The strange thing is that the behaviour in question of (some of) these supposedly powerful, charismatic, assertive etc. men is indeed so pathetic (good call LG @100). Unexpectedly starting to wank in the presence of a woman? Asking for a "massage"? Pretty sad actually.

I simply don't know how to respond if people are characterizing sexual harassment as an inherent quality of a charismatic, successful, assertive man. I have known my share of charismatic, successful, and assertive men, and undoubtedly some of them may have a side to them I haven't seen or don't realize, but I don't believe that all of them would force a woman over whom he has professional influence to watch uncomfortably as he masturbates.

How did this behavior get conflated with "women say they want charismatic, successful, and assertive men and then complain when they act all charismatic and successful and assertive?"

Quick question for the defenders here: when a guy masturbates on a street, is he simply a charismatic, successful, and assertive man who doesn't have an office? Is he just honing his charismatic, successful, and assertive skills until he has more influence over people? Does he just want to get out in the fresh air instead of in a hotel room or office? Was the guy who pulled his van over to the side of the street, and beckon me over when I was 11 years old so he could whip his dick out and stroke it just being the kind of charismatic, successful, and assertive man that I would be attracted to when I grew up?

@95: I'm sorry, Archie Bunker, but I couldn't read your message to me, as the program that converts black text to pink failed on my computer. No doubt though, it was too advanced for my poor feeble female brain to comprehend.

@92: "Speak for yourself, I like seeing penises."

Does proper context not matter at all here? I think that was implied.

@95: "you, like many women can't separate the theoretical from practical reality"

That nobody takes you seriously is not a "women" thing, it's that you make broad-sweeping claims that are ungrounded in "practical reality".

@73. One person. I would think that empathy would increase the 55yo schlub's chances of having sex with an attractive 25yo woman. Some young women have sex with older men. And it's not as if being a schlub is written in stone. People's faces change a lot, just to give one example, when they lose weight.

JuanMas @ 95
Your line of thinking is the one leading some societies, mostly Muslim but not exclusively, to force women to cover their entire body and face at all times.
Of course it’s only for women’s own good, after all men are always horny no matter what.

Muffy is a conservative. Muffy thinks life is fair. Unless Muffy is six years old. Either a six year old or a conservative.

The poor deserve to be poor. The rich deserve to be rich. The basic law of the jungle is that if you are alive, you must deserve to be alive. If you are being eaten, you deserve it. We never need to ask how you got eaten or what you do to stay alive, any more than we need to ask how the rich got so rich, or how the poor got so poor.

Because life is just fair (it just is!), riches accumulate to those who have what it takes to get rich. If you interfere to slow the accumulation of wealth, you're working against their inherent ability. If you help a poor person, you're doing battle with their inherent nature. They became poor because they ARE poors. Giving them help does't make them any less inferior. Things were fair before you started helping people, and now you're just trying to change nature itself. Conservative love to laugh and laugh and laugh at those poors who win the lottery and waste no time in being poor again. They love that story! Tell it again, daddy!

But! Small problem! It turns out that you can't just pretend Judge Roy Moore doesn't fuck kids. You can't just say (out loud) fucking kids is OK. Believe me, conservatives have tried! It looks bad and you lose seats in congress. Your customers desert you if you advertise on Hannity, or on any show that says it's just the natural order for dudes to go where the young girls are and pick one out for themselves. It's bad for business. So let's kind of make a show of TRYING to not be in favor of that. The HIGHER law is that if you can, then you should, but for now, business is business.

So life is just fair. Men are just men. Women can be exploited and abused, and men can do it, so like becoming rich, it's ok to do it. For the sake of keeping votes and keeping customers, let us conservatives "pretend that men can just flush the testosterone out of their bodies". Evolution (the law of the jungle, remember) says that it's hard wired for men to do all of these things, and if it's in our nature, it's OK. But let's "try" even though we will fail, even after 1,000 lifetimes. In 1,000 lifetimes, we can all admit that the law of the jungle was right all along, and men will still be preying on girls and the rich will still be demanding a tax cut.

If you're wondering if conservatives see the irony in their cynical use of vulgar Darwinism to justify greed and exploitation at the same time they deny climate science because it gets in the way of greed and exploitation, um... no. They do not see the irony. Too busy clinging to their belief that all is as is should be. That alone takes up all their mental agility.

Conservatives like Muffy are not going to ever let go of believing life is fair, any more than a six year old will. Six year olds eventually turn seven, but conservatives don't grow up so fast. Even when whipping your cock out and spewing fresh spooge for an unwilling audience is ever so obviously NOT FUCKING OK, no conservative is going to loosen their grip on their need to believe life is fair.

It's more profitable, just lately, to repudiate a child molester rather than embrace him, but deep down the law of the jungle says, "hey, so what if she was 14? That's life, honey, and life IS fair. I know you're sad about being child raped, but hey, the poor are sad too, and do we care?" If conservatives admit that we shouldn't just let women be treated like that, even though the fact that it happened to them means, by the law of the jungle, that they were incapable of stopping it, then you are on the verge of admitting that we can't just let the poor be poor. Communism!

Ultimately, whatever happens to you is YOUR OWN FAULT, because life is fair. See? Conservatism. I do believe Muffy is having some cognitive dissonance about now, because Louis C.K. and Moore are so fucking disgusting, but don't hold your breath for this baby to wise up yet.

Still, I'll say it for Muffy and the rest: life is not fair, babies. Some day you'll realize that. Some day you'll wise up.

LateBloomer, not again with this - it is possible for a man to be very successful and kind, humble and considerate at the same time. How are you measuring success? My husband's very successful in his chosen field and also kind, humble and considerate (well, I think so anyway).
And not all women are attracted to arrogant show-offs either. It's such a weird idea.

@79, @81:

many of the wives who basically shrugged off the accusations that their rich and powerful husbands are rapists are not attracted to that personality trait

Many aren't, sure, but many are. History has shown over and over again that people are titillated by power that neither asks questions nor hesitates before doing what it wants, that crushes all opposition and ignores all objections. They like to bask in the glow of that power, and they like the permission it grants them to disregard the quiet voice inside them -- not to mention the hectoring "thou shalt not" prohibitions of their mothers, teachers, etc., now seen with quiet contempt as hypocrites or naifs who, unable to back up their moralizing with real force of their own, rely instead on others' forbearance and protection.

We elected a president who's on record as saying that life bores him except when he's making a deal or crushing someone who's disrespected him -- practically a paraphrase of Flannery O'Connor's famous line, uttered by a serial murderer, that life offers "no pleasure but meanness". Still, for every Macbeth there's a Lady Macbeth -- someone (male or female) cheering the sadist on from the sidelines, vicariously thrilled by seeing all their aggressive impulses given vent by proxy.

