[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

Sorry(?) for being a poor writer.

The poor writing makes it ambiguous not because of what Aziz Ansari heard but because the piece even makes it ambiguous what was even said.

For me ignoring non-verbal cues isn't any different than ignoring a no. I'll stress ignoring because non-verbal cues are not difficult to pick up on.

Edit: There’s no chance Aziz didn’t realize how uncomfortable this woman was. He just rationalized it away and kept pushing until he got what he wanted. I’m baffled by the notion that’s a “bad date”.

I had a man grope my posterior and fondle my jewels once upon a time. He applied quite a degree of pressure as he tried to check my prostate so as my doctor wouldn't have to. My clothing offered little resistance. It hurt. It was prolonged. Once I made some space between us, which I hope was unpleasant for him, he smiled and motioned to a blow job. He sleuthed away confident in himself.

I was honestly half in a daze before I realized what had happened. Someone pointed out it was sexual harassment. I shrugged and pondered what could be done. I thought about catching up to and looking to bleed him as the pieces came together. Obviously I did not.

I have one friend, a man, who was almost raped by a group of men. They were chased off as his trousers were around his ankles. His jaw was broken and he was in a bad way. He has never spoken of it.

I swear I live in the Twilight Zone where everything is inverted.

Since I'm pretty sure this is in reference to my honestly given opinion, I have to respond.

There is certainly a chance he didn't know how uncomfortable she was. I wasn't there, neither were you.

He didn't get what he wanted, he made it clear he wanted penetration when he said he was going to get a condom. She agreed to go further in another direction with him. He kept going for what he wanted, thinking after a bit of foreplay she'd be ready too. He stopped when she made it clear that she did not want to. According to the story, at that point he said, let's just chill, this time with our clothes on. I'm not going to give him a bunch of bonus points for not kicking her out of his apt, but it speaks to his intentions when he got dressed and watched Seinfeld with her. Maybe that's what made her cry, I dunno.

Obviously, it was a bad date. I'm baffled by the notion that it was not a bad date. Certainly wasn't a good date. Wasn't random assault. Wasn't workplace harassment. Are you prepared to say this was date rape? I mean, I don't think it was, but if you think it was then it was defintely a bad date.

I'm not here to defend Aziz Ansari or anyone else. But, my opinion is valid, and it wasn't given carelessly. I've given a lot of thought to this particular story because of where I see it on the spectrum of sexual assault. I believe he acted badly, I believe it upset her. I don't believe he assaulted her. People that disagree are free to do so in their own words, but don't trivialize my opinion. My opinion is neither ludicrous nor beyond the realm of possibility.

I realize some may ask for my feminist card after expressing my apparently unpopular opinion, but I've been carrying it for an awfully long time, so maybe consider what I'm saying a bit more before dismissing it as unfathomable.

(Yeah, that's how far back in the thread I started writing this.)

There are so many things to say branching off from here, including a good bit that might come off as (or simply be) advocacy for kink communities and philosophy, and as making broad generalizations about kink communities, kink philosophy, kink people and their kink practices. So let me just begin with a big disclaimer that kink communities are just like any other kind of community. They are made up of regular old people, and as such have all the wondrous and terrible variances of perspectives, practices, experiences, etc, of any other kind of community. While I personally think there are a lot of valuable lessons that broader society could learn by examining the common practices and behaviors in kink communities, they are by no means infallible in any respect, even (hell, especially) where it concerns what I and many others consider important, foundational building blocks of kink philosophy. Sadly, predators exist everywhere — although kink communities often have unique strengths and weaknesses when it comes to identifying and dealing with them — and just as importantly, well intentioned people can still make bad choices that have serious consequences even in the best of circumstances.

Further, whether I mange to communicate it properly or not, everything I say here is based on my personal experiences with the small pieces of the kink community I've been a part of in the San Francisco bay area and the greater Sacramento region (and online, of course) over roughly the past half decade or so — and the regional stereotypes both good and bad are in many ways relevant here — so any perceived generalizations you might see are probably intended to be summaries of my own personal experiences and anecdotal observations from what might be some of the more progressive, developed examples of kink communities.

