No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6375
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Jadagul » 11 Jan 2018, 17:08

lunchstealer wrote:
11 Jan 2018, 16:27
Jadagul wrote:
11 Jan 2018, 16:08
The threat isn't of concrete social or reputational harm due to people knowing about the picture.

The threat is of people seeing the picture in the first place.
This. If you ruin my career, I'll humiliate you to your friends and family and everyone you've ever known.

It's more than that, though. It's not just "to your friends and family".

People perceive having nude photos seen by strangers who have no idea who they are as a huge violation---that's like half the point of revenge porn sites (and especially the "revenge" half of "revenge porn"). Even if no one she knows ever sees it or cares, it can still be felt as a huge threat.

There's maybe room for a point here about stoicism and a stable self-image that's not dependent on how other people see you. And also maybe a Lacanian take on the Big Other and Dark Other. But that's a bit callous in context, and certainly doesn't do a good job of explaining how people actually, empirically respond to this stuff.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 15 Jan 2018, 00:47

So, Aziz Ansari.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/babe.net/2 ... -28355/amp

If the question is whether he should learn to read some clues, hell yeah.

OTOH, he took her clothes off, she didn't put them back on, he asked her for oral sex and she did it rather than saying "No, I'm putting a stop to this." So he has a woman in his apartment who sometimes pushes him away and moves, but keeps her clothes off and continues to accept his touches and kisses and sucks his dick. I can see how he might read that as interest in sex, albeit interest in moving the encounter a bit more slowly.

I'm not sure that that's enough reason to permanently exile him from his industry.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7955
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by nicole » 15 Jan 2018, 00:51

That whole story annoyed me. Why would you go to someone’s apartment if you have no interest in sex? I’m genuinely asking. It’s like you’re not actually understanding what the different parts of a standard date are. Also a guy doesn’t want to play with your fucking hair in some situation that doesn’t involve having sex. Just go home after dinner if you aren’t trying to fuck.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 15 Jan 2018, 01:03

nicole wrote:That whole story annoyed me. Why would you go to someone’s apartment if you have no interest in sex? I’m genuinely asking. It’s like you’re not actually understanding what the different parts of a standard date are. Also a guy doesn’t want to play with your fucking hair in some situation that doesn’t involve having sex. Just go home after dinner if you aren’t trying to fuck.
Or at least say "No" and put your clothes back on.

I support a woman's right to go to a guy's place and not have sex. I just think that she'll be able to assert that right with less fuss if she puts her clothes on when she decides not to have sex. Call me conservative and misogynist, but "No, I'm putting my clothes on" is a different message than "OK, I will suck your dick."
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9678
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Sandy » 15 Jan 2018, 02:45

Also Stan Lee. In both cases, a 4 year old could physically overpower the alleged perpetrator.

I’m clearly exaggerating. It would take at least a 6-year-old to fight off Aziz at this point.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 15 Jan 2018, 20:26

More thoughts about Ansari:

If a woman wrote about that without naming the man, it would be about how men need to pay more attention to nonverbal cues and I think we could all agree. By naming the man it turns into a question of whether his conduct was bad enough to merit exile from the professional arena (or worse). And it is pretty clear that the answer to that question ought to be "No." So then we're left trying to figure out how to talk about this and simultaneously give appropriate emphasis to "Men need to pay more attention to nonverbal cues", "Women need to say no rather than wait for a man to figure out that the naked woman sucking his dick is not actually into this" and "We don't think that what he did was bad enough to destroy his life forever." The third point wouldn't need to be made if he was anonymous and no reputation was at stake.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11229
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 15 Jan 2018, 20:56

I've been following conversations on Ansari, and they've been split between "that's not any crime, that's two people having an unsatisfactory hook-up" and "he's solely responsible for their not negotiating everything out BDSM-style beforehand".

