Comments

505
Did you know that on my 2008 4GB iPhone you have to stop and reload after 500 comments? I never knew that before. Huh.
506
AD, on my totally "normal" desktop PC you have to, too. See what I did there? I used TWO different ways to spell that word. Oh, wait, make that three ways.
507
Attitude devant, that happens on my laptop computer too. When I go to The Stranger and click on SLOG and find this thread, I have to click on this comment thingy to see anything after comment 500. It takes a minute to load everything, but I didn't remember it working that way before either. Really, I'm trying to remember the last time I saw the comments get over 500. I think it's been quite awhile.
508
burp.

update: she wasnt molested but is just a stupid bitch
509
I think we really all have to hand it to Alemana. I have never seen so much output in such a short time on any blog ever. Very impressive, and as she points out, not edited for length either. The sheer volume of characters!

Well, don't feel any pressure to keep it up in the future, Divine Miss A. We are sure this could never be equaled or surpassed.

510
The guy's a creep. The creepiness is not that ambiguous- she says "he wouldn't stop" and "while I was asleep". ug.
511
Well done Alemana and I hope you keep posting here. But I suggest giving this thread a rest. You can't teach a pig to sing and there's definitely a pig or two in this thread.

512
puddles, first off, you opened your rant against me at #233 with "how fucking annoying" I am, so you're a total hypocrite for insisting on white gloves. As Dan Savage so beautifully said, "Fuck your feelings." Your insufferable victim-blaming gussied up in mock-empowerment is every bit as offensive as that "polite" Christian who didn't think gays should get married, and I'll address your bullshit for the bullshit it is. Answer the meat of the debate, where I actually discuss real situations where it is not feasible or advisable to say "No" and fight back, or just admit you're putting up mock indignation because your argument is worthless.

You've taken on this incredibly stupid bizarro-world where it is somehow "empowerful" to give people the license to touch others without our consent. You are actually advocating women having to be on the defensive at all times (even when asleep, apparently!) instead of living like fully-fledged FREE human beings who can enjoy a basic expectation of personal space and respect. If we don't hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, we will never get to the point where we're truly free, and people like you will always give the perpetrator a free pass. You are so convinced that you're so strong that you could NEVER be in a situation where you weren't able to act the way you'd want, and so you're willing TO THROW A VICTIM UNDER THE BUS to puff up your naive and narrow-minded world view. You're trying to shame and silence someone who IS trying to speak up now, and be empowered now, and you want to deny her a voice and keep her a victim in real terms, only out of your mind so you don't have to think about victimized women, and you can live in your "empowerful" little fairy tale.

Did you not read the comments about when people are simply too stunned to say no?! Or anything at all?! Did you not read what happened to me? Tell me, O brilliant one, what you would have done--would have you gone running alone through the streets of New York at 1am? Or does the fact that I had no real alternative but to sit there and take it make it all right? Or am I intentionally taking on the "Victim" role for not wanting to get mugged?

NO ONE is suggesting a woman who is in a situation who can easily say no should just sit there all victim-like and take it. We're saying that for some people fighting back isn't possible for that space and that time (due to a lot of complicated and subtle factors), and putting the burden on the woman to act the right way is victim blaming and bullshit. You know what? Some people are shy, some people are weak, and some people are intimidated, sometimes only temporarily. They deserve their rights too, and they deserve people to stand up for them. And, when they get the courage or insight to act later, we need to respect them and support them instead of saying, "Oh, why didn't you do X, Y, and Z."

Read this and try, at least TRY, to understand that some women were brought up differently than you, have different (and often much less supportive) support systems from you, and different tolerance for physical risk than you. They have a right to their personal space, and throwing them under the bus, instead of holding those who hurt them accountable, is the LAST THING that is going to get them more empowered.

Furthermore, she probably had a very reasonable fear that he would humiliate her and berate her for her cheating. That was probably emotionally devastating for her, judging by how she's writing about it. I know you're perfect and you would never let your feelings get in the way of anything, but just because people aren't like you doesn't mean the people who victimize them should be let off. Also, I've gotten some REALLY impressive verbal abuse from guys when I assert my boundaries (especially that asshole colleague of mine!), some of which have made me genuinely fear for my safety. And I'm not just a wilting flower, either--he threatened a 45-year old muscular guy from a different chapter of our organization and HE complained that this colleague made him fear for his physical well-being. Some days, you just don't want to risk it, and I respect that, but that DOES NOT make you a sitting-duck victim and it does not make what they did okay. When someone gets that instinctive "I'm in danger--minimize risk!" instinct, we need to understand that it's a natural part of being human, not that we can "otherize" them and stupidly insist WE would never be like that.

