[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

Too many thoughts, not enough time to type them again. The same disclaimers about unintended generalizations and advocacy, etc, from my previous post apply here too, for what that's worth.
——

On impairment and consent:

I'm unintentionally very close to what people would call straight edge; there are too many addiction and mental illness issues in my genetic background, so I don't use mind altering substances recreationally, and I do my best to avoid them even in medical contexts. My wife does drink a bit though, and uses marijuana derivatives occasionally as well. So, that's background on where our shared philosophy on impairment and consent comes from, but it generally lines up with legal guidance regarding driving: decision making is generally altered before a person is consciously aware of impairment or is visibly physically impaired. Altered decision making capabilities do not necessarily mean that a person is unable to properly consent to activities, but it does increase the likelihood that a choice to do something — especially something outside of established behavior patterns — will be regretted after the fact, and that effect grows exponentially as cognitive impairment increases.

So, our general rules are like this:
1. Any recent use of mind altering substances takes any extreme or out of the ordinary activity off the table. Yeah, this can be a buzzkill from time to time, but it's just not worth the risk of harming oneself or others. But hey, if you have an idea that seems exciting enough, it should be perfectly enjoyable the next time you're not drinking or smoking, right?
2. Even the smallest level of visible impairment in a partner, or consciously detectible impairment in oneself means you are limited to familiar, low risk activities with partners you have an established relationship of engaging in those activities with.
3. Anything more than mild tipsiness is asking for trouble, and is a hard stop for the vast majority of sexual or kink activity. Will trouble always happen? Maybe not, but is it worth the consequences? Enjoy your buzz or your high now, and have your sexy times later when you are sure you can both (/all) do so safely. Maybe hug (or heavy pet) it out a bit if your relationship puts that in the strongly established acceptable behavior column? Maybe have a fun conversation about the things you might enjoy doing the next time you aren't in impaired states! But don't assume that even moderately impaired judgement will line up with sober judgement, ever.

While we followed roughly similar rules before we joined up with kink communities, this philosophy was absolutely informed and molded by patterns we saw modeled and functioning in the sub groups that felt the safest and healthiest. There definitely is a lot of variation in opinion on the matter, and people often follow stricter rules for heavier kink activities than they do for more "vanilla" sexual activity. For a certainty, our personal policies are definitely on the more conservative end of the spectrum in most regards. Also, things are a bit less complicated for us in some ways; we've been in a committed, monogamous romantic and sexual relationship since we were teenagers, so we're not navigating the application of this philosophy with nearly the complexity that many others are. With regard to sex, we're always working with a partner with whom we share two decades worth of rapport and context. And with regard to other intimate physical activities, we're incredibly choosy about who our other partners are, and often it's in an educational context anyway, so cognitive impairment is rarely even a factor under consideration.

So, yeah, I don't really know if how we approach things makes for incredibly useful advice for many others. But I will say this: while we don't often play with others, we do enjoy a lot of time watching others play, and we spend a lot of time talking with others about both their positive and negative experiences. As you would expect, scenes (kink shorthand terminology for people playing together in whatever fashion) do from time to time fizzle out or not go the way the participants may have wanted, but people generally leave okay with each other and what has happened. Every single time I've personally witnessed a scene end truly badly was in an environment where rules about mixing impairment and sexual/kink activity were loose. All but one them I could visibly tell that one or more participants were actively impaired, and in that one other case, I know at least one of the partners had been drinking earlier in the evening.

Further, a great preponderance of anecdotal accounts of bad scenes, consent violations, and the one outright rape I've discussed in person with first hand participants involved one or more parties being drunk or otherwise impaired. Granted, spreading out to broader online social circles and discussion groups there are definitely plenty of incidents of consent violation, sexual assault, and rape that don't involve impairment, and I'm not at all implying that bad things don't happen without impairment, but I do think there is a strong case to be made even outside my personal experiences and contacts that it makes it all too easy for good, well intentioned people to make bad choices. So, we follow those rules strictly ourselves, we advocate for them strongly when asked our opinion or in an educational context, and we do our best to avoid parties/gatherings/etc where intoxication and kink/sex are likely to be mixed because we'd rather support and promote people taking the responsibility to care for themselves and others by making smart choices in this regard whenever possible.