Hell, many Trump voters as much as admit that they don't really believe Trump is a Christian or that he'll help them in any way. They just want to see liberals, gays, etc. get kicked in the teeth. If their life is shit, at least they want to be entertained (and get their seething rage validated) by seeing some preening, gutless Other be tortured -- or worse -- at the hands of their champion, to whom all appeals mean nothing. (Did medieval crowds really care whether the person being hanged was guilty? They wanted blood and spectacle, not justice, and would rather be the hangman than abolish hanging.)

As for my pessimism, I completely agree that our social institutions are the force that can potentially counteract our innate selfishness and amorality (which goes to @78's question; parents are obviously crucial, but their gains are ephemeral in the face of a dysfunctional society that rewards sociopathy and celebrates war). The problem is, (1) those institutions are under massive attack (obviously) and (2) they can't do anything for that percentage of people without any capacity for love or empathy. Whatever system we build, no matter how noble, they will attempt to game it and destroy it, simply because they don't want anything to exist except as their slave or plaything: for them, again, there's "no pleasure but meanness".

People like those are almost exclusively responsible for the horrors of this world -- directly, or through destroying the psyches of the vulnerable (children et al.) who then go on to perpetrate horrors themselves, or by manipulating large numbers of people to their own destructive ends. We can't ever reach them; there's no humanity there to access. They'd rather see the world burn than see it happy.

We can, however, reach most people, including men. But what, exactly, are we offering that will improve their lives and bring them closer to their goals? The message from much of the Left seems to be "Listen to us, get woke and you'll...feel shitty about yourself all the time!...hey, actually, it'd be best of all if you didn't exist, so would you mind just killing yourself and getting out of the way so that someone untainted by privilege can have your stuff and your spot?"

Innate selfishness and immorality @109? Where do you get this from. We learn to share and we learn morals from the culture we are born into. Nobody has to feel shitty if they treat others with respect. Why is this concept such a stretch.

"Women are socialized to defer to men"

Yes, women are powerless beings, stripped of their human will be an evil society that, at every turns, tells them they must submit to every whim of a man. Dan, what Seattle do you live in? Perhaps my 87-year old mother my have been socialized that way, but she deprogrammed herself in the 1940s and such training is hardly the case today, not even close. The few sects that preach such nonsense are the subjects of ridicule and satire.

The power CK had over these women was they "admired" him?!?! What? How is that power over them? I have admired every boyfriend I've ever had and don't suggest in the least they had power over me to have sex against my will.

The sexual assault craze has now reached the point where even asking permission for a sex act isn't enough. This stuff utterly and completely undermines women as beings with self-determination and a will of their own. It reduces them creatures whose feelings allow men to control them. If someone famous asked to masturbate in front of me and I didn't care for it, I would say so loudly and with emphasis. I'd leave if the person persisted. CK is being kind to these women who now seek to deflect their own powerlessness on to him.

CK asked to have a form of sex with fully adult women who were entirely of their own volition and with the consent participated.

@107 Again with the straw men. Instead of taking something I say and expounding on it until it means something YOU want it to mean so you can knock it over...Try taking it on its merits.

I never said that any sexual assault or harassment was ok. I said the opposite. I said this is a good time to be living in because it looks like those behaviors are on their way to finally being unacceptable. Awesome! One hundred and ten percent for it. But let's define what is and isn't acceptable in a real way and then enforce it. You lefties are horrible at that because you are always making decisions based on your emotions. That's why I have beef with Dans "meaningful consent" BS. Words have meaning already. Yes means yes. If you don't want to see a dick then say no. If they show you a dick anyways, THATS when you've been assaulted/harassed. Let's keep things real simple for the dummies out there that wanna whip it out on the reg.

My conversation with lava girl that you so moronically missed the point of was that when she said why aren't men held accountable for their actions, I asked, why aren't ALL people held accountable for their actions? Never said the poor deserve to be poor. Your answer, that "life isn't fair" (no shit Sherlock) is a child's view of the question (that ironically you are callIng me out as) is filled with pity and contempt for the poor and those who struggle from a beginning less than desirable and not of their choosing. You're not their champion, you're another version of an oppressor. You're also a privileged brat who has never struggled in a real way through adversity and seen any success and it's obvious to anyone who has.

My other point was just that men (humans really) are foul creatures with hormones that have affects on their behavior. No excuses for the behavior or the hormones or the men, just that it's a fact of life. Does that sound like a life is fair analysis? Dumbass.

So get at me when you can actually argue a point other than one you've created for yourself to knock down, you vile anti Semitic clown.

Jesus.. Louis isn't going to jail, is he? What he's left with is a world who now looks at him and sees a sad middle aged man, his reputation is shot. Nobody has accused him of rape, and yes, it's perfectly feasible that the women could have said no and could have walked out that door, if this guy had just been a regular moron and not a celebrated one. Maybe women are not taught to defer to men so much in this day and age, they sure still fear the bastards. Every Last One of Them. Because of how they have been allowed over time to indulge themselves. Indulge their sexual impulses and anger and sense of ownership over and entitlement to others, mainly women.
You think Patriarchy is just some word thrown about, it's been how it is for fucking ever. But. Here now in the west with all these sad insecure damaged men being exposed, grant us women a moment, and it will only be a moment, to lash every last one of them. Maybe they are catching our rage for being intelligent women who have had to deal with so many lesser creatures, for so many yrs.

MacAdvisor, muffy, et.al.: sometimes people don't feel as though they can say "no" safely. They fear for their physical safety; they fear for their job; they fear for their career; they fear for their reputation.

Some people are much less powerful than others. When someone far more powerful "asks" if the less powerful one wants to do x, y, or z, it's not really a question; the more powerful one isn't really going to abide by a "no" answer, and the more powerful one doesn't really care whether the less powerful one wants whatever it is, or not.

Power imbalances can be achieved via a great age difference, a difference in status or caste or place on a hierarchy. It can be a result of significant income inequality or physical inequality. One person may be a member of a respected class such as the clergy; another may be a powerful executive; another may be a successful performer with lots of clout and influence in a field, or a lawyer or a senator. One person may own the beauty pageant. The other person might be very young indeed. They may be naive. They might be afraid of appearing difficult or shrill. They may be certain that no one would ever believe them and that this will be over soon and then they can just get the hell out of there.