And with that said, where to begin?

A thing that strikes me both about various bits of conversation here in this thread, and in the public conversation in general, is just how much I wish others could experience a shift in general cultural understanding about consent and communication about sex and sexuality (and related intimate and personal desires and relationships) like the one I had when I began to dip my toes into kink communities. They really are years ahead of the rest of our culture about exploring how to functionally implement the kind of culture shift I think we'd all like to see. (The same can be said of queer communities, which have a deep Venn diagram overlap with kink communities, but my personal experience is more specifically with kinky queer communities, so I'll just say kink as an inelegant shorthand.)

On its face, it doesn't seem like it should be such a revolutionary thing: the simple, clear minded, unswerving insistence that enthusiastic, ongoing consent should be at the heart of every interpersonal interaction, and that intentional, explicit communication of desires both upfront and on a continuing basis is vital both in enabling such consent to exist and more generally in making sure all parties involved are having the best possible experiences whenever possible. I mean, that's progressive sexual politics 101, right? Well, at least for me it was a very different thing seeing how the kink communities around me actually put it into practice, stripping away all the bullsh*t that gets in the way of acting on those concepts, and replacing it with tools and guidance about how to do it well.

Granted, given the things that people in kink communities do, it's very a important point of focus. Attend any good BDSM beginner's course, or read such a guide on the internet, and it will begin, end, and middle by emphasizing that trying to stumble your way through the often edgy and psychologically challenging activities kinky people enjoy doing together without ongoing negotiation and consent being of central focus is asking for trouble (and if you see a class or guide that doesn't hammer on that point, you should probably run away screaming). But more savvy educators will also lean on the point that I think is more salient here; you don't have to be playing with intense power exchange dynamics or engaging in physically demanding activities for interpersonal relationships to be a mine field, and having a few common sense tools in your pocket can make all the difference towards setting you up to have fun, successful intimate interactions even in the most vanilla of contexts.

The most obvious example is the concept of safe words (and the closely associated concept of check ins). I know, our culture loves to draw laughs from the concept that people would want to do something so extreme as to need some special, silly word to break out of some intense role play. But holy hell, if the generally accepted systems in my communities were more broadly accepted and applied in our culture, it feels like so many situations of mismatched desires and expectations could be navigated with so much less strife — perhaps even the situations like the one currently being discussed regarding Aziz Ansari. Basically, safe words (and check ins) if done right are more than a safety release valve — they can be an invaluable cornerstone for establishing and maintaining trust and communication in a very powerful way, especially when they are an ingrained part of your in group culture.

In my communities, and in other local communities I'm aware of through gatherings, parties, and online communication, there is no "banana" or whatever. Or, maybe there is, but it's for sh*ts and giggles. Our accepted and expected system is based around the nearly universally understood concept of stop light colors. Green means go ahead, everything is good. Yellow means that something is getting too intense, or needs to be adjusted, but things can probably continue outside of that. And red means hard stop. Simple as that. You call a color if there's a problem. You check in if you think there's a problem. If you're playing in a public (by which I generally mean private, but shared) space, you know everyone around you knows what you are communicating, so even if you don't know a new partner well you DO know that others can step in if need be. If you are comfortable enough to be playing in private, you know you have a shared cultural understanding and expectation that regardless of what else might be happening in your encounter, you can trust that if there are problems you have a precise and clear way of communicating with each other.

And again, the need for this is very clear when engaging in activities with more intense power exchange dynamics. But, whether we like it or not, that vast majority of our interpersonal — and especially our sexual — encounters involve some measure of power exchange. I mean, at the most basic level, when you engage in intimate physical activity with a person of a different physical stature than yourself, there is an inherent power imbalance, and that's before you throw a thousand layers of acculturated behaviors and expectations on top of that. So, in kink communities we choose to counter that with our own cultural construct: if anyone says the word red, everything stops. If you ignore that, you don't get to play anymore. If someone says the word yellow, you refocus on communication and don't proceed until everyone involves says green. If you ignore that, you don't get to play anymore. Period.

