The Mens Rights /Issues "debate"?

[Alceste]

Its a mystery.Men are from Mars women are from Venus.

I don't think it's a mystery - I think it's a throwback to the attitude that the proper sexual relationship between a man and a woman is one of dominance and submission: "she's resisting? make her do it - it's for her own good." It's a milder form of that dynamic that it has been in the past, to be sure, but it's the same mentality at play.

It's male sexual entitlement, basically. The mentality that men are entitled to use a woman's body for their own sexual gratification with minimal consideration for her true opinion on the subject.

 

[idav]

Exactly. It's not our job to decipher whether or not our partners want sex and make sure they get some if we suspect they might.

Of course we should take our partners word on it. People are tired from being at work all day or being with kids all day etc. Moods change though and it is hard to manage when you throw in differences in sexual appetite. There is a lot to consider but I like to think we can tell the difference when it is seduction and when it is sexual misconduct.

 

[Me Myself]

We're not talking about bum pats and tickle fights, we're talking about foreplay and sex.

Why aren't YOU worried that she will be ****-shamed? You know it's likely to happen. OK, you think it's stupid that we live in such a culture, but you also seem to think concern about that is her problem, and that she should get over it and just have the sex. It's your problem too. It's everybody's problem. Not just because it's preventing you from getting a clear yes and more sexy fun times, but also because (I hope) you actually care about the woman in question and don't want her to be hurt by a tarnished reputation in a misogynistic culture.

Why would I be? I dont ever say names. I let the woman manage that information.

About she being able to get over it and have sex, sure, whenever she feels like having sex. Just today for some reason I had to remember three women that there is nothing wrong with a sexually liberated woman.

We were talking a bout a short script I made and on of the women was to do cleopatra (for a class) they were laughing and saying how much of a **** I made cleopatra, but there came a moment when they said I was mocking her too much by making her so sexually needy and I asked them why didnt they told me the same about Thor who was not any less clear about his intentions to have sex with her? I told them I have nothing against a liberated woman freely enjoying her sexualilty.

They dropped the subject.

Still, I am still amazed and how women do that to themselves. I can understand it as a game a bit, but not when it comes to seriously considering a woman who is clear and direct about her sexuality to be a problem

Yet that is the culture I live in

I just hate people having so much problems with being direct. This comes more often in other forms of the culture, like with a word "conchudo" that means someone asking something that is unpolite to ask.

For example, if you are in someone's house and they ask you if you want someing to drink and you dont say "oh sure, anything you have " or "no, no thank you" but say "do you have x drink?"

The person asking for a specific drink can be viewed as "conchudo" unpolite for saying what they actually wanted instead of leaving the host to do guesswork.

I am equally bugged by that (well a bit less so, as that is more trivial and not as deepreachijng as an actual woman's sex life and imprediments).

Just in general I like stuff direct raw honest and without masks. [/rant]

 

[Alceste]

TRUE/If she is playing a "game" ? Quickly she will learn to stop playing it.She will start saying YES! But I thought that took all the "excitement" for the guy out of it?

I don't know - when I jump a guy's bones he always seems pretty excited about it.

Not all guys, not all the time, but definitely the ones I come back and keep jumping on.

One sure way to get me to make a move is to not make it yourself.

It's a scientific fact, actually, women are crazy about men who are not interested.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't think it's a mystery - I think it's a throwback to the attitude that the proper sexual relationship between a man and a woman is one of dominance and submission: "she's resisting? make her do it - it's for her own good." It's a milder form of that dynamic that it has been in the past, to be sure, but it's the same mentality at play.

It's male sexual entitlement, basically. The mentality that men are entitled to use a woman's body for their own sexual gratification with minimal consideration for her true opinion on the subject.

Sigh...I know its not a mystery I see straight through the smoke and mirrors act.

And #2 ...YEPPERS! Have you ever heard of Adam and Eve? Well let me tell ya Eve was created "for" Adam.Women are "Gods gift to men" whether she likes it or not.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't know - when I jump a guy's bones he always seems pretty excited about it.

Not all guys, not all the time, but definitely the ones I come back and keep jumping on.

One sure way to get me to make a move is to not make it yourself.

It's a scientific fact, actually, women are crazy about men who are not interested.

You mean women like a "challenge" ? I thought we were passive and calm and quiet and laid back.And we just sit there and wait?

 

[Alceste]

Why would I be? I dont ever say names. I let the woman manage that information.

About she being able to get over it and have sex, sure, whenever she feels like having sex. Just today for some reason I had to remember three women that there is nothing wrong with a sexually liberated woman.

We were talking a bout a short script I made and on of the women was to do cleopatra (for a class) they were laughing and saying how much of a **** I made cleopatra, but there came a moment when they said I was mocking her too much by making her so sexually needy and I asked them why didnt they told me the same about Thor who was not any less clear about his intentions to have sex with her? I told them I have nothing against a liberated woman freely enjoying her sexualilty.

They dropped the subject.

Still, I am still amazed and how women do that to themselves. I can understand it as a game a bit, but not when it comes to seriously considering a woman who is clear and direct about her sexuality to be a problem

Yet that is the culture I live in

I just hate people having so much problems with being direct. This comes more often in other forms of the culture, like with a word "conchudo" that means someone asking something that is unpolite to ask.

For example, if you are in someone's house and they ask you if you want someing to drink and you dont say "oh sure, anything you have " or "no, no thank you" but say "do you have x drink?"

The person asking for a specific drink can be viewed as "conchudo" unpolite for saying what they actually wanted instead of leaving the host to do guesswork.

I am equally bugged by that (well a bit less so, as that is more trivial and not as deepreachijng as an actual woman's sex life and imprediments).

Just in general I like stuff direct raw honest and without masks.

Oh dear - the trouble with needy sexual female characters written by young men is that they truly are funny, and not at all anything that an actual woman can relate to. When I was in film school I was one of two woman in a class of young men, and in script writing class I had to read all the female parts. They were awful. Once I had to read a part from a "sexually needy" female character that made me have to stand up in front of the class and say something like "Ooh, daddy, please give me your ****, I want it so bad" (a line I delivered in a totally deadpan, sarcastic voice while staring directly at the writer, who went beet red and shriveled in his chair). After that, I talked to the instructor and requested that the script reading parts be assigned to random students regardless of the character's gender, rather than making me read all the awful female parts.

Boy did that cause trouble! There were flame wars in the staff room, apparently, as they discussed my request.

Nevertheless, it became school policy for that class. After that, the quality of the female parts miraculously improved. Imagine that!

Now I'm not commenting on the quality of your writing, just sharing a similar story from the opposite perspective to give you an idea of why those women might have found your female character ... slightly less than serious. Maybe it had less to do with sexual repression and more to do with the female character's lack of realism or depth.

I share your desire for people to be honest and direct. I find that if you treat people as if they are honest and direct - by listening to what comes out of their mouths and ignoring any contradictory body language - they become more honest and direct. Most of the time when people play games it's only to provoke a reaction. If they don't get the reaction, they think up another strategy to get the reaction they want.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh dear - the trouble with needy sexual female characters written by young men is that they truly are funny, and not at all anything that an actual woman can relate to. When I was in film school I was one of two woman in a class of young men, and in script writing class I had to read all the female parts. They were awful. Once I had to read a part from a "sexually needy" female character that made me have to stand up in front of the class and say something like "Ooh, daddy, please give me your ****, I want it so bad" (a line I delivered in a totally deadpan, sarcastic voice while staring directly at the writer, who went beet red and shriveled). After that, I talked to the instructor and requested that the script reading parts be assigned to random students regardless of the character's gender, rather than making me read all the awful female parts.

Boy did that cause trouble! There were flame wars in the staff room, apparently, as they discussed my request.