As for your cashier analogy, again, if for whatever reason (you're running late, the cashier won't listen to you, the other customers are angry at you and insist you move along) you can't fix it then, you should have every right to go to the store manager and try to fix it when it IS possible for you. But, more importantly, your cashier analogy shows that you think women's experiences when they don't say no are that they're just too prissy and lazy, rather than understanding the very real way lots of people in the world respond to fear.
513
Pastaefagoli, YOU are denying women's sexual autonomy by saying that if someone is in the wrong situation they should expect to be sexually assaulted, that if others would consider sex in that situation that it's perfectly okay to use their body regardless of that person's INDIVIDUAL WISHES, and that "things like this happen all the time," and you call ME a victim for speaking up when I could and can (as opposed to WHAT?! Is it more "empowerful" not to admit that I was really upset about what happened and let him get away with it??) Reread posts 289 & 323 to see how much you DENY women their sexual autonomy. It's breathtaking.

But it's okay--the next time a family gets their house broken into, I'll tell them how they should have prevented it, argue against having the robbery investigated, and mock them for trying to get the police to look into it. I'll ask them while they feel like victims and say it will tell other people to purposefully make their houses easy targets if we try to punish the robbers. I'll claim that everyone who is arguing for paying more attention to preventing crime is encouraging people to leave their doors unlocked, even if they've actually said no such thing. I'll go on at length praising how secure houses can be that there's really no need to hold the robbers accountable for what they did, that it's all this family's fault if their own house wasn't so secure.
514
@467:

1) You aren't the only one on the thread offering examples.

2) Neither Hitler nor Train Guy were involved in the scenario brought to us by the Letter Writer. The ex-boyfriend in question didn't do anything resembling either Hitler or Train Guy. Try to stay on topic.

3) Increasing the strength of your profanity does not increase the strength of your argument. Righteous anger is not a substitute for reason. Mostly all it accomplishes is increasing your word count.

4) Regarding "metaphorically blow your brains out": Duly noted, but no thanks. One of us posting with head exploded is already more than enough.
515
Listen, this writer is clearly all about PC. While there is no time limit on accusing your aggressor, I beg to ask the question..... What is SOOOO important about this situation that you feel it completely necessary to speak about it now? If this person was a good friend of yours who's now dating your ex of 6 years- that person is a crappy friend. Womans law #42: NEVER NEVER NEVER date an ex of your girlfriends. How is it possible this woman made it to woman-ly-hood with out this knowledge?

So I'd say- while I ALWAYS feel it necessary to error on the side of "Speak up, stand up for yourself and not allow it to happen to another person" You my dear writer are clearly not so concerned with the welfare of your friend as you are upset she is violating woman's law #42.

Search your heart and ask yourself this important question: Do you REALLY feel this man is a threat to your friend? To society? Or are you upset he's getting the best of you by dating your "friend"?
516
Listen, this writer is clearly all about PC. While there is no time limit on accusing your aggressor, I beg to ask the question..... What is SOOOO important about this situation that you feel it completely necessary to speak about it now? If this person was a good friend of yours who's now dating your ex of 6 years- that person is a crappy friend. Womans law #42: NEVER NEVER NEVER date an ex of your girlfriends. How is it possible this woman made it to woman-ly-hood with out this knowledge?

So I'd say- while I ALWAYS feel it necessary to error on the side of "Speak up, stand up for yourself and not allow it to happen to another person" You my dear writer are clearly not so concerned with the welfare of your friend as you are upset she is violating woman's law #42.

Search your heart and ask yourself this important question: Do you REALLY feel this man is a threat to your friend? To society? Or are you upset he's getting the best of you by dating your "friend"?
517
Alemana, don't fucking lie. I never called YOU "fucking annoying". I said, and I quote, "It's so fucking annoying when...." blah blah blah. So yes, what you are DOING is incredibly fucking annoying. But it is not the same as calling people names.

As for your response, as always, you're completely distorting my every word. So let me put to it to you this way: it is YOUR world view that is naive and narrow-minded.
518
Avast: I think what LW's bf did was a lot WORSE than Subway Guy--LW's bf was forcing explicit genital contact.

You've utterly failed to address the point that it's wrong for you to approximate how close her relationship was by your arbitrary standards to what's "closer to" a consensual scenario. It has to ACTUALLY BE consensual, according to her standards, because it's her body.

If you're upset about profanity why the fuck are you reading Dan Savage's column?!?! Please don't pull the pearls-clutching shit with me.

puddles: weak rationalization. It's a comment section, and your hateful twisted beliefs deserve every take-down they got. Also, HOW did I distort your words? Make a case and back it up. Otherwise, it's just a cheap variant on Bill O'Reilly's "They took me out of context!" whine that Tortoise Turtle already tried to pull and couldn't actually defend.