It's naive and idealistic or obtuse to insist that, say, a 14-year-old girl is equal to an adult judge or to insist that any "yes" whispered by her was in any way a valid agreement to being fondled. It's equally naive and idealistic or obtuse to say that young female comics have equal power in the comedy world as one of the most popular comics of the 21st century. They may be equal in a theoretical sense, but they are not equals professionally. Note that C.K. hasn't been accused of harassing women more powerful than he is or even women who are his social equals. This is why Harvey Weinstein's dealings with Meryl Streep were appropriate, but his harassment was reserved for women who were younger than he, and less well-established in their careers, women who needed something from him or stood in a position to be hurt by him. Women, in short, who were less powerful than him.

Women, especially poor women, especially young women, especially women of color, and most especially young, poor, non-white women, risk an awful lot when an older, richer, powerful, influential, famous man "asks" them something such as "do you want to watch me masturbate?" They risk angering and embarrassing that man, and if they do that, they know there will be repercussions. If they walk away, they may never work in their chosen field again. If they tell someone, they often aren't believed, or worse, they're portrayed as being manipulative liars who are trying to gain something for themselves or vengeful shrews who are trying to destroy an innocent man or politically-motivated unstable pawns, trying to bring a member of the other party down.

This is why meaningful consent matters. That phrase is not bullshit and it's not a ridiculous feint of the liberals to make men's dating and sex lives difficult. It doesn't reduce women to powerless beings to say that if the man doing the asking is significantly more powerful in all those social, economic, and political arenas, he is banking on that inherent inequality. It's disingenuous to pretend that all "yesses" are equal and that there is no need for greater diligence on the part of the person who asks someone he has no prior sexual or romantic relationship with, who he knows is alone with him because he is seen as instrumental to her career, if she wants to watch him masturbate. If his kink is exhibitionism, he can easily get that fulfilled elsewhere. In the case of C.K., it's obvious that his kink was in making women who felt that he had control over their careers watch something he had very good reason to assume was making them extremely uncomfortable.

MacAdvisor, I'd suggest that the reason you have always felt so empowered is that you have never been put in the position of trying to weigh your "no" against the man's influence over your life outside that room.

If you go back to a man's hotel room, a man you've been flirting with, a man you don't know, a man you have reason to expect never to see again, it's far easier to say "no" to a request that is unwanted. If the man who asks you to do something sexual you don't want to be a part of is really your equal, your social equal, and you don't fear for your safety, it's relatively easy to say, "Eww, no! Gross." and walk away.

And there's the element of shock that no one's addressing here. Most of these women didn't expect that within minutes, C.K. was going to take off his clothes and stand there, dick in hand, "asking" if they wanted to watch him masturbate, as he starts to masturbate. I imagine it's one of those deer-in-headlights moments, where you freeze, not even quite sure what's really happening for a moment or two--and then it is happening. Next thing she knows, it is a done deal and now everyone can say, "Well, why'd you let him do it, then? You didn't say 'no.' You could have walked away."

When I was seventeen I worked as a store clerk for a fifty some year old man who also owned a winery. He needed people to help at a wine festival. As long as I wasn’t drinking I could do it. So he invited me to the winery (his house was on the land) to learn the vintages and got me rip roaring drunk.

What a bastard. Somehow I managed to get out of there. No really it isn’t easy to say no. And I’d bet if the genders were reversed it wouldn’t be easy either.

Ever wonder why survivors of a given kind of hardship or abuse often have LESS empathy for those in the same situation?

See "When prior experience reduces compassio… The basic attitude is that "if I survived, you can too you big baby!" People's egos and nostalgic memory lapses magnify their own pass success and minimize the difficulties. Instead of recognizing how hard it is for someone to handle sexual harassment, they perceive that it's really not so hard.

This effect is lessened if someone had a different kind of hardship. If they survived chemotherapy, they still have less empathy for sexual abuse victims, but more than those who suffered the same abuse in the past.

It's possible to overcome this reflex, with intellectual honesty and humility, but lacking effort in that direction, past hardship often makes people more selfish and unhelpful.

@110: Amorality, not immorality. Big difference. Another poster and I have been discussing this for several posts, so I'm not sure why it's hard to understand "where I got this from". Simply put, I don't think human beings are innately moral or altruistic, but that civilization helps to make them so; otherwise, our default state is (on average) selfish, amoral, and self-serving.

As for "no one has to feel shitty if they treat others with respect", I don't think you'll find all of the most prominent activist voices agree with you. In many cases what they want isn't respect, but revenge.

@117.

Yes!!! I had no idea the effect had been studied but I have definitely seen it and experienced it.

nocute, do you really not see a straight line between the behaviors that foster a certain kind of success and the behaviors that make a guy get a little rapey? There are of course people who become successful because they just pursue a passion long enough to become very good at it, and become sought out. And they can be humble, and there are also others who wear authority lightly, and inspire, and again I'm not talking about those. There are many many people who pursue success for its own sake, for the perks it brings, people who want to get ahead, as it's euphemistically called--athletes, businessmen, investors, guys who get ahead on drive--which I think our society encourages and celebrates, and those are the guys you want to be careful about. They are necessarily self-promoting and self-involved, because they have a vision that they want to pursue and need to impose on others, and it becomes a habit; and if they need a team for support they get used to being deferred to. I think in managing a path to success you have to be a little ruthless: you get used to valuing your time over others', your needs over others'. You can't be too obvious about it because that backfires, but you never deep down really doubt your primacy. Maybe you even cut a few corners now and then because it's a competitive world out there and how else are you going to get ahead? It's a state of mind, and in my opinion it's the same one that allows you to lean a little heavily on the women you want something from. It's not like it's a hardship, right? And aren't you owed it for all your hard work? And isn't success supposed to be attractive?

Maybe I'm painting the guys with drive a little too black. Drive doesn't have to equal entitlement. But I find they are so close together that maybe the lines blur a little, and bad things ensue, and can be rationalized away using the same arguments.

LateBloomer, of course I see that line with some people. I simply object to the brush-off I think I was reading here from commentors who were asserting that women like rapey men and then cry rape. I am particularly irritated at those who insist on treating the Louis C.K. harassments as if it was straight-up about sex.

That's all.

P.S. check your email.

busy_quilting, are you saying our society does not have a cult of celebrity and success? Because I could swear it does. And more to the point, for most successful and influential groups there are associated groupies: musical groupies, political groupies, artistic groupies... Heck, an old friend of mine is in a cover band you've never heard of, and when he played my home town I witnessed the handful of giggly women who waited around for them afterward and made themselves most forward and available in a way I have never seen women make themselves available before. It was weird. But social workers? No groupies. I think that's pretty consistent.