Nevertheless, it became school policy for that class. After that, the quality of the female parts miraculously improved. Imagine that!

Now I'm not commenting on the quality of your writing, just sharing a similar story from the opposite perspective to give you an idea of why those women might have found your female character ... slightly less than serious. Maybe it had less to do with sexual repression and more to do with the female character's lack of realism or depth.

I share your desire for people to be honest and direct. I find that if you treat people as if they are honest and direct - by listening to what comes out of their mouths and ignoring any contradictory body language - they become more honest and direct. Most of the time when people play games it's only to provoke a reaction. If they don't get the reaction, they think up another strategy to get the reaction they want.

Well, the "script" was of something of less than five minutes. She was s
Certainly ascertive but I dont think it ever came to be that excessive. It wasnt supposed to be deep just fun.

They actually liked the script cause it was fun. Thor was pverly macho, cleopatra was very fun and the clash with athena was really really fun

I played a poor hindu guy just deceased, finding out that the ruler of the afterlife is a guy named Waldo (it was actually centered around a where is waldo joke )

 

[DallasApple]

I don't know - when I jump a guy's bones he always seems pretty excited about it.

Not all guys, not all the time, but definitely the ones I come back and keep jumping on.

One sure way to get me to make a move is to not make it yourself.

It's a scientific fact, actually, women are crazy about men who are not interested.

My husband has told me no twice(that I can remember) in 25 years.Saying no once was FINE with me I rolled over.But I swear I heard the sound of a second hand ticking on a clock in my head ...for about maybe a minute or two....then he pounced.

 

[Curious George]

Well keep asking.Because "most women I have asked" say no means I don't want to.And after no ,no ,no he "keeps trying" they give in to get him off her back.Its not "flirting" its coersion and harrasment to get sex.

You have met one woman now that is telling you when I say NO that is not an invitation to keep trying because I really want to but I need to be asked 14 times to feel "wanted".

I think the kind of sex play that me myself is talking about occurs in both sexes, however I also believe that the same play can be achieved without vocalizing specific words such as "stop" and "no," but addressing such issues is very hard without stepping into "other people's bedrooms." When dealing with sex coercion, I think some sort of categorization needs to be accepted. For instance there is a clear difference between "if you don't have sex with me, I'm going to leave you" and "if you don't have sex with me I'm going to kill you." When talking about persisting in sexual touching after the person has said "stop," I would agree that the individual persisting is taking a risk that they are misinterpreting the situation. and I think advocating that stop or no does not unequivocally mean stop or no is dangerous, especially considering perceptions of the same event can vastly differ. However, to lump me myself's, and others' like him, behavior into one pot with people who ignore clear unambiguous signs is slightly unfair. Granted stop and no should be clear signs but truthfully they are not, if for no other reason than a few people use these as sex play. All of this said, I think that people should communicate their feelings, tendencies, and ideas of sex play before making assumptions regarding what the other person really wants. from me myself's story I did not interpret his behavior as making such assumptions, even if she did really just want to watch game of thrones he was just taking out a hair piece and ruffling her clothes, not groping or sticking anything into orifices. I wouldn't equate this alone into making a pressured or uncomfortable situation, but rather playfully telling his lover to pay attention to him.

 

[Alceste]