Further, we try to build a culture where checking in and safe wording are both felt as a right and a responsibility regardless of what part you are playing in an encounter (i.e., tops should safe word if they feel uncomfortable, bottoms should check in if their partner seems iffy, not just the other way around — power dynamics for play don't abdicate you of either responsibility). By committing to safe wording, you are not only committing to taking care of yourself, you are taking care of your partner — whether you are a top or a bottom or any thing in between, the last thing you want is to harm your partner, emotionally or physically, and safe wording saves your partner from doing that to you unknowingly. And by committing to checking in, you are making sure you keeping your partner's well being at the top of mind even when things get intense, but you are also committing to caring for yourself, and keeping yourself from doing something you might regret.

The enemy in being able to parse so many situations like the Aziz Ansari thing is ambiguity of communication, particularly when operating in poorly (or un) negotiated states of power exchange. But, there is no ambiguity in our culture if a safe word is called, or if partners are actively checking in when there is any question how things are going. VERY worth saying, of course, that if you sense something is wrong, you stop, safe word or no, but building a culture that encourages and rewards actively checking in and directly communicating when there are problems does wonders towards empowering people on all sides of the power spectrum to take better care of themselves and their partner's well being. And creating a culture where protecting the well being of yourself and your partner is more important than protecting your egos or prides helps move the needle against all the puritanical and patriarchal crap that creates situations ripe for painful and unfortunate results. Certainly it doesn't stop predators/abusers from existing, but it creates a framework were it's at least a bit easier for well intentioned people avoid making bad choices and regrettable mistakes.

Well, crap, I got way off on a tangent there (shocking, I know), and I'm out of time to talk about other things the kink world has to offer to the broader culture, such as:

- Various other tools and constructs that help protect and reinforce consent and communication culture.
- How the old saw of "negotiating kills the mood" can be completely turned on its head. Negotiation creates the mood, if you do it right, and makes sure everyone involved enjoys the mood to the fullest.
- The painfully obvious value of changing the "game" from being about tricking or coercing people into doing what you want to being about agreeing on the things you both want and then enjoying them. F*ck pick up culture and everything to do with it. You want to have some crazy, sexy fun, you find people who feel the same and do it mutually. They're out there, I assure you.
- The emotional, psychological, and cultural benefits of accepting and understanding your relationships with power dynamics, and of creating safe spaces to explore and challenge them. It's good for the soul, and good for dismantling the patriarchy.
- My theory that a great many people are a good deal more kinky than they admit, even to themselves, and could find a surprising amount of fun, happiness, and liberation from just letting go of their reservations and opening up to the people they care about what excites them.
- My thoughts on how long it's been since the last "Welcome perverts!" post on the front page.

Anyway, not really sure where to end this, other than to say that I really encourage people who are interested in changing the culture around sex, gender, and power dynamics to take a look at what kink (and queer!) communities have done in that regard. Hell, maybe even encourage younger adults in your life to look into it too, and (scandalous!) maybe even educate your teenage kids about some of the stuff us perverts have come up with too — I know I wish I had been able to see some of these attitudes and practices modeled for me earlier in my adulthood.

No worries. I wasn’t offended. I felt bad you took my viewpoint as a direct attack against you.

Yeah, that was really detailed and informative, zeroKFE. I'm glad you felt comfortable enough to share this with us. Maybe Jonman can get in here and tell us what the poly check ins are.

Traffic light reporting is something I've previously come across in the professional world, and it works - culturally, we have trained ourselves to apply universal road behaviour on those three cololurs. If memory serves, the human brain reacts most swiftly to the colour red, probably because that's the colour of what spills out of a broken body, be it our prey or your own.

So then we need to ask ourselves, why is it that three colours resonate so easily in a decision making model, yet when it comes to something like consent, which constantly shifts and where "yes" and "no" (let alone other phrases) can be misinterpreted, or people don't stop to take the time to check the traffic light?

...

How do you feel now that it is out there for others to see? If different at all?

I left out details and chose less intimate terms so to gloss over my experience, to have it seem less real than it were. Maybe to convey how I wanted it to appear I dealt with it. Anyway. It got the point across. I read what you wrote and I must salute you for remaining earnest.

