|
|
Forums:
Community:
The Ladies' Room:
Re: [cracklover] Are There Gender Differences in Risk Tolerance?:
Edit Log
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 8:49 PM
Views: 15486
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
cracklover wrote: drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO? As far as requiring affirmative consent, I think most people who care about each other have no problem reading each others' signals. I didn't really have much of value to add. But if you want my thoughts: I've always taken the phrase "no means no" to mean that if at any point the woman says "no", then no matter whether she said yes a hundred times, to everything leading up to that, no means exactly that, and all those other "signals" are irrelevant, at that given point in time.
but she has to SAY no. which means you get to assume yes.
and I think "I think most people who care about each other have no problem reading each others' signals. " is ridiculously optimistic in both parts, plus the implications. that all people who are having sex consist of two partners who care about each other, and that they'll have "no trouble" reading each other's signals.... and that those "signals" will be respected. That last bit is exactly what's omitted in a "no means no" model. It forces women to SAY "no" when they've been trained their whole lives to say yes to men and to doubt their own right to decide.
edited to add: I think that's double ridiculously optimistic when talking about teenagers or young adults who are just starting to be sexual. They're supposed to magically read each other perfectly?
cracklover wrote: In reply to: also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out. Okay, well do you also see how in your original statement, by your omission of those "alternative" messages (if you must call them that), you denied their existence? Your statement was really quite absolute. GO
I meant exactly what I said.
(This post was edited by drivel on Jun 4, 2012, 8:51 PM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by drivel
() on Jun 4, 2012, 8:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