I'm generally perfectly fine with the idea of enthusiastic consent, but goddamn, I think it's on you if, absent any intimidation or threat or whatever, you go down on someone instead of just indicating in some way that you don't wanna. If you can't bring yourself to say "no", then maybe you just don't have sexual agency and so shouldn't be going on dates. Sexual assault isn't a game of mother-may-I.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22404
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Warren » 15 Jan 2018, 21:27

Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Jan 2018, 20:56
If you can't bring yourself to say "no", then maybe you just don't have sexual agency and so shouldn't be going on dates.
YES! It's to the point that women shouldn't be allowed to socialize with members of the opposite sex without a chaperone.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 15 Jan 2018, 22:08

Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Jan 2018, 20:56
I'm generally perfectly fine with the idea of enthusiastic consent, but goddamn, I think it's on you if, absent any intimidation or threat or whatever, you go down on someone instead of just indicating in some way that you don't wanna. If you can't bring yourself to say "no", then maybe you just don't have sexual agency and so shouldn't be going on dates. Sexual assault isn't a game of mother-may-I.
I think of enthusiastic consent as a good standard for decent individuals to hold themselves to (as well as anyone else with whom they discuss sexual experiences) but a dangerous yardstick for the purpose of "Has this person transgressed to the point where I think they should be exiled from professional life?" If she didn't name Ansari, if it were presented as an example of how a person can fail to read another person's mood because they're being a jerk, I'd chalk it up as an interesting example to discuss because it's a case where BOTH parties have failed: He really is a jerk here, and she really is passive to the point where the Victorians would be all "See, we told you that the ladies can't handle a culture of permissiveness around pre-marital sex!"

I think the Victorian comparison brings up some interesting class issues here. The article describes her as "a 23-year-old Brooklyn-based photographer, then aged 22." Who somehow got into an Emmy Awards after-party. I'll go out on a limb that she's "Of A Certain Class." Victorian mores were also just for ladies "Of A Certain Class." Nobody was going to give a shit if a young woman working some low-wage job was in an unpleasant encounter with a coarse male. We're in an era of substantial economic polarization*, coupled with increasing opportunities to insulate oneself from dissenting perspectives in our media consumption. Polarization can actually lead to more rather than fewer people "of a certain class", living in a certain kind of bubble, getting a certain kind of education, and they'll be getting their ideas reinforced in the right kind (wrong kind?) of media bubble, and having access to reporters of a sympathetic mindset. So there are fewer and fewer people who might say to them "Wait, you blew him because you didn't feel like saying 'no'?" There are more and more people around them who can get in front of a microphone to agree with them that Aziz Ansari needs to be cast out from polite society, or that their liberal arts college should expel a guy for similar offenses.

If we absolutely MUST re-enact the Victorian era can we at least have some cool steampunk RPG dystopia/utopia stuff along the way.

*Calm down, everyone, I'm not calling for Bernie to do anything about this.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11229
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 15 Jan 2018, 22:21

thoreau wrote:
15 Jan 2018, 22:08
Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Jan 2018, 20:56
I'm generally perfectly fine with the idea of enthusiastic consent, but goddamn, I think it's on you if, absent any intimidation or threat or whatever, you go down on someone instead of just indicating in some way that you don't wanna. If you can't bring yourself to say "no", then maybe you just don't have sexual agency and so shouldn't be going on dates. Sexual assault isn't a game of mother-may-I.
I think of enthusiastic consent as a good standard for decent individuals to hold themselves to (as well as anyone else with whom they discuss sexual experiences) but a dangerous yardstick for the purpose of "Has this person transgressed to the point where I think they should be exiled from professional life?" ...
Completely agreed on the quasi-victorian idiocy.

I'm souring on the enthusiastic consent idea, though, the more I think about it. Especially as I'm seeing people argue for it in such a way that I'd expect to come out of some paranoid MRA guy's rant about females trying to frame you for rape—if you're not making your partner affirm that this is consensual every single step of the way, then they can get you. Except, of course, they're arguing that this is right and proper.