And no, saying that people have a right to control their own bodies is not naive and narrow-minded. Respecting the many real & complex difficulties that vulnerable people face is not naive and narrow-minded.
519
The guy's behavior was bad, but it was six years ago. Statute of limitations has run out. If we were talking about physical assault or rape it would be different, but this doesn't rise to that level. It can be written off as the product of poor judgement during an emotionally difficult time that has since passed, and it should be let go because all of us engage in bad behavior at some points in our lives. One or two moments of assholish, but not actually harmful, behavior toward an ex should not render a person persona non grata to the opposite sex for the rest of their life.
520
Telling her friend will only cause needless drama. If she really feels strongly, she could write her ex a letter and tell him that she hasn't forgotten what he did and that while she won't tell her friend, she will be looking out for her friend and that he had better not do anything to hurt her.
521
I have already made my case, but you completely missed my point, multiple times. My beliefs are not hateful or twisted; they are the beliefs of a rational adult who is used to looking at any situation from different angles and who has luckily overcome teenage maximalism a while ago. Please, continue spewing your poison and drama on your own, as I have better things to do.
522
Alemana, no. Just no.

You're getting more and more erratic by the post, not addressing ANY valid arguements brought up against you. An besides, as a verbal molester I told you to stop addressing me, you're quickly progressing into a verbal rapist. How can you live with yourself?
523
puddles, I've enjoyed reading you, P & E, you too.
524
puddles, no, I'm pretty sure I got your point: it's all been nothing but variations on the victim is responsible for how an assault plays out, and that's bullshit.

Pastaefagoli, if you ever made a valid argument, then I could address it...And, claiming that being schooled in a debate is being "molested" is laaaaaaaaaame. Freedom of speech DOES NOT mean freedom from criticism. Moreover, I suggest you watch the FCKH8 video again, and then realize that strong language is par for the course on this blog. Similarly, women's rights are worth defending unabashedly.
525
no.
526
Oh, you don't believe women's rights are worth defending unabashedly?
527
518: "You've utterly failed to address the point that it's wrong for you to approximate how close her relationship was by your arbitrary standards to what's "closer to" a consensual scenario. It has to ACTUALLY BE consensual, according to her standards, because it's her body."

The only way your proposition can ever be possibly achieved is if the person doing the initiating asks, at every single step, at every single touch, whether it is going to be welcomed. The person being touched may change their mind at any time, at which point the other person, if they failed to inquire before the next touch, becomes a molester. To the extent that it is going to be by her standards and her standards alone, either a) the other person must ask and ask and ask and ask, or b) she has a responsibility to communicate those standards.

You yourself admit that isn't how it works in the real world. A general agreement on terms is worked up over time as an understanding between both parties, not arbitrated by one side moment by moment. The entire reason why I am quite sure that my wife will respond positively to my advances without asking first is that I have a very long sequence of such experiences to draw from when evaluating the situation. Either those memories are valid factors for judgment in the present moment or they aren't. In my case they are the very thing that makes you confident that my wife will want to continue to kiss me, and you freely endorse that. In the Letter Writer's case, you want to render six years' worth of the exact same thing entirely inadmissable. (By contrast, Train Guy had ZERO such relationship history or experiences to back up his expectations. The only justification he cited is something that any reasonable observer would find batshit crazy. THAT is why Letter Writer's situation appears to be closer to my situation than yours.)

On the one hand, yes, the fact that they were broken up should have been a major factor weighing against the likelihood of his advances being presumed welcome in the way that they almost certainly were welcome pre-breakup. On the other hand, the circumstances of the breakup in this case were not such that he should reasonably expect that she suddenly finds him repulsive. Everything else that he had available in his considerations were neutral to positive indicators, and she specifically withheld the deciding factor -- indeed in your estimation the only relevant factor -- that in that moment she found his touch unwelcome. Yes, he should have asked, but given the circumstances, his failure to ask does not rise to the level of predation.

Show me evidence that, for example, he sneaked in to touch her while she slept, and I will cheerfully reverse my opinion on this. Such a thing would be decisive, and while letter writers are regularly over-brief, I can't imagine Dan editing out something that important.

By the way, regarding my supposed pearl clutching over profanity: you seem to want to substitute "Mercy, how uncivil!" for "You're making yourself look like an idiot." Just so you know, but in any case, congrats on toning it down.
528
I return to my original assessment, from comment 311.

If Letter Writer feels the need to tell her friend, she should be aware that it will either succeed in breaking up the new relationship, or it will be seen as an attempt to do so. If she leaves out any of the relevant details around the breakup, e.g, her cheating on him for a month, that will be perceived as her selectively editing the situation to demonize him and excuse her, which will not go well for her. On the other hand, if she does include all the relevant details, I can easily see her friend rolling her eyes and saying, "Thanks for the heads-up, there, Ace, but I think I can take it from here."