——

On separating the responsibility of consent from gender roles and power dynamics:

I feel very strongly consent and communication are everyone's responsibility in all directions. I also am constantly troubled, even (especially) within myself and my own relationships how easy it is to fall into thinking and acting along traditional gender and power dynamic lines. That is, it's the job of the top (who is almost certainly a man, amiright?), to seek consent from the bottom (totally a woman), and it is her job to signal her acquiescence (or not, but what a failure that would be!) to his desires. I think it goes hand in had with what was being discussed earlier about just how horribly toxic and destructive the cultural construct of men being taught to view sex and relationships in the framing of conquest, or a competitive game. It's all so deeply ingrained in our culture that we have to commit to an active and ongoing struggle to recognize and counter it both internally and externally, and it's not easy to do so.

Interestingly, this is an area where I think aspects of kink culture can fail to help, or even worsen the problem. In many subcultures, members are encouraged to identify whether they are a dom or a sub, a top or a bottom, etc, and to me it feels like those assumed identities often act to reinforce established gender and power dynamic stereotypes around consent (and other things, but that's another set of conversations), even when in most cases that's not at all the desire or intention of many or all participants. For this and many other reasons I tend to find myself more comfortable amongst looser, more free wheeling types of people and in subcultures where special care is put towards not equating preferences and activities with identity so heavily.

Because on the flip side, I've found that my interactions with and explorations of various kink activities have been very helpful and instructive in countering acculturated expectations around gender and power dynamics, very much inclusive of the concept of managing consent.

1. The more situations I experience that are divorced from traditional cisgendered, heteronormative sexual patters, the easier it is to conceptualize managing consent as a right and responsibily that is always the same regardless of the activity or the part I'm playing within it. (And more and more I find that translating back even when engaging in activities that are more in line with broader cultural norms. Maybe still not awesome about it, but getting better!)
2. The more experiences I have on all sides of various spectrums, the better able I am to empathize with the experiences partners are having when roles are reversed, which is a hugely valuable tool in many ways, not the least of which being finding better ways to communicate consent that are clear and effective within a given context. (Not to mention ways of doing so that are at least neutral to the maintenance of whatever the mood may be, if not additive.)

Again, I recognize that what I'm talking about may not make good, broad spectrum advice, but I see the positive affect these things have on me and people around me, so I like to advocate for it whenever possible. So, maybe you're not about to go out to a kinky play party, or even to a beginner's class on some topic that excites you, but either way, look for opportunities to give yourself the permission to be curious, vulnerable, and open to experiences outside your norms, maybe even outside what you might feel fits with your identity, perhaps to even turn the tables on yourself with something you know you do enjoy. And when you have those opportunities, make them learning experiences if you can. Worst case scenario, you'll maybe confirm that something doesn't flip your cookie, but you'll have a better understanding of what others might enjoy (or not) about such experiences, and you've have the chance to turn that understanding into personal growth. And you know, maybe you'll discover something new that you do like, and (usually) that's not such a bad thing either.

Ugh, that got super hand wavy and preachy toward the end there, didn't it? Very sorry! Totally a thing that's been of great value to me in recent years of my life, though.

I'll drop a note about enthusiastic consent:

It's not about enthusiasm like someone throwing themselves at you, tearing your clothes off, not being able to keep their hands off of you, etc.

It's about enthusiasm in terms of "you actually want to do this" versus "you're giving in to this". It's meant to rule out the scenario where someone feels pressured by circumstances to give in, or is pestered into giving in.

Maintenance sex can be enthusiastically consented to, even by someone who isn't really wanting sex. It's the consent that has to be enthusiastic, not the desire for sex.

I'll also second the people who've said that if there's any doubt, the right thing to do is to just ask. The clearest signal is when someone says outright what they want, so make sure they know they have the opportunity. And that will most likely lead to clearer communication in the future about what you each desire, or don't.

I just want to say I love this conversation and I love having a more dedicated place to have it.

Let me take a step back then I'll walk away. Most of what I talk about is not just based on the discussion here - but on discussions elsewhere too. Please pardon the fact that I am not the very best writer when it comes to expressing my thoughts (English is also a second language).

There is a certain thread of the recent discussions that are making the claim that you need "enthusiastic consent" and if she does not give it then it is a full stop. I do not have a problem with "consent" and I hope that is obvious. I have a problem with the term "enthusiastic" because it is subjective. Furthermore most of the conversations then move towards that there is an absence of grey areas (and I agree there are no grey areas to consent); but when you use a subjective term, then claim there are no grey areas it seems self-defeating to me. For many this seems to be an issue of semantics but a lot issues come down to semantics and using the term enthusiastic consent does not properly address or confront the problem.

