Comments
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.
More In Sex
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Rule 1: It only matters in a few very, very specific circumstances. Only some people's consent matters.
Rule 2: We teach the exact opposite of what we say we teach.
Stupid and evil.
Anyway, there are non-crude ("romantic") ways to talk about your sexy feelings, you know? How about, "Oh my god, I am so attracted to you right now, but I'll let you lead the way physically so you can feel comfortable."
Pretty sure that's how it works for the gays, too.
The only good thing I can see in those movies is that it shows the right attitude for the penis/hand to have after the labia/ass/boob (yeah, we're just parts) says, "no." In other words, back off, just go about your business, and do NOT angrily call her a "bitch" or "cock-tease."
True, but let's be realistic - men generally don't put up anywhere near the fuss that women do about being sexual assaulted. If men were as sensitive to unwanted sexual contact as women, I don't think these PSAs would be necessary.
Ken @2: What Xiao @4 said. If in doubt as to the non-verbal cues, ask verbally! "Is this ok? Would you like me to continue?" Far sexier and MUCH less crude than, you know, raping somebody.
Well, they should. Women rape men too, and this whole macho culture means that a man who is raped and comes forward is usually victimised a second time by being told how "lucky" he was. That's another reason I prefer the tea and consent metaphor: it's unisex.
TL;DR: the other person's autonomy over their own body takes precedence over your bruised ego. Don't be that girl/ guy/ SOPATGS.
And/or people who were very sure that they'd never have to be in the position of initiating. And never have to have the slightest concern for anyone who isn't lucky enough to foist that off on someone else.
Privilege is funny like that.
@11 yes the consent and tea is better.
And um, the sexist thing, no. The ratio of women raping men or sexually harassing them compared to vice versa is, to put it mildly, lopsided. To load down a PSA of this sort with that sort of politically-correct equivalency would make the clueless bros it's trying to reach take it less seriously, not more.
Why?
I have a pretty casual attitude when it comes to things like being groped, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's definitely a strength if you ever end up following your gay friends into very gay bars/clubs. The "anything goes" vibe at such places felt liberating to me, even if ultimately I wanted the gentlemen in the leather vest to remove his thigh from my crotch, or the naked guy in the cowboy hat to take his hand off my ass.
There have been a precious few times where a woman I've never met has taken liberties with me without any sort of prior communication. One time this babe backed into me on the dance floor, reached her hand around to the back of my head, and pulled my face into the back of her delicious neck. Damn, what an awesome move. Given the choice, why would I ever choose to see something like that as traumatic? And why would I want to discourage women from taking such risks with me?
Anyway, I think there's are gender differences here*, closely related to the differences we discussed a few weeks ago in how we value easy access to casual sex. I think those differences are ok, and should be respected, in both directions. And so as to avoid misinterpretation, that means men should respect the boundaries described in this PSA.
Insert usual caveats about exceptions, mileage may vary, etc.
I doubt any gay guy watches and thinks "That is all very well and good, but since I only have sex with men, this is all completely irrelevant."
If this PSA is telling us what to do (as it should) it seems to be saying, ‘leave awkwardly when rejected.’ Which doesn’t seem to be a very good message. Why not just keep dancing? Is the only reason a man and a woman might spend time together to provide the man with an opportunity to make a pass and see if he’s rejected?
Alternatively, if it’s telling us what not to do, it’s a bad PSA. What are we supposed to do, then? Not leave awkwardly, but stick around and try to argue our way into consent?
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3x…
It's 60/40, popular lies to the contrary. That's the same gender ratio as being college students, reversed; the fact that 60% of college students are female doesn't make it "political correctness" to acknowledge that they aren't all female.
@22: "A good PSA talks about what TO do, maybe or maybe not about what not to do."
That's what they'd do if this was made in good faith, yes. Instead... well.
Lucky person shits on less-lucky people; thinks they're clever for doing so. Details at 11.
Basically, you have just told me "In general, I consent to being groped in clubs." You consent! Sex isn't rape if someone consents. That is the key. You go to gay clubs with the foreknowledge that gay men may grope you, and that's okay with you. You go to straight clubs and are thrilled when a "babe" you don't know gets physical with you; what if she weren't a "babe," but repulsive? What if her neck weren't "delicious," but stank of stale beer and B.O.? You might "choose" (as if it's a choice) to find that traumatic. You do get the "mileage may vary," but I can't imagine you've actually been in a situation where you said no to unwanted sexual activity and it was forced upon you anyway. Taking the attitude that that would be fine if it were a woman forcing a man is abhorrent. A No is a No, regardless of who says it to whom. That's different from saying "Actually, I find most sexual conduct towards me welcome." Fine. But people -- regardless of gender -- should really err on the side of assuming strangers do not.
For example:
"I really want to grope your balls/come on your tits/shove my giant silicone dick in your ass right now."
"Oh, that sounds so hot..."/"Oh, it's hot that you want to do that, but how about if we did it through this hole in a sheet instead?"/"I'm not really feeling it right now, but thanks."/*silence or drunken gibberish is not consent.*
Easy enough! Doesn't kill the mood! Lets you be sure you're not being a rapist!
But look - I don't mean to quibble about the basic point; harassment is bad, period. It's just that the specific kind that these PSAs address is overwhelmingly going to be guy-on-girl (it certainly is in my experience; I remember having my dick grabbed by a strange woman exactly once in my life, and I wasn't upset by it at all). So why muddy the waters? It's hard to change minds. You want to make your message simple and address the most relevant group.
And remember: There are people who get off on being kicked in the dick. That's not a good reason for anyone to try to replace a shake of the hand with a boot to the junk.
40% of rapists are women. 40% of college students are men. Today's study question: Is 40% "almost half," or is it "almost none?" Be consistent.
I didn't watch the videos. The drawing of the faced dick and was that a pussy..
put me off.
Or worse, what if she was a naked guy in a cowboy hat? Oh wait, I already covered that scenario, and it was just not a big deal to me, even though I didn't consent, nor would I have consented had he bothered to ask, because ew!
Taking the attitude that that would be fine if it were a woman forcing a man is abhorrent.
I didn't say it was fine, I just said that it doesn't generally leave quite the same mark on its victims. Back when I was a youngster, there was a very determined woman who didn't exactly force herself on me but didn't take "no thanks!" for an answer, either. It was yucky to be sure because I wasn't attracted to her, but, you know, whatever.
You might "choose" (as if it's a choice) to find that traumatic.
You're the one telling me what my reaction "should" be, as if it were a choice.
I'm just saying that a) my reaction, or relative lack thereof, to being touched without consent is working for me just fine, b) I don't think it's unusual among men, and c) I suspect that differing sensitivities to unwanted touch may explain some of the disconnect that this PSA is seeking to address.
I do think it's questionable to separate out "made to penetrate" from "rape." But the math you're suggesting doesn't work.
It kind of warms my heart to see you and BiDanFan allied together, even if it's against me for being a shitstain rape apologist.
There are lots of exceptions, of course, both instance-wise and people-wise, but I have to agree with seandr that if you are one of those people who can go either way about it, choosing to see it as no big deal--after a polite "no thank you," so as not to lead anyone on--is the better option.
Of course, if you get the vibe that the offender (male or female) is the sort of person who goes around pushing themselves on people often, or if they don't take "no thank you" for an answer, a well-placed "back off, asshole" can't hurt, either.
I also thought they were realistic. In the world as it is--as it always will be--people will sometimes make a move without full and clear verbal communication beforehand. lf we can't have moments where one looks into his/her/their eyes and then finds oneself kissing him/her/them [the good kind], then I'm out. I don't want to live in that world.
The price for that--as I think the PSAs demonstrated--is being able to respond to an unwanted advance with something as simple and direct as a shake of the head or a no, after which the advancer* immediately--and without recriminatio--backs off, switches gears and apologizes. I can live in that world.
*[I didn't have a problem with the gendering being stereotypical as that targets the vast majority who need this message, and extrapolations can be made. If they do more of them, they should cover the other bases.]
Guess that's why a lot of
women/ men don't report rape.
What you fussing about, you silly people.
Raising a son, my messaging is more that the situation can seem incredibly confusing, ambiguous, or overwhelming. And if it is, back off until you have clarity. In one way this affirms that consent is simple--do nothing without affirmative consent--but it acknowledges how complicated it can feel for the young.
Also, +1 to seandr. I feel that rounding up a random grope to rape makes light of the trauma experienced by rape survivors.
I didn't. No Fresh@46, no one has done that except you.
This sort of attitude.. and I dig it. Married man with two teenage kids, needs all the fantasy world he can muster.... that one should welcome groping, or you know, just go with the flow man, sends out the message to would be gropers that it's cool. What's a forced kiss or ass grab. It's not rape, no one says its rape.
For some people it is assault and it could be traumatising. Not taking people's responses seriously here,
is the beginning of rape culture.
So that means it can't possibly a big deal to any other man?
"Back when I was a youngster, there was a very determined woman who didn't exactly force herself on me but didn't take "no thanks!" for an answer, either. It was yucky to be sure because I wasn't attracted to her, but, you know, whatever."
So you have been raped, but for you, it wasn't terribly traumatising. That's fair; that's your experience. What you're saying is that your reaction is the same as all men's reactions, and that therefore, raping or molesting men is no big deal because most of them don't mind. Don't you see what a damaging message that is to send, particularly from the perspective of all the men who WOULD mind?