529
Alemana, if I may address you directly, I'm interested in a dynamic at work on this thread that no one else (I think) has addressed.

One of my areas of research in grad school (many decades ago) was in differences between people in processing information. Take any five people and present them with an ambiguous situation, and you'll have five different reports on what is happening, and five different interpretations. This is not because one person is stupid, another blind, etc., but because people tend to weight different stimuli differently. Some respond to emotional cues, some to words, and so forth.

I think you have a very logically consistent, reasoned argument, and no one can fault you there. On the other hand, I think that you're a fairly concrete, literal thinker. That's not necessarily a bad thing--many great thinkers have been so. BUT, I think the nuances of highly charged situations (e.g., intimate ones) may be a little hard for you to parse, and this is why you're insisting on verbal consent at all times.

For most of us this need for words is absent. I turned to my sweetie this morning and stroked his cheek gently and he moved closer to me, and I rubbed his shoulder and.....well, we had great sex without a word being exchanged. Yes, this happened in the context of a relationship but I've had passionate encounters with new partners where very little was said. Why? Because I read his cues and he read mine.

Maybe you're just not real good on picking up on who's coming onto you, and when someone makes a move, you're thrown. Maybe you're also not very good at picking up on when someone's not really safe, and so you get some unpleasant surprises. It is no crime to be a little inept at dealing with men in these situations, but it can make things difficult. It does seem difficult for you.

For the rest of us, it's not really so. We learned to dance the dance, or decline to dance, and we move on with our lives. I don't really think we're helping the vast majority of women if we insist they be treated like frail flowers. So much better for us to learn how to handle ourselves in a variety of situations, to deny privacy to people who are odd, to respect the power of alcohol to cause people to do stupid things. Sometimes we screw up and have an unpleasant situation on our hands. Not our fault, I agree. If we're smart, we learn from these times. We learn that X is not to be trusted, that Y is an ass when he's drunk, etc. Again, not our fault, but we'd better learn so we don't live the same thing twice.

Why LW didn't leave the concert when the guy was bugging her and wouldn't stop, I don't know. Even if it was late she could've gotten security to call her a cab (that's what they're there for, to help keep people secure). Why she let the same guy be anywhere around her while she was sleeping, I don't know. She wasn't reading him well, or being clear, or maybe (as she intimates) she felt guilty toward him, or maybe it was "awkward." We don't know. But this is hardly a platform on which to build your argument.

I've been around the block a bit, been in some hairy situations, but came out OK. Frankly, your approach wasn't what helped me. I was raised in the South under your approach, and all it did was make me helpless at the start. What helped me was realizing I was in charge, that I could receive cues and cue back a firm "no," or a "maybe," or an "another time." And in the rare situation where the guy kept pressing, I knew I was relieved of any social obligation to him---and got the hell out of there. A very effective set of tools. I recommend them.
530
Goodness, my wordiness seems to be a virus that has infected both avast & attittude devant!

Avast: The big, absolute, #1 rule is that you must be ABSOLUTELY sure that the contact you're doing is welcome or at least an acceptable attempt (your wife is probably fine with you leaning in for a kiss, reaching out to hold a first date's hand is not out-of-line, even if in those cases it's not reciprocated, no one's going to feel violated that you tried such a minor thing). Genital contact is NOT something you can go around doing in the hopes it works, and if you do it to someone where it's unwelcome you're in BIG trouble.

Here's the thing: can you see there's a BIG conceptual difference between:
1) Because we've been intimate together, I can tell without speaking when she wants to be kissed/fondled/made love to,
~versus~
2) Because we've been intimate together, I am entitled to do what I want to her body without bothering to ask.
???

Also, presuming on a previous sexual history for "big-ticket items" like genital contact, sex acts, etc., is very dangerous and it puts women in the position of never getting support from the community (or the legal system if it comes to that) if the ex- or current partner insists on violating her. It also means that you're substituting everyone-and-their-mother's opinion of what's okay to do to that woman's body, rather than the opinion of the woman herself. Also, the one who is instigating the action is in control of the situation, and it's fair to put the burden of surety on the active party.

Remember, not all marriages are as happy as yours, and women do get raped by current partners all too commonly: according to RAINN, fully 28% of rapes are perpetrated by those who are in a current (and/or past? not clear from the wording) relationship with the victim. That's why when you say things like "it's closer to an established relationship," you may not have realized it but you're advocating the attitude that gets a lot of women raped by intimate partners, and you're going to deserve some very harsh criticism coming your way (you're welcome!). Especially in the sleeping situation, there are many people in happy committed relationships who wouldn't want sex acts done on them in their sleep! So just saying it was a relationship does NOT make it okay.

