware that he was misreading. Unearned confidence? Maybe. There was though still one person in the room aware that she was not being understood.
Discussing an opinion that men as the general case (or in a specific case) in hook up casual sex communication circumstances have an excess of unearned confidence and are both stupid and abrogating their responsibility to try to understand a potential partner’s communications more fully, is completely fair. Attributing that behavior to malice as the default, a bad man doing bad things, rather leaving open the default option of ignorance, let alone taking some ownership of the shared miscommunication, further then calling that alleged malice “sexual assault” and inciting the mob to take out their torches and pitchforks to kill the monster, is OTOH not only not fair, it is counterproductive.
Someone does not get your not subtle hint that it is time for them to leave? If you need to be blunt then do so, even if it risks hurting their feelings. “You need to go home now.” If you do not do that at that point then don’t be shocked to have them asking for coffee at 6 am. Their being spectrumish is their excuse. What’s yours?
You’ve asked in the context of the Ansari incident why we don’t teach to not to grab someone’s hand and put it in their crotch? You realize I am sure that this in context of a sexual encounter in progress that had already included lots, inclusive of mutual oral sex. If I was teaching I’d be teaching my children, male and female alike, to clearly and unambiguously communicate what you want a partner to do, verbally and nonverbally, demonstrating and guiding if need be. In the context of a consensual sexual encounter in progress that has reached the level hands and mouths on genitalia I’d hope they’d be able to grab their partner’s hand and show them clearly what they wanted them to do with it. Yes, grab that hand and guide it. If you want good sex you have to teach the other what pleases you just as much as you have to eager to learn what pleases them. He or she declines your guidance the first time but is clearly still participating? Don’t be shy about trying again to offer the guidance. Rub here like this. Do you think that would be bad advice? In the middle of that level of a sexual encounter in progress while the one wanting to do the guiding is feeling quite passionate do you believe that doing that needs a “time out” to get explicit consent?
Manda JO,
Again, males in the general case in the hook up circumstance need to appreciate that many females are hesitant to object or to express themselves in a straightforward manner.
But I wonder what you think about this approach for helping women have the tools to not passively acquiesce?
I think that’s very interesting. Or should I say, instead, why do you ask?
So, I’m going to go ahead and post even without an enthusiastic “Yes”. Feel free to call me a cad.
I’m not sure who the “we” is who blames clueless people for being clueless. Communication is hard; for some people extremely so. We’ve all been the clueless person at least once in our lives. If you’re going to warn your friends about the clueless person, how about saying “So and so has some difficulty with social cues” rather than “So and so is an asshole”? Why not treat people as people with good and bad qualities? The asshole who won’t get off your couch might turn out to be Paul Erdos.
Back to the OP, I don’t think that it’s workable really as a norm. But pace LHoD’s anecdotes from the schoolyard, I think there’s a better norm. Why don’t we have a practice where when you’re hooking up with a new person, you have some friends or mentors around to referee? When you meet new people for a first date, you often have friends along to take the pressure off (or at least you used to - it’s been a long time since I’ve dated). And you certainly do it in a public place. Why not extend that to the bedroom. If you’re going to have a casual hookup, make it extra casual by having a group around. Bring an ex who can coach your new partner in what you like. Have a parent around to throw the bastard out if they don’t listen. Once you get to know each other well, you can start having sex without a chaperone. By that point you should know how to communicate with each other on your own.
Sounds like a better norm to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is in reply to UltraVires, who was replying to MandaJo:
Wha? Responsibility to be civil. Or have we thrown all notions of character and non-cadishness out the window??
And if his behavior is violative of common norms, but she doesn’t say anything, then he can go on groping and pawing at unprotesting females as long as he likes? It’s very much his job to get an effing clue, no?
Your advocating for people to speak up with hurt feelings is fine, but at the same time you risk denying or minimizing punitive approaches (which may include a healthy dose of communal shaming) in dealing with the cadish.
Yeah, I meant to call this out. Not doing illegal things is the bare goddamned minimum for functioning in a society. Things work out way, way better if we hold ourselves to a higher standard than “not actually breaking the law in our interactions with others.”
I may be within my legal rights to catcall random women as I walk down the street, or to tell Christians they’re a bunch of sheepfuckers, or to hurl random racial epithets at strangers. Nevertheless, I maintain I have a responsibility not to be an asshole like that.
In a sexual situation–especially one with a relative stranger–there are legal obligations. But there are also ethical responsibilities, to try to make sure the other party is not having a shitty time. A person who doesn’t bother might not violate the law, but I do think they violated ethical responsibilities.
I think as things currently stand we tend to put women in a double bind: On the one hand, we criticize them for not being assertive enough in situations like this, on the other hand, more generally, we tend to criticize them when they are assertive.
That’s one reason I tend to favor criticizing men in situations like the Ansari one over criticizing women in those situations–while also acknowledging that in the bigger picture, we need to fix how we talk to everyone about how to handle situations like this.
But are there relevant double binds we put men in as well, concerning hook up communication? I’m interested in hearing if that’s so.
Really though? Can you give me some examples of people criticizing women for assertively and clearly expressing her limits and/or interests in a hook up casual sexual encounter circumstance, especially one already in progress?
No, I cannot. I’m not privy to too many such conversations.
Do you agree that in general there is a tendency to criticize assertive women?
If you do, would you, like me, be surprised if that didn’t have an effect on how they choose to communicate in sexual situations?
I think that there are still some archaic attitudes out there about assertive strong womanhood in the public sphere that have had strong assertive and appropriate pushback against them, most famously perhaps with the embrace of being a “nasty woman”. But in general women being assertive about not doing something sexual that they do not want to do is not criticized so much, and in many of America’s cultures an assertive woman in the family as mother and wife and sometimes as solo head of household/breadwinner is considered the norm.
You want an example of the many double binds that men in that circumstance deal with? Telling them, appropriately, to expect and embrace assertiveness, straightforwardness, and equality from women in the public sphere, but then telling them to as a default presume an inability to not say yes when they want to say no, and weakness, of women when dealing with sex.
That’s interesting… I have almost the completely opposite experience. Pretty much every time I’ve had someone who wanted to use my bathroom, or wanting to use someone else’s, the phrase “do you mind if I use your bathroom” or “can I use your restroom” etc is used.
It’s never a point of awkwardness or even a serious question though, it’s basically just used as a placeholder for “Where’s your bathroom?” with the implicit assumption that the person is going to say Yes - the standard response is “Of course, it’s down the hall to the left.”
Right. The solution is to stop criticizing women for being assertive.