Most of all I'm sorry you had to go through such an ordeal, at such as age.

This is exactly why we all need to talk more often! Props. And bravo!

About Ansari:
NYT Op-Ed: Aziz, We Tried to Warn You (Lindy West)

I'd say yes, because the systemic forces are different. On a systemic, cultural level men as a group have more power and aren't subject to the same form of systemic assault--as a random example, men are less likely to get cat-called walking down the street. Flip side is that because of the other aspects of patriarchy being a victim is seen as a personally shameful thing. So as a group it's less of a problem, but that doesn't help the individual male victims of sexual assault who get clobbered by both internal and external toxic masculinity and other aspects of the patriarchy.

But I think you understand that better than I do.

A red flag from that whole thing that other people have pointed out to me:

It's not a date-ender, exactly, but it set a pattern of ignoring her preferences. You read the next few bits and there's more ways that he wasn't communicating with her, just rushing through the motions.

Yeah, that's a big aspect of this. One thing that happened to me was that back when I was actively looking for dating advice (because I was both young, had no clue how to start, and was nerdy enough to research it) was that there were very few people offering men dating advice aside from pick-up-artists. So I read a lot of those. I didn't act on it, but I read it. (There's way better resources online now, who are at least starting to offer healthier perspectives).

The PUA stuff is a combination of how-to guides on violating boundaries, some bad pop-psychology, an inferiority complex because they felt like they were being told that they should know how to get sex automatically*, alt-right recruiting, and a bunch of people trying to work through their sexuality with inadequate tools and little support.

They were wrong about a lot of stuff, but they were right that they were looked down upon because people around them assumed they should have the knowledge. They misidentified the cause and didn't realize that was yet another aspect of toxic masculinity, so they blamed feminists for it. Even though the actual feminists doing research had the theories that could have led them out of it.

But the way people attack the cartoon version of feminism is part of the problem. And it ignores all of the actual feminist writing which is both really good and has a lot to say about this stuff.

* Framing it as "getting sex" is, of course, part of the problem.

Your issues pertain to men. Some more. Some less. Men's issues can be, but are not always, applicable to women's issues. (And vice versa.) It's all connected.

Men inspecting their past, their views, their behavior, and asking questions shouldn't be so strange. It is. I know. I feel it, too. Women get together to discuss men, the shortcomings of men, and how it all impacts and affects women. Men can be more involved. We can listen and contribute. We are a part of it. Half. We can also ask how or if it affects us. The desire is the same. Understand. Improve.

It's an excellent article Hypatian. I understand your concerns about not being a man and for a woman to say these things. Her intentions are amazing, but it sends the wrong message. Just as some of what we want to say in the Feminism thread can't be said and taken the right way because we are men. It is why women must lead that part of Feminism.

But here we must lead our own. The frustration many women feel is because they are not men. Part of it is just the patriarchy being the patriarchy, but part of it is also that women cannot speak to our experiences, simply because of their womanhood, just as this is also true for us. We cannot speak for women. This thread is important for that, and it's a great thing though perhaps understandable that so many of our womenfolk here grok that instantly.

What is it to be a man? A great deal of redpilling and PUA preys on low self esteem and isolation. Women are preyed upon by fashion and cosmetics and, frankly, men. Men are preyed upon by ourselves. Most PUAs do not assuage their self worth and do not find healthy relationships. It is not an enviable existence. To prey and yet be miserable, to hunger and yet never be sated while preying on others - it's a demonic structure.

To give love, we must feel love. So if our output seems to concern with the welfare of men, it is because of that. A man who does not love himself - truly love himself and not merely be narcissistic - cannot give it out. When PUAs seem not to care, it is because they don't. They hate themselves and that hate is grown and then directed outwards.

While a woman can ask whether we want to be better men for women, I would like to say that we should simply learn how to live well for no one else's sake but our own. After all, not every man will choose to date women. And we harm ourselves just as much.

Most of the sexual harassment I've experienced came from gay men. I do not hate gay men because I know many straight men behave exactly the same way regarding their sexual interests.