I would say based on the way she's writing, that his behavior was quite unexpected for her, and she probably didn't realize "the situation" could be read as an invitation (if we're even believing that--from her POV it seems like he wasn't even trying for a last fling, just "punishing" her). Lots of things appear to be perfectly platonic (because human beings trust each other: you could never have any social life at all if you didn't trust being with people at least somewhat) until one person decides to change the situation, and then the rest of the world is all too happy to tell the target what she "should have done." And, it is HIS responsibility to make sure the touching is okay--if he had done something innocuous like asked or put a hand on her waist or shoulder to broach the subject, she may have been offended but it wouldn't be a major violation--and because what he did was a "big-ticket item" he's responsible for the gravity of what he did.

For example, when an old boyfriend was giving me "the talk" about seeing other people, and giving me a lot of mixed messages--I love you, We should go back to just friends for a while, I think of you all the time, I'd be so jealous if you ended up with someone else, I just want to try being with other people before I invest any more years in you if it turns out you're not the one I want to have children with, I'm always amazed by how beautiful and confident you are...all in the space of about twenty minutes (and they give us girls shit about mixed messages?!?). I had NO idea what to make of this, but he ended this talk on a more pro-commitment note, and we were kissing, and then he started kissing me a bit more passionately (and on top of me--it was in his bedroom). I asked him if this meant that he was going to fully commit to his feelings for me, he said, "Well I hope this won't kill it, but I was thinking of this as hot break-up sex." Now, we had spent four years together and he knew DAMN WELL that I take physical intimacy very seriously, and I was LIVID. I told him to get the hell off me and take me back to my car IMMEDIATELY. Now, I don't consider this a violation, because he stayed well within what was personally- and legally-acceptable physical behavior. So, I don't think of this as "I was violated!" but rather "What a heartless, selfish douchebag! I'm best rid of that motherfucker!" You see, women CAN tell the difference between a douchebag and a sexual predator--we don't need to compulsively call mean guys rapists, if he's just a shitty motherfucker, we'll call him a shitty motherfucker. If he'd presumed upon our relationship to make a pass at me by fingering me or humping me, I would have felt very, very differently!
531
Attitude devant, of course you may address me directly--it's a message board!

Please read post #189. I don't know why no one seems to have seen it--is it magically hidden on everyone else's computer but mine?!

Also, I'm not talking about me personally...I generally have no problem asserting myself (except when trapped on a subway or just not up for dealing with a lot of verbal abuse and intimidation at a given moment, but I have no shame for that!), and I have had very little trouble with courtship escalating with intimate partners and enjoying every step of the way. Fortunately, no one I've been intimate has ever tried to take advantage of me, and a few have gone a little further than they should have gone without permission but it was never a big deal, and actually all the guys I've been very close to have always asked my permission for any "big-ticket items" without my having to insist on it. What can I say? I only date quality guys who respect women in the bedroom and elsewhere (even if the one I was really in love with for so long had his major life goals seriously fucked up! At least he was a conscientious lover). Of course it's possible I could drastically misjudge someone, but so far it's been pretty great, really, and I'm grateful that my experiences have been a lot better than most women I've talked to.

As my mother says, "One of the things I'm most grateful for in my life, is that sleazy bastards find me unattractive." For me, they certainly find me attractive enough to approach me in the street, but they see pretty quickly I'm not a doormat and know I won't give in, and so anyone who wants to date me seems to be pretty honorable (they also seem to ALWAYS be the guys who feel they must pay all costs of the date, even though I never even hint such a thing and always offer to go halfsies, but I guess I just attract that kind of guy! Go figure... Oh, well, there are worse things!).

I'm insisting on verbal consent as the "gold standard" if you will. Without verbal consent, the initiator is 100% responsible for being right, and nothing short of "she clearly and enthusiastically said yes!" (assuming there wasn't a gun to her head or a major power differential like doctor-patient or guard-prisoner at play!) is an acceptable defense if the recipient declares she was violated. If, in a happy relationship, the initiator is right, no one is going to confront him for sexual assault. If, on the other hand, we're dealing with someone who uses intimidation and the subtle threat of vi… or just plain old suddenness to terrify someone into silence, and then uses the rest of that person's sexual history or situational excuses, the victim should be able to get justice and not have the whole world go "but you were doing THIS, of course you would do THAT!"

And honestly, asking isn't all that hard. Verbal consent is very important for people's safety (especially if they don't know each other!). If our standard is that the ethical, mature person should wear a condom to protect themselves and their partners in a casual sexual encounter (and they should!), then you can't convince me asking would be more of a damper on the activities than wearing a condom!! It's not like asking covers everything in latex! Just like when you're sure you're both clean you can relax on the condoms, when you're sure you're both safe and comfortable with each other you can relax the verbal consent.