I think the kind of sex play that me myself is talking about occurs in both sexes, however I also believe that the same play can be achieved without vocalizing specific words such as "stop" and "no," but addressing such issues is very hard without stepping into "other people's bedrooms." When dealing with sex coercion, I think some sort of categorization needs to be accepted. For instance there is a clear difference between "if you don't have sex with me, I'm going to leave you" and "if you don't have sex with me I'm going to kill you." When talking about persisting in sexual touching after the person has said "stop," I would agree that the individual persisting is taking a risk that they are misinterpreting the situation. and I think advocating that stop or no does not unequivocally mean stop or no is dangerous, especially considering perceptions of the same event can vastly differ. However, to lump me myself's, and others' like him, behavior into one pot with people who ignore clear unambiguous signs is slightly unfair. Granted stop and no should be clear signs but truthfully they are not, if for no other reason than a few people use these as sex play. All of this said, I think that people should communicate their feelings, tendencies, and ideas of sex play before making assumptions regarding what the other person really wants. from me myself's story I did not interpret his behavior as making such assumptions, even if she did really just want to watch game of thrones he was just taking out a hair piece and ruffling her clothes, not groping or sticking anything into orifices. I wouldn't equate this alone into making a pressured or uncomfortable situation, but rather playfully telling his lover to pay attention to him.

Oh, I totally agree. That's why I'm trying to distinguish between flirting (tickle wars and bum pats) and foreplay and sex. The importance of clear consent escalates in proportion to the seriousness of any adverse possible consequences for getting it wrong.

So if we're talking about tickling or poking or tugging on braids, the worst that can happen is that she's going to be a little annoyed. That's it.

If we're talking about sex, she could be traumatized, impregnated, and / or ****-shamed and he could be accused of rape, which has adverse social consequences that are fairly similar to ****-shaming even if no charges are laid.

So when it comes to "sticking it in", no certainly means no. Definitely. Absolutely. Unequivocally. Unambiguously. At all times.

That's what bugs me about Farrell's argument. "Sticking it in" is the whole point of the entire interaction as far as he is concerned, so his comments seem to indicate that even at the threshold of vaginal penetration, no still doesn't really mean no sometimes.

 

[moodys]

For instance there is a clear difference between "if you don't have sex with me, I'm going to leave you" and "if you don't have sex with me I'm going to kill you."

Absolutely there is a clear distinction, there isn't anything untoward in the first case, whereas the second case speaks for itself.

 

[Sunstone]

It's a scientific fact, actually, women are crazy about men who are not interested.

I've had more offers since deciding to become celibate than I had back when I wanted sex. Go figure.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh, I totally agree. That's why I'm trying to distinguish between flirting (tickle wars and bum pats) and foreplay and sex. The importance of clear consent escalates in proportion to the seriousness of any adverse possible consequences for getting it wrong.

So if we're talking about tickling or poking or tugging on braids, the worst that can happen is that she's going to be a little annoyed. That's it.

If we're talking about sex, she could be traumatized, impregnated, and / or ****-shamed and he could be accused of rape, which has adverse social consequences that are fairly similar to ****-shaming even if no charges are laid.

So when it comes to "sticking it in", no certainly means no. Definitely. Absolutely. Unequivocally. Unambiguously. At all times.

That's what bugs me about Farrell's argument. "Sticking it in" is the whole point of the entire interaction as far as he is concerned, so his comments seem to indicate that even at the threshold of vaginal penetration, no still doesn't really mean no sometimes.

I agree. The clear line is where we pay attention to what is informed consent for invited penetration and what is non-consensual or coerced penetration. This holds true regardless of gender or orifice.

There are many depictions of the rape fantasy (IMO) in romance novels, porn, fairy tales, and even some popular fiction (e.g. "Gone With the Wind"). I've always been fascinated with what this speaks about our mindset and assumptions that we have with sexual discourse. When it comes to legal and ethical distinctions, however, it is more effective to study the reality from broad samples and long-term.

I had a discussion with someone who is a veteran from special forces and a paramedic on the reality of giving CPR to somebody who is dying. Both discuss how giving CPR to somebody is depicted in popular media and fiction is very very different from the reality. It's cleaned up, sanitized, and focuses more on the internal picture of being a "hero" in the story. The reality is that there is blood, bile, vomit in the trachea and esophagus, that the chest compressions are exhausting, that there is the smell of bodily fluids, and that people tend not to be trying to be a hero but simply are "in the zone" doing their job.

Their stories aren't sexy. Not one bit.