The second issue that I feel I have been horrible in expressing is that in order for communication to work best it needs to be clear from both sides. While both sides need to have clarification on consent they both need to feel comfortable to express consent, feelings, limits, and expectations. To be clear I am not placing blame on women. I see a fundamental problem in our society (right now the United States) discourages people from having proper communications on these issues.

Combining these two you get the pressure on looking for enthusiastic (subjective) consent rather than being in clear communication about consent. I am not saying you don't clarifying consent; I'm saying the implication is directed towards once one side is sure there is enthusiastic consent then it is a green light and full steam ahead. Once again this may seem like semantics to some but using a subjective term to determine a green light seems a recipe for miscues if there is not enough communication.

What has been missing from the conversation is that if things are moving in an uncomfortable area clear communication needs to be established. This is not a popular thing to say. I am not shifting blame to anyone. If we ignore this part of the communication we are only looking for a half solution. As a society we are getting really good at saying "make sure there is consent before being intimate," but we have been piss poor outside certain circles at saying, "Tell each other what you want, what your expectations are, and be clear." Little about how we experience society tells any of us to have a discussion like that, especially on the first date - we are taught to let things come naturally.

Long post, but I wanted to try to be clear as I can and I'm not sure I am so I'm going to drop and lurk.

FWIW when I was mentioning my biggest regrets as a young man most of my bad decisions involved alcohol. This included hooking up with a girl my friend was super interested in (thus ending our friendship), dating a girl with borderline personality who was a blast when drunk but nightmarish when sober, and going home with a woman who swore she was divorced but who I learned afterwards was merely separated ... to a Ranger with severe anger issues. I’m going to advise my son never to hook up drunk. Take time in a new relationship and plan a special evening for your first time together.

PS - I’m glad looking back I didn’t take advantage of women, but I certainly was open to jumping into sex when it was a really bad idea. Also there was a “party hard because tomorrow we die” attitude in the military which at the time I embraced.

The thing that guides me through all this is remembering what is was like when I had no idea how social interactions worked.

I didn't know what constituted flirting. Or banter. When to push boundaries and when not to. What's funny and what's awkward or cringeworthy. What draws me into 'enthusiastic consent' is that other people are paying the price for the period of time while I'm figuring that out and occasionally stepping on toes (or worse). It's one of the cases where privilege is actually really easy to explain. Teenage boys suffer because we don't understand how to read signals and communicate effectively and with confidence. Teenage non-boys suffer because teenage boys don't understand how to read signals or communicate effectively. It's a really tough thing to instill in pubescent teenagers (or older) the confidence to interact while listening and to learn without feeling judged. So I have empathy for those who are in that situation. Even enthusiastic consent is just a phrase until they get actual experience seeing what that means.

Which is why we have to teach it. If we're taught from an early age to expect clear, unambiguous signs of attraction that provides a goal post for those working these things out, a lot of the nuance can be learned later through experience. And it will help us to know how to give / show those unambiguous signs (and conversely make it more socially acceptable and safe to give unambiguous signs of non-attraction).

Total non-sequitur to my not quite fully collected thoughts on too impaired to consent:

Spoiler:

The flip side of that is to understand that people are different and flawed and that situations are different and it's the harmed party that gets to decide if they were hurt. Two impaired people can in fact have sex while neither one can consent. Afterwards (or during) one of them may decide they were not OK with what happened while the other decides they were. The one who was OK with it does not get to tell the other person to just be OK with it. Perhaps they both need to come to terms with the fact that the other wasn't able to consent and that means they did something neither one is OK with and sometimes life sucks that way as they each come to terms with it (or not). Legal issues aside, that's a horrible place to be. "Being OK with what happened" is itself a spectrum and not binary. I'm not really sure where that goes from there.

While there are aspects of the enthusiastic consent model many are discussing in a positive light which I support, I also agree with Flintheart that there can be uncertainty inherent in a system where there is a large degree of subjectivity.

Let's use an extreme case. Say it's the woman's first time and penetration is painful initially followed by major discomfort. I'm pretty sure enthusiastic consent is not really present at that point, but if the woman, whether by passive acquiescence or reluctant acceptance, continues it so that it can reach the man's climax, is the man guilty of sexual assault? Ideally, the man would pause and get the check-in as soon as he senses his partner's discomfort. Painful messy sex isn't really covered in PUA literature or culture or even generally in popularised content (porn).