And what about the likes of Melania Trump? Did she marry Donald for his charm? Of course not, and my point is, by marrying him for his money and prestige, she is implicitly supporting and rewarding whatever methods he used to get them. Personally I don't envy Trump his life...but I think there are enough guys who learn from him and his ilk that success excuses everything, and gets you hot babes too. And that once you're wealthy, you're entitled to that. And I cannot for the life of me relate to or understand the women who find that attractive. #notallwomen, to be sure, as you say. Thank goodness. But enough to encourage the wannabes. And I find that a problem.

In case it's not clear, I am not defending Trump or Louis CK's penis or disgusting winemakers who take advantage of seventeen-year-olds. Men need to work on not being assholes, that is certainly the most important thing right now, but I also feel that there are other aspects to the usual discussion on harassment and power imbalance and meaningful consent and sexual desire that don't get dealt with in good faith. But if you want to fix a problem you need to look at all sides of it clearly.

Louis and Harvey and Kevin violated others,
that's the issue here. Rumours about these men have swirled around, as we now find out, for years. And they were enabled by a system which silences victims because the perpetrators were successful in their fields of employment.
The problem will be fixed LB, when each man realises that their actions have consequences.
Women ( and some men) are speaking out about assault and harassment and naming names. Keep your dick in your pants and your hands to yourself unless clear consent is given. Easy really.

I liked this article on the Louis C.K. revelations:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/scaachikoul/lou…

and they were tied to their chairs because of…..admiration?

LateBloomer I'm not denying anything you say above. I just think you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes success. You imply a social worker can't be successful because they don't have groupies, but I know a couple of social workers who are regarded as very successful in their fields, and are respected by their peers and colleagues as they go about their challenging work. Is success defined solely by celebrity and groupies?

I understand the being-shocked-and-freezing thing. That's happened to me. I'd like to think that one could snap out of it, say "No" or "fuck you" and walk away in a situation like these, but I get that it often doesn't work that way.

But someone masturbating at you over the phone? I mean, c'mon. Say, "Dude, you have issues" and hang up. Right?

@127: Yeah, ciods, that seems do-able enough.

Whether these women walked out or hung up the phone is of no relevance. This man imposed himself and his sorry dick on them.
And he has daughters.

That's a good article, nocute. I'm reminded of the shock of finding out that Jian Ghomeshi was a predatory dude--in case you never heard his show, he was, like Louis CK, intelligent, self-aware, and also portrayed himself as a sensitive and staunch supporter of women's rights. Super disappointing. I guess he just learned to say all the right things. (Which, as an aside, means that someone who respectfully disagrees with you--with reasons--might be more worth your time than the guy who parrots what you like to hear. >Winky emoticon<)

busy_quilting, I suspect that my definition of success is similar to yours. I'm talking about a phenomenon that I can only observe from the outside, because I don't get it. It's the facet of success that seems to act as a sort of panty remover for (some!!) women. It's some kind of sexual attraction to prestige or accomplishment or...whatever.

When I watch a woman playing guitar on stage, for example, the fact that she's playing a guitar and is good at it does nothing for me. Accomplishment does not attract me or trigger any sexual interest--I will be just as attracted to the unknown woman in the third row who also has a nice figure and a nice smile and seems to exude good energy. And I'm inclined to think that's fairly typical for males. But an onstage dude (guitar player/actor/preacher/motivational speaker/business leader/politician/what have you) seems to be some fairly intense draw for (some!!) women in a way that is so common that it's a cliche. And it also extends to successful comedians, I understand. (It was a small-town, watered-down version of this that I witnessed when my buddy with the band came to town.) And the attraction seems to be more to the persona or the prestige or the accomplishment or whatever, than to whatever personality the dude may actually possess. Who he may actually be in real life almost seems irrelevant. (Guys have a similar dazzle-blindness, but their weakness, I would argue, has more to do with body shape.)

That's Exhibit A. There's a certain kind of success that makes access to casual sex with women a lot easier than for the rest of us mortals. Exhibit B is the (I would argue) fairly universal desire of men to engage in casual sex with willing partners. That's been explored extensively in this hallowed space: BiDanFan talks about how much easier it is to pull men than women; guys have to jump through multiple invisible hoops to interest women in sex, whereas women just have to show up; etc. Again, this is common enough to be a cliche.

So when someone is successful like that, I don't doubt that they develop an expectation of sexual interest from admirers, perhaps somewhat justifiably because they've had enough experiences to prove it, I don't know. So that expectation is partly reinforced by their own experience, and in some cases furthered by people like me writing things like this. And I can see how that could eaaasily grow into a sense of entitlement, and an expectation that their sexual interest would of course be welcome. I think it would take an extra strong moral compass to stay honest in that kind of environment.

Exhibit C is the bit I argued before, the certain ruthlessness that may be needed and exercised in pursuit of success, that will frequently be a part of (or be learned by) the kind of person that has the drive and energy and desire to excel in a competitive environment. And we, society, reward that somewhat unpleasant (at least socially) trait by recognizing accomplishment and success, and yet at the same time we expect it to be throttled back in the pursuit of sexual success.

I'm not saying I don't expect better from powerful/influential/successful guys, I'm saying I can't muster outrage when those guys act...kind of predictably. I don't have a solution to this enormous problem, but I'm pretty sure it's not getting angry and lashing out, it lies in having a reasonable (ie non-idealistic) understanding of what motivates people, and setting up society accordingly. Personally I'm wary of dudes with drive and an interest in power, I don't know why they are encouraged, and above all I don't know why they are sought out sexually. That was my original comment, more or less.

This is all over and above the sticky issues of meaningful consent, and what behaviours to reasonably expect from people, men and women, given their needs (which are constantly up for debate, and often not debated honestly because we don't want to cop to our base desires. Plus there's the issue of: inherent or learned? Divided by gender? Universal or not? Etc), and how best to communicate, and how to overcome one's reluctance to communicate clearly, and and and... I honestly don't know how people date successfully, but more than anything I'm trying to figure out what consistent set of rules to give both my daughter and my son on how to treat themselves and members of the opposite sex (they're both straight as far as we know so far), without overly alarming them, and without leaving either of them with a sense of entitlement or a sense of shame. Tricky balance.