I disagree with Farrell because he depicts the fictional as real, and as offering the "hero" story as a parallel in giving CPR, the rape fantasy offers the hero myth as justification for continuing pursuit for disrobing or penetration.

 

[Alceste]

I agree. The clear line is where we pay attention to what is informed consent for invited penetration and what is non-consensual or coerced penetration. This holds true regardless of gender or orifice.

There are many depictions of the rape fantasy (IMO) in romance novels, porn, fairy tales, and even some popular fiction (e.g. "Gone With the Wind"). I've always been fascinated with what this speaks about our mindset and assumptions that we have with sexual discourse. When it comes to legal and ethical distinctions, however, it is more effective to study the reality from broad samples and long-term.

I had a discussion with someone who is a veteran from special forces and a paramedic on the reality of giving CPR to somebody who is dying. Both discuss how giving CPR to somebody is depicted in popular media and fiction is very very different from the reality. It's cleaned up, sanitized, and focuses more on the internal picture of being a "hero" in the story. The reality is that there is blood, bile, vomit in the trachea and esophagus, that the chest compressions are exhausting, that there is the smell of bodily fluids, and that people tend not to be trying to be a hero but simply are "in the zone" doing their job.

Their stories aren't sexy. Not one bit.

I disagree with Farrell because he depicts the fictional as real, and as offering the "hero" story as a parallel in giving CPR, the rape fantasy offers the hero myth as justification for continuing pursuit for disrobing or penetration.

He also gets it wrong. The heroes in romance novels aren't rapists. They're just abnormally moody, passionate and obsessed. In a huge proportion of those books they don't even bang the heroine until the end, after a hundred and fifty pages of mind games and stupidity, where they "prove" to her satisfaction that their devotion is "the real thing". Look how long Rhett Butler had to be moody, passionate and obsessed with Scarlett before she finally accepted and reciprocated his love! YEARS! Granted, there's banging in between, but that's not what he's after - he wants her love. He turns her down when she offers him sex when she's desperate for money.

Even the sexually aggressive characters in the most explicit erotica and fantasy aren't rapists. Being sexually dominated is a common fantasy for both men and women, but the whole point is that they really want the sex. We know this for a fact because we're actually inside the character's mind, observing how much they want it directly. We're not trusting our gut instinct on what we think their body language is showing, despite what they're saying.

Farrell's whole deal makes me really uncomfortable. Even the parts of his writing where he isn't defending date rape are weirdly preoccupied with a sense of sexual entitlement. For example, he had a chart showing where society is and where he wants it to be (thinking way back, so I hope my memory serves). In the "where we are" column, he wrote something like "men have to pay for a woman's entire livelihood in order to obtain sex", and in the "where we want to be" column it's "women pay for half of everything and still deliver the sex men need". Ew, right? My marriage is not simply a vehicle for fairly negotiating my husband's fiduciary obligations for accessing my vagina. Our financial situation has NOTHING TO DO with our sexual situation. The two are COMPLETELY UNRELATED.

 

[DallasApple]

They're just abnormally moody, passionate and obsessed. In a huge proportion of those books they don't even bang the heroine until the end, after a hundred and fifty pages of mind games and stupidity, where they "prove" to her satisfaction that their devotion is "the real thing".

LOL!!!

Look how long Rhett Butler had to be moody, passionate and obsessed with Scarlett before she finally accepted and reciprocated his love! YEARS! Granted, there's banging in between, but that's not what he's after - he wants her love. He turns her down when she offers him sex when she's desperate for money.

EXACTLY...

And in the end..when she realized she couldn't have Ashley..she thinks she really does love Rhett..

And you know by then hes DONE and says "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn" ! SNAP!

 

[Alceste]

LOL!!!





EXACTLY...

And in the end..when she realized she couldn't have Ashley..she thinks she really does love Rhett..

And you know by then hes DONE and says "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn" ! SNAP!

Burn!

Lol.

What a silly movie, and yet still so epic.