To some extent perhaps check-ins help by defining hard checkpoints along the path to establishing and maintaining enthusiastic consent. Ideally, both sides would communicate freely and on a timely basis. For example, initiating penetration, so far as I am concerned, is in the control of my partner, who knows better than I as to when it will be comfortable/enjoyable for her, so I wait for the invitation. I think the pause and ask framework is probably safest for all concerned despite its seemingly awkwardness at first blush.

Flintheart Glomgold wrote:

There is a certain thread of the recent discussions that are making the claim that you need "enthusiastic consent" and if she does not give it then it is a full stop. I do not have a problem with "consent" and I hope that is obvious. I have a problem with the term "enthusiastic" because it is subjective. Furthermore most of the conversations then move towards that there is an absence of grey areas (and I agree there are no grey areas to consent); but when you use a subjective term, then claim there are no grey areas it seems self-defeating to me. For many this seems to be an issue of semantics but a lot issues come down to semantics and using the term enthusiastic consent does not properly address or confront the problem.

The second issue that I feel I have been horrible in expressing is that in order for communication to work best it needs to be clear from both sides. While both sides need to have clarification on consent they both need to feel comfortable to express consent, feelings, limits, and expectations. To be clear I am not placing blame on women. I see a fundamental problem in our society (right now the United States) discourages people from having proper communications on these issues.

Combining these two you get the pressure on looking for enthusiastic (subjective) consent rather than being in clear communication about consent. I am not saying you don't clarifying consent; I'm saying the implication is directed towards once one side is sure there is enthusiastic consent then it is a green light and full steam ahead. Once again this may seem like semantics to some but using a subjective term to determine a green light seems a recipe for miscues if there is not enough communication.

What has been missing from the conversation is that if things are moving in an uncomfortable area clear communication needs to be established. This is not a popular thing to say. I am not shifting blame to anyone. If we ignore this part of the communication we are only looking for a half solution. As a society we are getting really good at saying "make sure there is consent before being intimate," but we have been piss poor outside certain circles at saying, "Tell each other what you want, what your expectations are, and be clear." Little about how we experience society tells any of us to have a discussion like that, especially on the first date - we are taught to let things come naturally.

Long post, but I wanted to try to be clear as I can and I'm not sure I am so I'm going to drop and lurk.

I think trying to view enthusiasm and consent as two distinct things is what's causing confusion. Enthusiasm is a modifier for the consent, not a separate thing. You're trying to judge that the consent was enthusiastically given. It's basically checking to make sure that the consent was given because they want to give it, not because they feel pressured or obligated to give it. Someone can can be nervous about doing something but still be enthusiastic about their desire to try it.

As for your second issue about both sides needing to be clear in their communication, it's kind of a given and been addressed plenty already. The discussion centers around what men can do better because men are typically the ones with the problem (assuming consent, ignoring non-verbal queues, seeing a "no" as a challenge to be defeated), and specifically this thread is about what men can do. Giving advice that women need to be more clear when they [i]don't/i] consent isn't terribly useful in this thread, and besides that, it's putting the onus on the wrong party.

FWIW, I don't think you should go lurk, as discussing stuff like this is kind of the whole point of the thread.

Bfgp wrote:

Let's use an extreme case. Say it's the woman's first time and penetration is painful initially followed by major discomfort. I'm pretty sure enthusiastic consent is not really present at that point, but if the woman, whether by passive acquiescence or reluctant acceptance, continues it so that it can reach the man's climax, is the man guilty of sexual assault? Ideally, the man would pause and get the check-in as soon as he senses his partner's discomfort. Painful messy sex isn't really covered in PUA literature or culture or even generally in popularised content (porn).

This example, and many others, can be easily covered by the notion of consent being an ongoing process, not a discrete event. In this instance, yes, the other partner should check in. “Are you OK? Do you need a break?”

I'm 33 for what it's worth, and some of what I have read here, and even contributed here, is a first. Feeling there is a place for this. Feeling that I am allowed to say my piece. To ask questions that I have. Without parameters. It's new.

Bfgp wrote:

Let's use an extreme case. Say it's the woman's first time and penetration is painful initially followed by major discomfort. I'm pretty sure enthusiastic consent is not really present at that point, but if the woman, whether by passive acquiescence or reluctant acceptance, continues it so that it can reach the man's climax, is the man guilty of sexual assault? Ideally, the man would pause and get the check-in as soon as he senses his partner's discomfort. Painful messy sex isn't really covered in PUA literature or culture or even generally in popularised content (porn).