The one thing I do admire and believe should be encouraged, busy_quilting, is the kind of frank admiration and support you have often expressed for your spouse in this space. I think there's far too little of that from both men and women, and I don't think the world can hear it often enough. I think as a society we're down on each other a ferocious amount. I like to believe that we can encourage better behaviour far more successfully than we can browbeat bad behaviour, especially when we only have a fuzzy idea of what is causing the bad behaviour in the first place. Lavagirl. People look at each other and pay attention and pick up social cues all the time, so if it's clear that a guy can get good lovin' by being a decent, caring, supportive partner, I think that goes a long way to motivating guys to direct their energy in positive directions. And, sorry to say, but that message is just not getting through. I know a lot of women say as much, but the message is being undercut in a number of different ways. Wives who lose sexual interest in their supportive husbands, for example.

I hate to be blunt, but guys are strongly motivated by their dicks. Work with that, don't fight it. And you, busy_quilting, are doing a tremendous job of leading that charge. So thanks. It sounds like you have a very solid, very sexual, very awesome marriage. Nicely done.

Here endeth the lesson. Guess I needed to get some stuff off my chest. I will now retreat back to my hermitage.

Funny boy. You live in a hermitage.
My marriage was very sexual, it was other stuff that sent it down. And women are driven by their cunts, you know LateBloomer. Under the right conditions.
As a woman who has been outside a thirty yr marriage for seven yrs, I see how I felt contained by male sexuality when it was present in my psychic space. I was a good nurturing and probably indulgent wife, I didn't get it back. Still the main child rearing yrs were shared, so I wish him well in his new story and I love the single life I've made for myself, most of the time.
My erotic inner life has never been so loose. And I'm a woman in her middle sixties.
I was taught to defer to men. To their feelings and needs, and the men I have been with subtly expected it. I sense a big shift in my sons' generation.
Wives losing sexual interest in their husbands isn't because the men have depth to their feelings. I think it's more to do with the lack of surprise, unexpected dirty talk or a bunch of flowers.

I fucked a singer once, from a well known Sydney blues band. It's the singing and the freedom of expression males have onstage, not sure as many women inhabit themselves as freely. There was an Australian woman, Christie Amphlett from the Divinlys, she's the only female performer I think has aroused me as a singer as a man does. I'm sure others feel that way about a lot of female performers.

Surprising a woman in a Zorro mask could be pretty neat.

@Late @130: I enjoyed this post, and want to respond to a few points. It interests me that you say that seeing a woman play a guitar well, e.g., does nothing for you; I suppose I will just speak for myself here and not all womankind ;) but to me, the attraction is in a display of competence. I find competence extremely sexy, and seeing someone do something well almost always makes them more attractive to me. It has, I think I can fairly say, almost nothing to do with "success," although of course there's a positive spiral: someone who is competent at something difficult (and who also has a work ethic and a lot of luck) will tend to become successful, which will make his competence more visible to more people, thereby attracting more people, etc. But the overt success isn't the main thing (in fact, I fell head over heels for my first real boyfriend when I heard him playing piano very well--to an empty room).

I also don't think the exact flavor of competence is all that important, although certain types of the arts get certain types of showcasing in our society, and so (like the success spiral), you may associate music, acting, etc., as being the professions most likely to cause panty-dropping. But for me that's just because those are the ones you most often see. (Slightly simplistic, of course; acting and music also play with emotions, so they do create more of an aura around them than their technical capabilities alone.) But I'm equally gobsmacked by my husband, who is competent at a wide range of things (almost none of which you would see on a stage).

To me this makes sense. Scarcity (and the impression of scarcity) creates value, as with precious stones; competence is scarce, as it entails a lot of work. It's therefore valuable for being rare, without even getting into the ways it might be useful and pleasing to have around. This is why, for instance, if someone is really good at a video game, that still doesn't impress me: getting good at video games is easy, most any idiot can do it, and so it had no inherent value. (Also it's not useful or pleasant to be around.)

So what gets me is your claim that that doesn't do the same thing for you. Or maybe it's just that guitar-playing wasn't a good example? You're not more attracted to women who display that they're good at something? (And here I mean other than 'being sexy').

I should add that I speak only from my personal spot, of course. I think in your examples and posts, you are also referring to a type of woman who is attracted not just to the competence, but also to the success, the power, the assumed money. And I completely agree that those women are out there. I don't get an attraction to fame, myself, being a private person (an ironic thing to post here, but oh well), but of course it makes sense to be interested in power and money. Both things are handy in a pinch. To me that's no more confusing than men being attracted to pretty. It's just nice to have around. So there's a flip here, of course, to the stereotype that women will put up with assholish behavior if a guy is rich, which is all the men who put up with bitchy and personality-free women so long as they're beautiful. And I am sure those women do mistreat people, although the manner might not be as obviously problematic as the abusers we're hearing about now.

I'm going to agree with Lava, however, that women who lose sexual interest in their husbands aren't losing it because the husbands are decent and supportive. I understand where that feeling might come from, a sort of strange manifestation of the "assholes get all the girls" worry. But I don't think that's it. Sadly, I think it's mostly likely just basic biology. We've seen a fair number of studies now that show that women are (counterintuitively, for those of us raised with old-school American stereotypes) more hung up on variety in their sex than men are. And after a few years--well, lots of women (not all) just want something different. They aren't interested in having the exact same sex with this exact same man, no matter if he's wonderful and supportive or an asshole. But that's not okay to say, so instead it gets phrased (even in their own head) as not being interested in sex.

Ha, thanks for slogging through my epic post, ciods. Just wanted to say that "guitar playing" was indeed a stand-in for accomplishment of any kind, and that I have no thrill of attraction to that. I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most men are that way. Interesting though, learning the difference in what motivates people, no? I've seen (and made) this mistake many times before: people going to great lengths to improve themselves in ways that they would find attractive, without realizing it does zero point zero for the people they are trying to make themselves attractive to. Know your audience, right?

You picked up on something I alluded to in an aside, but yes, I would say men's weakness is physical attractiveness. And that's just as silly but also just as (I think) primal as the accomplishment thing--which, even though I accept it, is still to me is as bemusing as saying, I don't know, "I'm helpless when it comes whistling. A good whistler makes me sooo hot." Prioritizing height is a similar puzzle for me: it's like being excited by the size of someone's big toe. Utterly irrelevant. If I were gay for a day I would be attracted to bodies that are compact and useful, like a rock climber's or a gymnast's or something. Height almost seems like a liability in many situations, but some women will actually specify minimum heights on their OKC profiles or whatever. Queer as folk.