Please understand, and I thought I said this already, that feminists are not arguing against women asserting themselves--we're very very pro that! BUT, we are saying that when for whatever reason someone can't assert themselves (e.g. in this case, guilt and emotional vulnerability are very strong, and you know as well as I calling security to get her a cab would mean sacrificing a friendship forever and she may not have been ready to do that, although later she clearly and rightly did so! It would also open her up to a lot of personal attacks about her fidelity and she couldn't deal with that at the time. This does NOT make it okay to assault her!), the PERPETRATOR, not the victim, should be held responsible.

It's not women-shouldn't-be-assertive, but rather women should enjoy a basic expectation of respect for their bodies (and shouldn't have the be on the *defensive*), and they should be able to hold someone accountable if they violate that trust. If you can hold them accountable in real-time, GREAT! But expecting someone to be the perfect victim is unreasonable because people have a huge range of life experiences and shock can be a very powerful thing even for the most assertive person (see baseball quote above). I think that if someone brings up inappropriate behavior later, accepting how they reacted and putting the focus on the perpetrator validates for the target that it is the perpetrator's fault, and therefore she will be more likely to have more self-worth and courage to confront the next guy, the next time. (And the perpetrator can be taken out of circulation, if need be!) If we said, "You've done everything wrong!" that reinforces the belief that they have to sit there and take it, and makes them feel worthless, especially when their attacker/abuser gets off scot free. Believe me, no one's going to sit there and suffer through incessant passes or inappropriate touching or worse believing the system will make it better later! But if they could at least know others will support them it might make them a little more likely to stand their ground.
532
"Here's the thing: can you see there's a BIG conceptual difference between:
1) Because we've been intimate together, I can tell without speaking when she wants to be kissed/fondled/made love to,
~versus~
2) Because we've been intimate together, I am entitled to do what I want to her body without bothering to ask."


There is insufficient information in the letter to tell which of these attitudes the recently ex boyfriend was operating under. That is the very kernel of our failure to see this situation from the same perspective.

How's that for brevity?
533
Avast, the thing is, if you get #1 WRONG, you're still responsible. If you get it wrong, by definition #1 doesn't apply, because #1 only applies if you can really-and-truly tell. Taking your spouse/sweetheart for granted is not acceptable, and sadly a lot of people do. Sexual intimacy is too big a deal to get wrong, and you can really hurt someone if you do.

Basically everyone who does #2 tries to claim it's a #1-gone-wrong. The vast majority of the time, this is total bullshit, but if we believe that you can get #1 wrong (which you really, REALLY shouldn't!), then every rapist in the world will try to convince people it was a #1 situation, when they were fully and intentionally operating with a #2 worldview. Or, people will try to convince themselves that #1 applies when it really doesn't--like Subway Guy and the opinion of his friend, or the time he told me "But, you seemed so over-the-top distant to me I figured it had to be because you were secretly in love with me!"

There are vast swaths of humanity that can't be trusted to get #1 right, and it is vital for women's safety that we hold them accountable if they fuck it up.
534
Wow. That's a lot of comments, mostly to try to deny that there are gray zones.

Good luck, people. Life, unfortunately, is not all black-and-white.
535
I kind of thought that was where you were heading. To paraphrase:

1) It's very important to acknowledge the difference between A and B.
2) A doesn't actually exist, except when I say it does.

536
Avast, it's very simple:

1) "A" is why you're not a rapist or a molester if you touch your wife who DOES IN FACT want to be touched.

2) "A" is no excuse (and wouldn't apply anyway) if you touch someone who DOESN'T want to be touched, regardless of their relationship to you.

Ankylosaur, there are gray areas, and that is no excuse to touch someone who doesn't want to be touched. It is the responsibility of the person doing the touching to clarify a gray area and get consent BEFORE the touching happens.
537
"Taking it of here boss?"
"Taking it off there, Luke."
538
No, Alemana @531, I have indeed read 189. But you seem not to have read my own posts, because you take pains to explain "we feminists" to me. Honey, I've been a feminist longer than you've been alive, as you would know if you'd read my references to Dworkin, the first wave, et al. above. You want to talk rape culture? I read Susan Brownmiller when she was first published.

What makes you think feminist thought is a monolith? It most assuredly is not, and never has been. I know feminists who think that a woman who has sex with men and wears cocktail dresses (that would be you) are sellouts to the patriarchy. I know just as many who think the first group are full of BS.

And while there is a strain of sexual puritanism in feminism, most of us first wave-ers would tell you your gold standard for male-female congress is #1, hardly representative of most feminist thought, and #2, ultimately defeating for women. (Not to mention inviting of derision, cf. most comments above.)