What's the next step, "When 'yes' isn't enough?"
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 15 Jan 2018, 22:29

Well, I guess the question is, enthusiastic consent as a standard for what?

I think many people have been in a situation where they notice part-way through the act that their partner suddenly isn't into it. The decent thing to say is "Are you OK?" Often the answer will be the word "yes" but something will be off. So a decent person stops what they're doing and asks questions because they care about their partner's feelings. And sometimes it comes out that maybe the person isn't quite as into it as they often are, but they like doing it, they like making the other person happy, and they want to continue because they do like being together this way even if it isn't like other times. Whether or not the couple should continue or not is very much something that depends on the individuals, their history, etc. Criminal law should play no part in it. No outsider has any business parsing out just how enthusiastic the other person is.

OTOH, with a person that you don't have much experience with, if you're detecting something is off then just stop fucking. Now. Frame it as an ethical duty to the other person, frame it as selfishly avoiding trouble down the road, frame it as whatever you want, but if you are with a person that you don't have experience with and something doesn't feel right, cover your ass (in every sense).
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11229
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 16 Jan 2018, 04:01

thoreau wrote:
15 Jan 2018, 22:29
Well, I guess the question is, enthusiastic consent as a standard for what?

...

OTOH, with a person that you don't have much experience with, if you're detecting something is off...
Sure, but that's if you're detecting. And if you're not detecting because your partner doesn't want to communicate this (and how is someone who can't communicate her wine preference or that she doesn't feel like fellating her date going to manage to indicate her active consent?), some people want that to be sexual assault. Not everyone over yonder in the SJW camp, but quite a few.

I mean, yes, it also pays to avoid having sex with idiots, but then, celibacy works for that, too. And the more I mull this, the more I find it hard to get around the point if you can't refuse, then you can't consent.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7955
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by nicole » 16 Jan 2018, 08:34

"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 16 Jan 2018, 10:36

nicole wrote:Team anti David French http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... l-morality
I think I am sort of on his side, actually. Or, at least, I think that if we are going to regard young women in the way that a certain type of feminist wants us to, then a decent man really does have to adhere to the standard that French outlines. I think that he has accurately analyzed where things stand.

Then the question comes down to whether we should respond by according men that responsibility because it is a given that women are to be regarded that way, or we should reject the idea that women need that protection.

But if the fragility version of feminism is taken as a given (which it is in my workplace) then I think French's position is the logical conclusion.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9678
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Sandy » 16 Jan 2018, 10:37

Neo-Victorianism is a helluva drug.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7955
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by nicole » 16 Jan 2018, 10:38

thoreau wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 10:36
nicole wrote:Team anti David French http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... l-morality
I think I am sort of on his side, actually. Or, at least, I think that if we are going to regard young women in the way that a certain type of feminist wants us to, then a decent man really does have to adhere to the standard that French outlines. I think that he has accurately analyzed where things stand.

Then the question comes down to whether we should respond by according men that responsibility because it is a given that women are to be regarded that way, or we should reject the idea that women need that protection.

But if the fragility version of feminism is taken as a given (which it is in my workplace) then I think French's position is the logical conclusion.
Sex doesn't leave marks on your soul, because souls aren't real. He's encouraging them because their Victorianism is what he's been after all along.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21673
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Mo » 16 Jan 2018, 10:39

Am I the only one wondering why we care about some random bad article on babe.com? If the dude's name was Aziz Khan, no one would care about this story, at all.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9678
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Sandy » 16 Jan 2018, 10:54

Mo wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 10:39
Am I the only one wondering why we care about some random bad article on babe.com? If the dude's name was Aziz Khan, no one would care about this story, at all.
You mean we at Gryll or we in general? If it's in general, the answer is right there in your question. If the Gryll, then see the thread title.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 16 Jan 2018, 10:56

nicole wrote:
thoreau wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 10:36
nicole wrote:Team anti David French http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... l-morality
I think I am sort of on his side, actually. Or, at least, I think that if we are going to regard young women in the way that a certain type of feminist wants us to, then a decent man really does have to adhere to the standard that French outlines. I think that he has accurately analyzed where things stand.