Part of rape culture is that often victims are disbelieved because they don't appear to be "traumatised enough" to be telling the truth about not consenting. People are different. Misspelling my name, for instance, might make me livid but someone else might shrug it off. Just because Victim A couldn't leave the house for six weeks after being raped and Victim B deleted his number and blocked him on Facebook and went about her life doesn't mean it's ever OK to assume victims will, or should, be able to easily process it -- or to assume that all victims will have difficulty moving on. Because you don't find sexual assault any more traumatic than, say, losing your wallet after a night out doesn't mean all men would agree with you. And even if more men are able to shrug off sexual assault than women, because in general, man-on-woman rape can involve more physical intimidation, it still doesn't mean you can round the number of men who will be traumatised down to zero.
"You're the one telling me what my reaction "should" be, as if it were a choice."
No. I'm telling you your reaction isn't universal.
"b) I don't think it's unusual among men."
Well, I didn't think being a dominant was unusual among women, but thanks to this column, I have learned otherwise.
I notice that you're deliberately choosing the less-reliable "lifetime" stats. Gotta give the men time to convince themselves they really consented, after all! Otherwise, rape apology gets more difficult. What a choice you made.
There are people who get off on being kicked in the balls. That means we should all kick everyone in the balls, right? After all, some people are okay with it.
"b) I don't think it's unusual among men, "
It turns out: it doesn't matter how many people you think would get off on being kicked in the balls. A kick in the junk without some reason to think that this person gets off on it is extraordinarily rude.
"and c) I suspect that differing sensitivities to unwanted touch may explain some of the disconnect that this PSA is seeking to address."
Yes! Some people like getting kicked in the balls--under some circumstances--and the rest of us don't. Let's say you meet a person. Would you rather it be someone who thinks there's no need to check to see if you like ballbusting, or would you actually seriously prefer it to be someone who doesn't believe the argument you're making?
@46: "Also, +1 to seandr. I feel that rounding up a random grope to rape makes light of the trauma experienced by rape survivors."
True. That's why no one was doing that.
@50: "Women grope men in gay bars because it's safe to grope gay men, they're not going to turn around and take that as an actual invitation."
And because they know they won't be arrested for committing sexual assault and placed on the sex offender registry. And, probably, because they've never been told not to commit sexual assault. At least two of these things can and should be fixed.
@38: "It kind of warms my heart to see you and BiDanFan allied together, even if it's against me for being a shitstain rape apologist."
No, what I meant was that you shouldn't complicate things, since she'd ended up on the right side, bizarrely. But now I've ignored my own suggestion, since I should've just said "I'm glad I'm so heart-warming."
Even though the last time something like this happened in my life was in 1990, still... this.
When men* have gone for the unwanted kiss or grope, because they misread my signals, a firm but simple disengagement has done the trick [well, a couple of times I had to reiterate]. I was not in the least traumatized, we just had to deal with a bit of awkwardness. Now, these guys meant no harm, they were just confused. Also, they took no for an answer, so I took the compliment.**
I really don't think we need new iron-clad consent protocols to cure society of such faux pas. Therefore I think the PSAs successfully demonstrated how people should behave.
Now, that kind of exchange is an entirely different genus from sexual aggression or assault. There are people who don't give a shit about other people or their consent. Even a catcall can be harassment, and anyone who smacks a waitress on the ass should be punched in the face. When someone is demonstrating indifference or malice toward another even from twenty feet away that is a much bigger--and different--issue than these PSAs were addressing.
* I've had various similar experiences with women, but am talking about male advances as there is the implicit factor of physical strength.
** I recognize that different people have the right to their own reactions, but if party-fouls traumatize you, don't go to the party.
For a me, a few women razzing me in a sexual way from across the street [hasn't happened yet], would be way more difficult to deal with--and would feel much more intimidating--than a guy I'm talking to at a party planting his lips on mine [has happened a few times].
I think the difference between the two is self-evident. That being said, I also recognize that a constant stream of well meant, but off-the-mark compliments is it's own burden. I don't think it should rise to the level of trauma, but I'm sure it's a bitch.
People can communicate a lot thru body gestures, thru eyes: ie nonverbally. And I agree Ophian, losing that dance between people would make for a grey world.
On the other hand, if people feel violated, feel abused.. That has to be respected.
I took from some of the posts on this discussion that this was the problem.
Letting others have their felt response.
" if party fouls traumatise you.. dont go to the party.." Here, minimising and trivialising the whole range of what party fouls could mean.
Wiktionary gives party-foul as a synonym for faux pas, for which it gives the following synonyms: blooper, blunder, boo-boo, defect, error, fault, fluff, gaffe, lapse, mistake, misstep, slip, stumble...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/party_fou…
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faux_pas
I don't think any ranges of meaning have been trivialized here.
sure doesn't sound like faux pas. And if that's what you meant, why not say it the first time.
Forgive me for mis understanding.
I think the idea is, don't mistake a happy interaction for consent.