Alemana, I wish you well.

539
@497 Ooooh, that's a tough call. I definitely see your point (it's not unlike the child sex bots that are on their way) but I can see how it might escalate too. I suppose it depends on the specific caller and the vibe you get. It might not be professionally "ethical," so to speak, for a phone sex operator to break character and ask questions but I think this is one of the situation you should. I think only after a conversation of some sorts could you tell if it was a GSP doing the the right thing or a NARP (Nasty Ass Real Pedophile).
540
attitude devant @523 thank you. I can say the same.
541
So, attitude devant, how can you read post #189 and NOT understand that enthusiastically participating couples are not the issue here for verbal consent? Why have you been going on and on about happy married couples not needing to speak to each other if you were already aware that I'd typed the same thing 300 posts earlier?! That no one is trying to police happy, mutual relationships? That the issue is when one person is trying to use the absence of a "no" or their subjective reading of trumped-up "signs" to get away with sexual contact that another person might not want.

Frankly, I think my gold standard is absolutely at the core of feminism--"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body" as Sanger said. If there are always excuses for what the aggressor claims he *thought* about the state of consent, there will never be true protection from sexual violence. And any modern feminist of any repute, especially those who deal with sexual violence/consent issues: Jaclyn Friedman, Jessica Valenti, Amanda Hess, Cara Kulwicki, Thomas MacAulay Millar, to name just a few, all take enthusiastic consent very seriously, and actively promote a Yes Means Yes standard.

How on earth is it defeating for women to hold those who take advantage of us accountable? How the hell is it empowering for women to silence a sexual assault victim and tell her after the fact how she should have been stronger?? Haven't you gotten it through your head yet (since I've said it multiple times!) that accepting that some people freeze is never going to make a person WANT to freeze & be used sexually if they can fight back. How is it defeating for women to assert that they have the right to be in public and romantic spaces without fear of assault? And that if someone assaults them, the focus should be on catching & punishing the perpetrator, not Monday-morning quarterbacking the woman?!
542
Sanger was talking about birth control, Alemana.....
543
@539, just for the record, I am not a phone sex worker. I am unemployed at the moment. But it is something that came up in a conversation about a friend of a friend who WAS a phone sex worker, but who quit because she just couldn't bear to be Daddy's Little Girl anymore. It seemed to be what the majority of her clients wanted. I think it's an interesting ethical dilemma.
544
@Everyone. What about a "goose"? You know, a friend, let's say a female friend, comes up behind her other female friend, and gooses her while she is doing the dishes. A finger touches her anus, or near enough, but through her clothes with no sexual intent. Annoying and juvenile, perhaps, but was the friend doing the dishes molested?
545
Of course she was!
546
Now that I know what the mentality of some men is (thanks aardvark!!! and your cohorts too) I am not going to feel bad at all, I am not even going to hesitate, to kick any guy in the balls who invades my physical boundaries (touches me without consent). Usually I feel bad and try to just move away and then feel weird if it keeps up, like, "maybe he really doesn't get it?" Now I know better.

How is it that the vast majority of men I know, date and even just pass on the street, manage to CONTAIN themselves, when they've got all these natural and uncontrollable urges because men are just different????

Alemana, you've fought the good fight, dear. This comment section is mega-bullshit. I love the very traditional "she's just crazy" shaming in response to you. Typical -- there's a long history of trying to silence women who weren't going to take bullshit by calling them crazy.

"Um... at class, teacher is telling me to close my laptop. So quickly... and feel free to offer better, more considered advice in comments, Sloggers..."

Dan, why don't you recoil some more. I am sick of gay guys who want me to stand up for their rights based on the politics of sexuality and gender, but then won't stand up for the bodily integrity of others if those others are adult women. Bullshit. Why didn't you just tell her, "Don't ask, don't tell."
547
@546 Why don't you try saying "Stop it" before resorting to violence?
548
I don't think the writer is clear enough to really be sure this is molestation or rape. Did she tell him to stop or push him away at the concert? How about in bed? If the guy was creepy and pushy at the concert why did she sleep with him (presumably naked based on what he did) afterwards?

The dancing thing I'm pretty much willing to drop completely. Rude? Yes. Molestation? Not remotely. Fingering her in her sleep without prior consent is pretty shitty. Really though, if a woman I've been having sex with for 6 years climbs into bed naked with me I would see that as implied consent for a little fooling around. If, when she woke up she said no and he kept going that's molestation. If she woke up and just lay there in silence how would he know it wasn't welcome?

All around, I think Dans advice is perfectly fine. If she feels the need to tell her friend she should go ahead but she shouldn't be surprised if the friend, and anyone else, doesn't believe her.