No one asked, but for interest's sake if I had to rank what piques my sexual interest, I would say it is body shape first and foremost, then what I can glean of a person's energy and attitude by their body language, and then personality and charm--kindness, intelligence, humour etc--a distant third. So shape, energy, personality, in that order. Status, accomplishment, talents (non-sexual ones) aren't even in the running. That's more for determining shared interests--a friendship thing, not an attraction thing. And the shape thing can be disconcerting when my eye is caught by a lovely shape down the street, say, and then she turns around and I find I'm looking at a fourteen-year-old girl. Or a particularly fit seventy-year-old. (I'm middle-aged.) But I can't turn that interest off, it just kind of runs on its own track. I can only modify it after my interest has been aroused.

But on the subject of attraction...it sounds like you need to admire your husband, yes? That's the source (or a source) of your attraction and appreciation. Interesting. For me, admiration doesn't hurt, but the quality without which I have no LTR would be more along the lines of tenderness: a sort of helpless desire to want the best for my partner as a reward for simply being who she is, shortcomings and all. But that tenderness can't grow in the absence of a strong sexual connection. So no sex, no LTR. Complacent wives, take note.

I don't doubt what you say about women's need for variety. Interesting, though, that it comes paired with a ferocious desire (usually) to not tolerate the slightest expression of same from their husbands. The almost universal condemnation of a wandering eye is at odds then with what women want for themselves, if what you say is true. But in my case it's backward, so it's not a universal rule. My wife would just as soon have the same thing the same way all the time in nice, comfortable predictability (albeit very infrequently). It was my pressing for and encouraging variety (between us and for both of us) that really blew things out of the water. So I guess a person can have general rules of thumb about what motivates people, but allowance must be made for individual needs.

Thanks for sharing, ciods. It's an anonymous venue so that makes it a little easier to honestly explore motivations and experiences. I miss that aspect of slog.

I've following the ciods/LateBloomer/busy_quilting discussion with interest. It kind of reinforces what I think of as elemental differences between men and women.

I understand the appeal of competency. It's impressive.
I understand the appeal of power and wealth. It means you will have access to those things yourself.
I understand the appeal of artists--musicians especially (whether successful or famous or not). They are creative and so we admire their taste and they chose you--you feel special. Plus there is always the hope that you will be immortalized through their art. It would be so cool to be a Muse.

Sometimes I think that women have historically been attracted to those things which they wish they were but which were denied them by society: A powerful man. A man who does what he does really well. A man who is adored by others, who entertains. If I couldn't be the heroic figure, the next best thing was being loved by the heroic figure. Every story our culture has ever told us shows us women primarily valued for their beauty: the beautiful princess; the maiden who was the fairest in all the land; the king's daughter whose face shone like the moon.
Believe me, the message sinks in. The only other thing that women are prized for in stories is their "gentleness"--read pliability and lack of agency or subjectivity--though sometimes being "wise" is also thrown in.

So being chosen by a desirable man is also an affirmation of a woman's beauty, to herself and to others. Witness the concept of the first wife and the trophy wife. Note the looks disparity between successful men or rich men or artists or especially musicians and their wives or girlfriends. I wonder if as more avenues are routinely open to women, they will stop being attracted to men with those qualities and shift to being attracted by the same things LateBloomer says he is: the outward physical form alone.

But if a man achieves a beautiful woman who has no other accomplishments as his mate, he's considered to have done well for himself, whereas a woman who achieves a beautiful man who has no other accomplishments is slightly scorned by both men and women, as is the man himself. Because we expect more from a man and we expect a woman to want more from a man than beauty, but we don't require more from a woman than that.

Hey Lava, did you notice that you cop to being aroused by men who inhabit themselves and express themselves freely, especially onstage, but that your marriage ended partly because male sexuality contains you? By George, it's almost like what attracts a woman is the same thing that drives her away. Imagine.

Just teasing--it's not a criticism, just an observation. But it is sort of in line with what I've been belaboring at such great length.

It's not just the outward physical form alone, nocute, but that's where it begins, and a strong pull it is, too. But good, sexy energy alone can seal the deal, although granted it's a little more work than if you've got a righteous bod to bring it on home. And don't forget that different guys have different tastes in body shape. And also also, don't forget I don't speak for all men. This is just my own unrepentantly shallow sex drive. But I'll wager it's pretty common.

No, but I think you're right at the essential, LB. I particularly liked your point that: "Interesting though, learning the difference in what motivates people, no? I've seen (and made) this mistake many times before: people going to great lengths to improve themselves in ways that they would find attractive, without realizing it does zero point zero for the people they are trying to make themselves attractive to. Know your audience, right?"

I miss SLOG discussions with more participants, but I have to say I have learned a lot about what men think from them. It's always enlightening to realize that someone else doesn't feel or think about something exactly the same way as you (universal, theoretical "you") do.

@14 The reason why women don't say no more directly is they pay the price w/ their safety. Men hurt us for saying no directly.

John Oliver did a bit on this that was helpful: Starts at 15:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0jQz6jq…

Personally I think the idea that it does not even apparently occur to men to even think to look for a clear constant enthusiastic yes is a major part of the problem. Women aren't required to be the brakes on men's cars. Men should have their own brakes and also look out the damn windshield before driving.

Trying to find a recent Twitter thread by a father re teaching his sons, re: men looking at consent as a speed bump, a hurdle you're just supposed to get past, rather than an ongoing and essential part of a physical and maybe emotional connection that is really the only thing worth having, and how to teach sons something the entire culture works hard to teach them the opposite of. Having trouble finding it, will continue to look.

And another, on the reason for men's defensiveness on this issue and deliberate refusal to understand/insistence on dodging, why men think resistance is good:

https://twitter.com/FeministaJones/statu…

LateBloomer @134

No one asked, but for interest's sake if I had to rank what piques my sexual interest, I would say it is body shape first and foremost, then what I can glean of a person's energy and attitude by their body language, and then personality and charm--kindness, intelligence, humour etc--a distant third. So shape, energy, personality, in that order. Status, accomplishment, talents (non-sexual ones) aren't even in the running. That's more for determining shared interests--a friendship thing, not an attraction thing.

No one asked me either, but I just wanted to add that this rings very true for me also, with one exception: if a woman is a great singer that is, to me, sexy in itself (while being a great pianist, violinist, etc., isn't in itself sexy, admirable though it may be).

Crikey, it's hard work thinking about this stuff! I've never thought that hard about what makes a man attractive to me, but my best friend knows that a bloke who is tall, slim and clean-shaven with reasonably short hair and a boyish face will always make me look twice, which she finds hilarious. Having said that, I haven't even done anything I'd consider flirting with anyone apart from the husband for the last 25 years so it's mild indeed. And a man doesn't have to be rich (definitely not) or powerful but he has to be clever and funny and kind, and good at something even if that something is a bit odd like geometry. That's pretty much my husband and he still seems to want to have sex with me frequently which is a pleasant surprise. I think he's pretty happy as long as the sex is still fun and frequent.
This year for the first time I've felt my libido begin to lessen which is making me sad. I'm hoping it's not permanent and everything's still good at the moment. I've always been so smug about our sex life that having to work at being interested in sex sometimes is an unwelcome shock. I find terrible erotic fiction helpful - particularly the series of books by Samantha Kane about hot bisexual soldiers in the early 19th century! So embarrassing I've had to put a password on my Kindle!

It is worth questioning - when you're a person (particularly a man) with power and prestige, how can you possibly ever be in a sexual relationship safely? If you can't trust that the people you are attracted to while give you a real answer (let's assume for the sake of the question that he did indeed ask). Like, I completely get that in many ways, for him to ask a question, isn't a question. But how can one *ever* get consent from anyone when your power and prestige are considered to inherently create a duress scenario?

@busy_quilting--There's that accomplishment thing again! Fascinating. The take-away for me is how powerfully motivated people are by stuff I can't begin to relate to. My wish is that we understand and accept this about each other, with exasperation maybe, but not with contempt, which seems to be in abundant supply these days.

I sincerely hope your libido ebb is no more than that, and will be a flow again in short order.

LateBloomer et al: I want to jump in and add that I am also very attracted to a hot bod! In case you thought that was guys alone. I would say that's #2 on my list of attractors (after "intellectual curiosity" or something like that). And hell, if you are talking about purely sexual attraction, maybe it's #1. Or, like you said, something like a sexual energy, which is more personality combined with body than body alone.

But it's hard for me to have a conversation about "sexual attraction" without wanting to include other personality traits, because even if I'm not looking for a full-blown relationship, I'm going to want to spend some time with the person, have a conversation or two. And so then it becomes immediately much more complicated, because they now have to start qualifying for someone I'd like to be at least low-level friends with.

And honestly, to make horrible generalizations, a lot of guys with fantastic bodies are pretty vapid. At least, in my limited, sample-size-of-one experience. It's a tricky balance, of course. You want someone who looks like (a) they are trying, they are aware that choices they make can affect how they look and they have made some intentional choices but (b) they don't spend all their time thinking about their looks. For me, I really appreciate a touch of style or effort in a guy, especially because women (generally) put a lot of thought into how they look--even if the thought it, "fuck it, I shall buck convention and *not* do x, y, and z to myself"--and it's nice when you feel like a guy has at least tried. But if you look like you spend every day at the gym, I'm going to guess (perhaps wrongly) that we have nothing to talk about.

In a LTR, yes, I absolutely have to admire the person. And respect them. I think it's about as astonishing to me to hear that admiration has nothing to do with it to you as the reverse is for you to hear :) I guess, it's something like: I'm going to be spending a lot of my time with this person. Since personalities, actions, etc., rub off on you, is all that time going to make me a better, more interesting, more thoughtful person? Or is it going to (if you'll excuse the hyperbolic language) drag me down into someone less cool?

I really like nocute's observation that for a long time many things (power, money, success, etc.) weren't available to women directly, and so an attachment to a man with them was one way to have access.

And Late, as for your mention @134 about women heavily policing any "wandering eye" from their husbands, I will also go historical and claim that it's out of a deep-seated fear of being left. Of course the situations are different now, insert disclaimers here, but certainly in the past a divorce was a serious financial blow to a women, especially if she had kids. And having your husband leave you for his younger secretary was a stereotype for a reason. I think that fear has morphed into the policing you talk about--not that it does any good! Ironically I suspect women who are more mellow and allowing with their men end up with happier men who are less likely to leave in the first place. But fear doesn't always work rationally.

Also I'll reiterate that although I believe the variety thing, I think that for many women it's either not totally true or *they themselves don't think it's true*. In my last marriage we weren't having much sex. I knew it, he knew it, it was an issue. I really wanted us to, because I enjoy sex, but somehow when we tried it always seemed to fall flat. I felt awful, so did he, and we probably avoided trying as much as we should have because of that. I thought I must just not be feeling that sexual, since I did want to want to have sex with him, but I didn't want to (if that parses). I didn't know what was wrong. Well, the whole thing blew up (that was a big factor, but their were others as well) and the moment it was over and I was out there with someone else, bam, my sex drive came roaring back.

I don't feel great about that. I wish it had been there with my husband (well, I don't, because I'm happy now, and so far as I know he is too, but you know what I mean). But it just wasn't. And maybe if we had done more to admit that we both wanted some other sex, we might have worked through it together instead of imploding. That's why I really appreciate it when Dan talks about opening marriages. Not that it works all the time. But for some people to know it's an option, to have that in mind from the start so it can be employed early as a source of joy, not as a bandaid. I dunno, it's hopeful, I think. Because I do think for some people (not all!) monogamy is just too boring after a while.

ciods, I agree with virtually everything you say in your post (even, to some extent, the way sex functioned in your first marriage.

Just to clarify, ciods, I was talking about sexual desire just on its own. What makes a person feel it. As soon as you talk about acting on it, or about friendships and LTRs, now you bring in a whole other set of concerns.

One of the most illuminating things Dan ever posted (for me) was that testimonial from the trans man, and his experience of desire once he'd started taking testosterone supplements (apologies if my pronouns and terms are incorrect)--how quickly things changed to his being visually aroused regardless of context, and how direct that feeling was (ie no thought involved, which I gather was a new experience), and how often and how strongly he'd feel it for strangers in public and how little control he had over it (over the feeling I mean, not his ensuing behaviour obviously). There was some issue with the dosage being wrong and maybe that was part of the issue, but still the general point holds: men and women, by and large, experience desire differently. It makes me wonder how many other of our experiences differ fundamentally.

For example--can you desire someone you don't like? I sure can. To me that speaks to how elemental and beyond the reach of better judgment my desire is. I know women can have crazy monkey sex with guys they know are wrong for them...so obviously there's something elemental about female desire too. But who would choose to be turned on by someone they can't stand? (It's a really interesting feeling though.)

(I didn't have much else to say because your post made a great deal of sense and I've got nothing to add. Your insights into your first marriage cut a little close to the bone, but thanks for sharing. I'm glad you're past that and in a better place.)