I think my last post covered this sort of situation as well, but getting enthusiastic consent in this case is making sure that yes, she's sure wants to continue, that her consent is still enthusiastically given. You basically follow her lead unless/until she indicates that she wants you to take the lead, provided that you're comfortable with it yourself. If you're not comfortable with continuing while she's clearly experiencing pain or discomfort you need to let her know that too because in that case she doesn't have enthusiastic consent from you.

If you're not comfortable with continuing while she's clearly experiencing pain or discomfort you need to let her know that too because in that case she doesn't have enthusiastic consent from you.

This, a thousand times. Focusing on on this point is key, because touches on so many valuable things, such as:

- It recognizes that your discomfort is meaningful too. The person on the top side of a power exchange relationship has the right to decide they don't feel okay with what's happening, and call a color. It doesn't seem like a revolutionary concept, but particularly if you've been raised as a man in our culture, it really can be powerful to give that some extra weight in your mind.
- It points out that desire and consent, while often (usually) interlinked, are not the same thing. You can have all the desire in the world to engage in an activity, but if you don't feel comfortable or safe with how it's going, you may not be consenting to it.
- It can perhaps help you empathize with a small bit of the subtlety and complexity that surrounds consent for people who are raised as women in our culture that is often all too easy to rush past with the masculine bravado and unhelpful, combative models of relationships we're given.
- It's a perfect example of how consent is an ongoing process of communication where both (all) parties involved in an activity have rights and responsibilities to make sure both they and their partners continue to feel safe and comfortable with what's happening.
- Other things, but I really don't have time to type much more at the moment.

My wife and I usually do a check in at the moment of penetration. Even with years of experience, I am not always sure if her reaction is because she's really into it or if it's due to discomfort. She checks in because it is actually more common for me to have discomfort in this part, and I have changed my mind about penetrative sex after starting one or two times. To her credit, she has never pressured me.

My wife's drive is higher than mine. I do maintenance sex more often and I say no to sex more often. I've even faked orgasm a few times because I was fine with what we'd already done and I didn't want her feeling obligated about it.

So since I started off the alcohol and consent question, I wanted to expand on it a little. Someone mentioned that using an established relationship is a straw man and I agree that is not the scenario that is causing most issues.

When I was much younger, I had a good female friend who was a classmate during residency. We were both new to the city and were very close. It was platonic but I had a major crush on her and would have been happy if it were more which I’m sure she knew.

We went to a Halloween party together and alcohol was involved. We were tipsy but not smashed (she drove us home). On the way home she said she needed me that night and took us back to her place. It was basically tear each other’s clothes off and have what I thought was very mutually enthusiastic sex.

As I was lying next to her I awoke early in the morning and she was softly crying. I asked her what was wrong and she told me I should go so I left (we lived in the same apartment complex).

We remained friends although it was icy for quite a while. I never understood what I did wrong and frankly still don’t. She wouldn’t talk about it afterwards and avoided me for weeks.

So when I wonder about the complication of alcohol, this is the incident I remember most. I’m guessing this was after morning regret but given the current environment, could she have accused me of sexual assault? And is there a difference between after morning regret and sexual assault? If there were cues that she was not consenting, I completely missed them but maybe that was my fault. I’m guessing it was since I didn’t check in with her but the clear invitation to have sex and the enthusiastic moaning during made it feel like I didn’t need to.

Barring more information (which you could only have if she talked to you about it) I don't think her reaction had anything to do with anything you did wrong. Sounds like it was internally aimed and the iciness at you was because seeing you reminded her of it. One can enthusiastically consent to something that turns out to be a mistake or a regrettable experience. One can decide that their consent was deceptively gained which would make it retroactively non-enthusiastic, but that's a different situation.

Docjoe wrote:

We went to a Halloween party together and alcohol was involved. We were tipsy but not smashed (she drove us home). On the way home she said she needed me that night and took us back to her place. It was basically tear each other’s clothes off and have what I thought was very mutually enthusiastic sex.

As I was lying next to her I awoke early in the morning and she was softly crying. I asked her what was wrong and she told me I should go so I left (we lived in the same apartment complex).

We remained friends although it was icy for quite a while. I never understood what I did wrong and frankly still don’t. She wouldn’t talk about it afterwards and avoided me for weeks.

I'd stake the money in my pockets that it's not something you did. It sounds likely to me she was going through a rough patch (possibly involving another person) and wanted to feel close to someone and to feel wanted that night. In the morning she still had the same problems she had the day before and wasn't feeling great about it.

I'm not saying this to make you feel bad – and I'm aware it comes across as blunt but I mean it from a good place – but I honestly think it's unlikely you've done anything wrong if you acted with the best intentions. And it sounds like you did.

The point I think needs to be a part of these discussions is that women have agency in their sex lives and are entitled to their own decisions regarding it, good or bad. Our society has a really bad habit of denying sexual agency from women: "Men want sex, women provide it" is the tacit assumption.

Is taking a woman home who is too drunk to consent wrong? Without a question. Absolutely criminal.

Is getting a woman drunk to impair her judgment so it's easier to convince her to sleep with you? Yes. Not necessarily illegal but you're definitely a PoS for doing it.

Is a woman getting drunk, getting uninhibited, taking you home and regretting it in the morning wrong? No. Not it's not. Women are absolutely entitled to make bad decisions regarding their sex lives – or their lives in general – the same as men.

The decision you make as to whether you're prepared to go home with someone who's drunker than you; whom you know would probably not sleep with you if they weren't drunk; and who would probably regret the decision in the morning is entirely up to you. What kind of man do you want to be and how much do you want to put yourself in charge of other peoples' bad decisions?

For my part, I spent 13 years without a drop of alcohol so found myself in that situation 3 times that I can remember. In every case the women in question thought I was being unnecessarily gentlemanly and that they were a little annoyed that we both missed out on a shag that night. Personally I'd rather not end up as someone's story of regret but that's down to my ego entirely; and as it turned out I did end up being someone else's story of regret anyway.

My opinion is that women get to choose who they will and won't have sex with. It's not men's or anyone else's job to choose for them. What we do have to do is ensure that choice is freely made when we're part of it.

I think part of the issue in this specific scenario was that for me, it was more than a roll in the hay because I was hoping that this would be the start of a relationship I badly wanted. For her, I think it was just a regrettable roll in the hay.

I guess issues of consent aside, it’s a reminder that sex can definitely mess with a relationship. It’s also a reminder that alcohol even impacts judgement and while it may not always imply sexual assault, it does always mean people are making decisions that would likely be different if sober.

And brings me back to whether a blanket policy that men should have a hard-stop no to sex with a woman who has been drinking outside the confines of a long-term relationship. Even if not the one initiating.

Docjoe wrote:

I think part of the issue in this specific scenario was that for me, it was more than a roll in the hay because I was hoping that this would be the start of a relationship I badly wanted. For her, I think it was just a regrettable roll in the hay.

I guess issues of consent aside, it’s a reminder that sex can definitely mess with a relationship. It’s also a reminder that alcohol always impacts judgement and while it may not always imply sexual assault, it does always mean people are making decisions that would likely be different if sober.

And brings me back to whether a blanket policy that men should have a hard-stop no to sex with a woman who has been drinking outside the confines of a long-term relationship. Even if not the one initiating.

This is for the benefit of discussion. Not as a statement to offend one side, nor rally the other.

Maq wrote:

The point I think needs to be a part of these discussions is that women have agency in their sex lives and are entitled to their own decisions regarding it, good or bad. Our society has a really bad habit of denying sexual agency from women: "Men want sex, women provide it" is the tacit assumption.

I agree with this. I think most men and women understand this. The problems lay within some men who think agency is something for them to conquer in the absence of an absolute. And some women who feel as if they do not have the necessary agency to provide an absolute.

Society is attempting to create constructs to work around this, rather than work through. Attribute blame rather than empower responsibility (agency). Shift full responsibility to one individual.

The overplayed date between Aziz and Grace? He responded to the one absolute. She took time to give an absolute. Some women appear to be using the reasoning that Aziz thus became responsible for not only his agency, but that of Grace also. Ignoring the lack of force, lack of intoxication, and lack of a power play. He was leading. Not forcing her to follow.

Maq wrote:

Is a woman getting drunk, getting uninhibited, taking you home and regretting it in the morning wrong? No. Not it's not. Women are absolutely entitled to make bad decisions regarding their sex lives – or their lives in general – the same as men.

Depending on who says this. Depending on how. This could be labelled victim blaming. It's effectively highlighting responsibility for ones actions where applicable.

Maq wrote:

My opinion is that women get to choose who they will and won't have sex with. It's not men's or anyone else's job to choose for them. What we do have to do is ensure that choice is freely made when we're part of it.

I agree. Coercion is problematic. Coercion can be wrong.

Heard enough gospel? Leave the church. Not interested in illegal highs? Walk away from the drug dealer. Cannot afford the new shiny? Do not buy it.

RnRClown wrote:

The overplayed date between Aziz and Grace? He responded to the one absolute. She took time to give an absolute. Some women appear to be using the reasoning that Aziz thus became responsible for not only his agency, but that of Grace also. Ignoring the lack of force, lack of intoxication, and lack of a power play. He was leading. Not forcing her to follow.

Attempting to put some blame on Grace for taking time to give an absolute "no" is pretty unfair as Aziz ignored many other things she said and did before she finally got to the point where she realized she was going to need an absolute "no" to get him to stop. He was never responsible for Grace's agency, but he was responsible for his repeated denials of it. My personal read on the story was that Grace might have been up for some form of sexual activity with Aziz had he respected her agency at all, but his actions on the date (which at the time wouldn't seem like a huge deal by themselves but in hindsight stood out like red flags to her) and in his apartment made it clear that he didn't. Another part of why Aziz's bad behavior gets so much criticism is that he's published a fairly well received dating/romance book so he should absolutely know better.

Aziz, in my opinion, is an asshole. He was out of line. He should have known better. He's also not necessarily a sexual predator.

I'm trying to understand why it's considered putting blame on Grace to look for where, and how, she could have influenced the situation better. She has agency. This is considered normal when examining Aziz.

Redirections can be viewed as both a delay and a denial. If Aziz is taking them as a delay, whilst Grace means them as a denial, how is the blame, the responsibility, not divided equally?

In the absence of absolutes subjectivity takes precedent. Enter that door at your own risk.

When Aziz shows his nature as more Family Guy's Quagmire, and less Disney's Prince Charming, assuming Grace prefers Prince Charming, what is the most suitable course of action? Hope to sway Aziz more to her preference? In other words, stay in a hope to get what she wants. Or be up front and knock it on the head. There's a choice for her to make.

When Aziz discovers that Grace is not as sexually adventurous as he, not as confident, what is the most suitable course of action? Hope to sway Grace more to his preference? Continue in a hope to get what he wants. Or call it a day when it becomes unclear how well they match up in this regard. There's a choice for him to make.

RnRClown wrote:

Aziz, in my opinion, is an asshole. He was out of line. He should have known better. He's also not necessarily a sexual predator.

I'm trying to understand why it's considered putting blame on Grace to look for where, and how, she could have influenced the situation better. She has agency. This is considered normal when examining Aziz.

Redirections can be viewed as both a delay and a denial. If Aziz is taking them as a delay, whilst Grace means them as a denial, how is the blame, the responsibility, not divided equally?

Because he's the one initiating things and he ignored her responses whenever he checked in with her. If you've not read her account of what happened, you should. He made her fondle him despite her moving her hand away each time. When she said "next time" when he first asked where she wanted him to f*ck her, he changed it so that now was next time (drinks in his apartment could be their second date). When she said she didn't want to be forced, he acknowledged that, but as soon as they sat down went for oral sex, got it, then went right back to trying to f*ck her. Then she gave him a hard "no, I'm not ready to do this" and he initially backed off, but was soon back at it trying to make out and undo her pants again. He continued trying to kiss her after she yelled at him and went to call for a ride home. If he thought she only wanted a delay, he should have let her be the one to decide the delay was over since she was the one who wanted it. She wasn't as clear as she possibly could have been with her earlier rebuffs, but she shouldn't have to had to be. He viewed her reluctance as an obstruction to be pushed through, as if he just had to exert his will hard enough and she'd give in. If that's how he acts for every date, that's some pretty textbook sexual predator behavior. It's not "jump out of the bushes" behavior, but it's certainly "c'mon, I know you want it, just let it happen" behavior.

Let's be honest about Aziz Ansari, by Lucia Brawley.

The excerpts I've chosen are to highlight who Lucia Brawley is. A woman. A mother of young girls. A survivor of sexual assault.

Lucia Brawley wrote:

My husband and I send our girls to karate to learn how to say "no," and to fight back. We want them to not accommodate aggressive people, not take candy from strangers, to speak out and say "STOP" at the top of their lungs if someone is bothering them.

Lucia Brawley wrote:

As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I understand palpably the delicacy of sexual dynamics. But our culture will never evolve unless we all accept our responsibility for making changes that increase accountability and conscious decision-making on all sides. That way, we will be able to distinguish more easily between consensual and nonconsensual sex.

That's a big load of bullsh*t with a side of victim blaming. Grace being an imperfect victim does not mean she wasn't a victim. It's not up to Lucia Brawley to decide whether Grace was a victim or not.

Related:
It's Time to Map the Wilderness of Bad Sex

Grace says: “I was debating if this was an awkward sexual experience or sexual assault. And that’s why I confronted so many of my friends and listened to what they had to say, because I wanted validation that it was actually bad.” Grace tells Babe that, after thinking about the evening and Ansari’s behavior, she had decided to “validate this as sexual assault.”

If Grace’s words are striking, it is because they are familiar. There is a sizable chasm between an “awkward sexual experience” and sexual assault and its topography is largely unmapped. That Grace is trying to navigate this chasm is clear, but it is an uncharted wilderness in many respects, marked only with warnings that entry is dangerous, perhaps even perilous. Consent is the technical boundary to the chasm—which, in theory, should protect us from tumbling to its ground—a legally drawn line dividing sexual assault and an “awkward sexual experience.” But even this line is not as evident as, perhaps, it should be.

...

Instead, bad sex is the stuff of our own making—a woman’s fault, of course—because coercion is “okay” as long as “no” hasn’t been uttered. In the absence of assault, we’re left with “bad sex,” a phrase that is purposefully imprecise, a label that means little but covers everything from the unpleasant to coercive to the morally harmful.

Bad sex can be an uncomfortable moment or a forgettable night, but it can also be an experience that lingers for decades, forming the core of personhood. The refusal to untangle consent leaves us with, as Grace says, in a state of confusion with the need to “validate” experiences that exist in the chasm between “bad sex” and sexual assault. We have no tidy term to describe the “sex he takes”; no helpful phrase to succinctly describe the sensory and bodily impact of such a violation.

I’m with you on this one Stengah. Not only is what Ansari did sexual assault but I think he should probably be prosecuted and serve time. He performed sexual acts on an unwilling subject without her consent which is the very definition of sexual assault. He’s a loathsome dude and I’m sure this is not the first woman he has assaulted.

I'm not sure it'd meet the legal definition so easily, especially if there was a jury deciding. Some of the activity was consensual (-ish), which is where lots of those defending Aziz get stuck. The more clear case for there being assault was his repeated attempts to initiate sexual activity (penis-in-vagina sex) after she had told him she didn't want it. People are treating her consent to some of it as consent to all of it, and falsely equating him "letting" her leave with him stopping after getting a hard no. They didn't read (or conveniently ignored) that he only temporarily stopped, and kept trying to start things back up even after the car was called. She had to go sit in the hallway and cry until the car came to get her to completely stop his advances.

Grace clearly called for a pause to the activities. This is clear because Ansari backed off. He should have stayed backed off. That's the clear line I'm seeing there. He can't be faulted for being unclear about his intentions and for not trying to initiate. That's very clear. So he can step back without fault and then let her decide where the encounter goes. Leading isn't about taking people where you want to go whether or not they want to. It's about taking consensus and seeing the big picture. In this case, Ansari then went on to be very aggressive, but I saw that as failing to lead.

As a necessary caveat, I'll clarify again that my view on this doesn't change if Ansari turned out not to have done these things. He may or may not have, but these specific activities are still a no.

Yeah, internalised mysogyny is a hell of a thing, no matter what someone's 'qualifications' are to justify it.

I'm a bit nonplussed at the obsession with excusing Ansari and blaming Grace. Even if things aren't as they seem the specific case is besides the point.

Here's Natalie Portman taking about what it was like to be sexual objectified from age 12/13
http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/20/us...

Hypatian wrote:

I'm not a man, nor is the author of this piece, but I thought it might be some good food for thought:

In The Midst Of #MeToo, What Type Of Man Do You Want To Be?
(Ijeoma Oluo, The Estabishment, 2018-01-18)

Who decides what men are? Is it decided by decree? By popular vote? Or is it decided by you, individual men?

LTTP, but I just read through this now. It's really good.

I think often behaviour can be changed for the better by appealing to people's egos and selfish natures, so for me the big quote is this:

You are fighting for your right to be the next man that she’s talking about when she tells her friends about how traumatic her evening was.

With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth around what 'enthusiastic' means or whatever else the latest attack on female victims is, that quoted part really cuts to the heart of the issue.