@485, I don't have nearly enough time to read all 500 posts but yours stood out when I scanned. I do not think it's ok to touch someone who doesn't want to be touched but if you're lying naked in bed with someone who's spent 6 years touching you consensually you really do need to make it clear that he shouldn't be touching you. If you don't, how on earth is he expected to know that lying naked next to him is not encouraging touching? If she did make that clear and he still did it then that's molestation. If she wasn't clear up front or after he started I can't see any way he would have known this was unwelcome.
549
@511: Yeah, you're probably right!

@542: of course she was, but it applies in all cases--you own your body with regard to someone touching it inappropriately, having an unwanted person's member (or other organ/appendage) inside it, AND having an unwanted fetus developing inside it. It's also the foundation of liberty in all sorts of non-gendered cases: habeas corpus, why slavery is, you know, like, wrong, and the right to refuse medical care (also has a lot to do with why the draft is really fucking unpopular). So, the Sanger quote isn't radical at all, it's just basic equality, applied to women's biological particulars.

@534: Meh. I don't think it rises to the child-porn level, so I'm just going to go with consenting-adults-can-do-as-they-damn-well-please. Of course, I can easily see why someone would have a major problem with that, and for that and many other reasons I support sex workers having the ability to set their personal limits as they see fit.

@544: Well, if the recipient isn't okay with it, I can totally see them getting mad (that would totally NOT be okay with me!) without necessarily feeling sexually violated. I guess it would be sexual to the extent that the recipient is upset by it in a sexual way... Either way, as "sexual assault" or garden-variety "assault," it's not like anyone would bother to press charges, so I guess the semantics never matter, beyond what the offended friend (assuming, for the moment, that she is offended) tells others as to why the gooser is not invited to parties or whatever.

@546: As Paul McCartney would (almost) say, "BS I Love You"

@548: Basically everything you've said has been hashed out earlier, so perhaps you should read all those posts...But, one thing I want to point out: look how people "inflate" the assumption of a compromising situation. Not that it would be okay to perform a sex act on a current, loving sex partner while they were sleeping anyway (unless they're into that sort of thing), but all we have in the letter is that she was nearly sleeping...and yet everyone is so quick to declare "sleeping in the same bed" and now "lying naked next to him." I wonder why...it couldn't be a deep subconscious desire to explain away and ignore the fact that women get assaulted, now could it?
550
@ 547 Touching me without my consent is violence, you dipshit.
551
Alemana, I'm new to the whole thread, but rather disturbed by the implicit assumptions that Guilty Victim was unequivocally broken up and hands-off. I present for your perusal the four following definitions of "awkward time":

1) GV had told Ex that she wanted to see other people, had started seeing other people, and Ex knew it, but was still acting as if Ex was her primary partner.
2) GV had told Ex that she wanted/was going to to see other people, was sleeping with a new partner without telling Ex, but was still acting as if Ex was her primary partner.
3) GV and Ex had discussed seeing other people, had left question open, was sleeping with a new partner without telling Ex, and was still acting as if Ex was her primary partner.
4) GV was sleeping with a new partner and had not told Ex jack shit.

May I also present as evidence for cases 2, 3, and 4 the fact that Ex and GV were "trying to be friends" - since men don't usually want to be friends with their cheating ex-girlfriends - but then stopped talking and exited each other's social circle for two years. It also explains the anger ("want to vomit") that she still feels toward him.

No doubt the cheating came to light immediately prior to the abrupt departure. I'm quite sure that plenty of dirty laundry was aired - why else would all her friends disbelieve her? They're her friends, not his friends. They wouldn't disbelieve her unless they had a reason to, and she wouldn't expect them to disbelieve her unless she'd given them a reason to.

I personally favor 3 as most likely, but that's just my dim view of human nature. I don't think she made her ex's actions up. They probably were not especially welcome, but that's as likely to be because she was test-riding a new guy as because she'd broken up with the old guy.

You can go with stone-cold honesty. I'll go with messy and likely. Very, very likely.
552
Token Canadian, none of those make any sense from the letter. It just shows that you're trying to spin stories to deny the fact that there was a sexual assault. She says very clearly they were broken up. She says her cheating prompted the break up. None of your confabulations about how vague it must have been (because of course she couldn't have been sexually assaulted, right?!) line up with her clear statement that they were broken up, but trying to stay friends. She says the cheating happened "for a month" clearly indicating a finite time course, not this ongoing thing you're imagining solely to excuse/ignore his behavior. None of your evidence makes any fucking sense--you just imagine your stereotypes of human nature apply universally, explain everything, and are so much more relevant than the actual scenario presented in the letter. Bullshit, man. Bullshit.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.