Late @146, re: being attracted to someone you don't like. Yes, it's happened to me a few times, although it's never someone I outright can't stand. If I intensely dislike someone, they will hold no attraction for me. It's more in the category of "attraction to someone you know is not good (maybe in general, maybe just for you)." It always has the same format, which I can now more clearly recognize, and it goes like this: a guy I meet in some social circumstance is pretty good-looking and quite charming. Fairly early on I can tell he's probably some sort of scoundrel, but the charming is, well, charming. I enjoy banter and verbal play--for some reason Americans don't really specialize in that, not in the way that, say, Brits do--so a guy who's good at that can often get past my first layer of defenses, especially if I have some reason to be friends with him to begin with (e.g. he's a friend of a friend). I now think of this type of guy as someone who has doubtless put a lot of time and effort into learning to be charming, in order to be good at getting girls into bed (note that this is a totally different category than learning to be good *in* bed!) These days I'm more immune to it--I can more easily recognize it, and play the banter game without actually getting into a physical relationship with the guy. But in my twenties I definitely had a couple guys like that who I ended up sleeping with. Now, I did know ahead of time that they weren't LTR material, so I went into it with eyes open--I knew it was just about sex--and in some sense I didn't really regret it. But neither encounter was very satisfying for me, sexually (see my note above), and in one case I later wished I hadn't bothered getting at all entangled with the guy, since he proceeded to sleep with everyone I knew and make me feel a bit stupid for falling for his schtick.

(It's funny, the crazy-monkey-sex with a bad boy thing never happened to me. All the really bad boys I went for were crap in bed, or at most okay. All my crazy-monkey-sex has been with really awesome people.)

I now think of "charming" as likely to be a bad thing. In my experience it's usually disguising a lack of a deeper personality. And since I think it's nontrivial to be really charming, I think it means that person has been working hard at that for years, probably at the expense of working hard at other things, like, for instance, being a good person. But that's just my own biases, of course.

Oo, I'm with you on the empty charm. It can be so transparent and cheesy. I'm as impervious to male charm as I am to male body shape, so I always watch it in disbelief. I just feel embarassed for the dude, and bad for the woman. But what the hell, it seems to work, they're both getting something out of it, so who am I etc.

True wit though--I can dig that. That I can respect. Male or female, I am in awe of someone who can think on their feet. And there's usually some actual substance to someone who can do that.

So about that lust business. My understanding was that women have a hard time separating sexy-time feelings from their appraisal of a person, which you've sort of corroborated. Not so for me--I had a room-mate in first year university who drove me nuts. She was stuck up, opinionated, entitled and shallow. We had nothing in common. I also found her incredibly hot. It was a confusing year.

Body shape and sexy energy. That's all I ask for. I am a simple man.

In other news, I just caught a glimpse of an ad for something called "DP World Championship" or something. Any takers?

I'm a gay man, watching these heterosexual dynamics from the outside. 14 and a couple of others have talked about women not saying no, in fact sometimes saying yes, but meaning no. And how men need to learn how to understand when a woman means no even when she says yes. 37 says it has to be "enthusiastic consent", not just words that sound like consent.

How is this sensible to anyone?

If you mean "no", you have to learn to say "no". It doesn't matter that your mommy taught you not to be impolite, or your daddy told you to be nice to men, you have to learn how to say "no" and stop contributing to abuse. If you're involved with a violent man, and are afraid to say "no" - leave. Just leave. Why are you hanging out with a man who harms you?

Whenever sex is involved, for both men and women, if you mean "No" it is your responsibility to say "No". And if you mean "Yes", it is your responsibility to say "Yes". It is also your responsibility to accept "No" as no, and "Yes" as yes - unless you suspect they said "Yes" but really mean "No", in which case, challenge the "Yes" and make sure it's not some poor ignorant soul who's mommy told her never to say "No".

Seriously, a lot of moms and grandmoms have contributed mightily to the abuse of their daughters and granddaughters by training them to say "yes" when they mean "no". It's time to break that chain of failure.

If women had all, long ago, started saying "No" whenever they encountered random gropings or worse, we wouldn't be in this mess today. So start saying either "No" clearly, or "Yes" clearly today, and then when men behave badly it will be clear to everyone else what the situation was and who was at fault.

Then, if some jerk ignores your "no" - go to whatever authority has control over the situation. Your boss, his/her boss, the police, whoever. If everyone starts doing that, it will become standard behavior and those who have opposed women's equality will have to cave.

@150: ECarpenter, this discussion isn't about an average man and an average woman on a date with a yes or no question (and your complete obliviousness to what it means that woman have been socialized to be deferential and how easily it can be culturally erased is mind-boggling); it's a question about a situation in which there was an inherent and substantial power-imbalance.

And seriously: "So start saying either "No" clearly, or "Yes" clearly today, and then when men behave badly it will be clear to everyone else what the situation was and who was at fault."
Say you're a young, inexperienced comedian, and an older, very famous and well-established and well-regarded, and influential comedian is playing in your town and you meet him after his show and talk a bit and want to continue the conversation, but the club is closing and so he says, 'want to come to my room and continue this?' And you think, 'maybe he's trying to hit on me, but maybe he's not, and if he starts to put the moves on me, I can see how I feel as we kiss,' but when you get to the room, he immediately takes his clothes off, as you stand there stunned, says, "mind if I jerk off?" and proceeds to block your way out of his room by standing between you and the doorway.

So you tell someone that the famous man behaved badly and then what happens? Nothing to him. He's still famous, making tv show, executive producing other tv shows, selling out huge venues and having those shows filmed to become movies, etc. And you? Either no one listened to you at all, or they suggest you must have misunderstood what happened, or they question what you expected when you went to his room, or they think that you're an opportunist trying to shake him down for money or use this sensational rumor to give a push to your career, or that you're crazy. Or whatever they think. No one else was there. It's your word against his. He says it didn't happen or it didn't happen that way. IF someone asks him about it later, he says it's stupid and malicious gossip and he's not going to dignify it by answering.

Sure, yeah, right, when men behave badly it will be clear to everyone else what the situation was and who was at fault.

Or are you suggesting that when the famous man shed his clothes and started masturbating, it was the young woman's fault because she didn't say , "No. No masturbating." And then of course, he'd stop. Because this was always about a consensual mutual sexual encounter, wasn't it? Let's say she did say, "no," and he does it anyway. How can she prove that she said no? She's in the exact same situation as if she merely laughed nervously in stunned disbelief and discomfort, which is to say, powerless and ignored, or maybe punished professionally, while he continues to enjoy fame and acclaim.
Oh yeah, I forgot: So start saying either "No" clearly, or "Yes" clearly today, and then when men behave badly it will be clear to everyone else what the situation was and who was at fault.

Nicely put, nocute.

@104 "Does proper context not matter at all here? I think that was implied."

I like seeing penises in any and all context. Send me random dick picks all day long. Whip it out at the state fair. Use it as a turn signal while driving. Whatever.