Then the question comes down to whether we should respond by according men that responsibility because it is a given that women are to be regarded that way, or we should reject the idea that women need that protection.

But if the fragility version of feminism is taken as a given (which it is in my workplace) then I think French's position is the logical conclusion.
Sex doesn't leave marks on your soul, because souls aren't real. He's encouraging them because their Victorianism is what he's been after all along.
Sex can (in some cases) leave marks on the psyche, or whatever term you want to use for the human mind in its profundity.

Victorianism isn't just what he's been after all along. It's also what they've been after all along. I salute him for clearly highlighting the implications of said fact.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 5670
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Andrew » 16 Jan 2018, 11:48

I wish I could remember the source, but I once read an article that had something along these lines:

"Were you ever taught as a child that you had to refuse something you really wanted to be polite? That even though you really wanted the cookie that was offered, you had to refuse at least once, if not two or three times, before you could accept? That you had to let the offeror 'wear you down' before you could accept something that you truly wanted? So children are raised to believe that politeness requires saying no when meaning yes. I wonder where so much confusion about consent comes from."
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

holy shit there will never be an end until the sweet release of death (as dictated by the death panels, natch) - lunch

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9678
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Sandy » 16 Jan 2018, 12:31

Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 16 Jan 2018, 12:39

Mo wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 10:39
Am I the only one wondering why we care about some random bad article on babe.com? If the dude's name was Aziz Khan, no one would care about this story, at all.
Well, it involves sex, and sex sells, and among stories that involve sex this one is the perfect distillation of so many things that have gotten a lot of discussion lately. Even without the celebrity angle, it's pretty much a perfect Rohrschach test, in that it's pretty clear the guy was kind of insensitive AND that the woman was incredibly passive. It's similar to a lot of the Title IX cases that have come up at colleges, and the woman is close in age to a lot of students, but it's removed from a college context. It touches on a whole mess of live wires. And it is a real-life analogue to the "Cat Person" story that got so much attention last month.

Is the most important thing that she was completely lacking in assertiveness or that he was lacking in attention to signals? Is the dress blue or gold?
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 677
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by dead_elvis » 16 Jan 2018, 13:06

Andrew wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 11:48
I wish I could remember the source, but I once read an article that had something along these lines:

"Were you ever taught as a child that you had to refuse something you really wanted to be polite? That even though you really wanted the cookie that was offered, you had to refuse at least once, if not two or three times, before you could accept? That you had to let the offeror 'wear you down' before you could accept something that you truly wanted? So children are raised to believe that politeness requires saying no when meaning yes. I wonder where so much confusion about consent comes from."
When the term "toxic masculinity" comes up, this is what I think of. I don't know what it's like nowadays for the youngins, but I had hoped "be skeptical of no because she can't say yes" was a thing that would have died with my generation. As silly as explicit verbal consent for every act gets, this is something I'd be happy to see tossed.

It also reveals kind of a fucked up attitude- trying to get laid is like offering a gift? Yeah dude, she wants you to bestow your benevolent blessings upon her, if only she weren't too polite to accept. It's the attitude that sex is something you give, rather than participate.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9678
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Sandy » 16 Jan 2018, 14:10

I suspect a lot of girls are still taught to be afraid of their sexuality. I don't think the current sex-negative trend in feminism is helping.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24772
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 16 Jan 2018, 14:17

Sandy wrote:I suspect a lot of girls are still taught to be afraid of their sexuality. I don't think the current sex-negative trend in feminism is helping.
But it isn't entirely sex-negative. It is sex-binary. There is totally awesome enthusiastically consensual sex. And there is rape. There is nothing in between. If she is totally into it then everything is great. If anything is ambiguous for her then the guy is a rapist. She is never to be blamed. It isn't so much negative about sex but rather negative about female agency and male sexuality.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests