Excuse me while I vomit.- Trigger Warning for Rape and Rape Culture.

[Juana]

I still want an explanation for how ignoring a person's boundaries by pushing for sex is not an implication of violence.

Is this an attempt to discuss something.  Or are you begging the question and simultaneously and deliberately misrepresenting my beliefs.  Or did you genuinely think i meant that?  These are serious questions.  I can't tell, but that's why i am asking you.

I didn't misrepresent your beliefs at all. I'd copy pasta the post for you, but I'm on my phone so I'm going to tell you to go re-read the post I told you to shut up in response to.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think you have it backward. If someone wants to participate in a discussion, they SHOULD do their best to make sure that the idea they're trying to get across matches what they're saying/typing. Blaming everyone else for not understanding what you're saying is an asshole move.

Of course I should make my best effort.  I am.  It's still a two-way street. I'm not blaming them for not understanding me.  I'm blaming them for the apparent lack of effort to try to understand.

This.

^^This.

I think it's more that we tried, failed, and decided that if you can't be bothered to figure out how to say what you're trying to say then we can't be bothered to keep trying to decipher it.

Yep.

Also, the "IT'S NOT ME, EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG/NOT TRYING" is a cop out. I've spelled out areas of potential miscommunication a number of times and asked clarifying questions, which he simply ignores.

[Pope Lecherous]

I still want an explanation for how ignoring a person's boundaries by pushing for sex is not an implication of violence.

Whatever i failed to express at the time was that at no point are someone's concerns ignored.  If the "boundaries" are created as a result of specific concerns that can be alleviated by being addressed that is preferred.  They can be addressed directly by discussing them or indirectly by demonstrating through your conduct or attitudes/beliefs on certain topics that you don't meet the criteria of an individual (or fear) they should be concerned about.

On the other hand, if this boundary is based upon a personal rule or for no reason at all , then the boundary is set in stone and is not to be crossed.

This is me attempting to be clear. Follow up questions are welcome.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Are you even reading the posts before deciding to "disagree" with them? Because you are backpedaling like a motherfucker.

I'm not backpedaling.  When i attempt to convey an idea you attack beliefs i don't hold. And i agree with you.  When i attempt to address the few things i disagree with you about, you attack beliefs you think i hold.  We need to establish understanding first.  Stop trying to win.  Start trying to understand like you are (it seems) in your last post i read.

Oh how cute - he's NEGGING.

It's not an insult.  It's the situation as i see it.  You are like a fucking clown in the background going OOOHHHHH and making all kinds of noise when people are trying to settle something.  Nigel is expressing herself well but i don't think she's understanding me 100% and it may be because she's tired of trying, or trying and not able because of me. Whatever. 

You aren't bringing shit to the discussion.  You are condemning rapists and people who abuse women like it's a unique, brave and novel position and then willfully not listening to others.  oh and talking all kinds of shit about someone you haven't the vaguest idea of.  Stop being so fucking negative.

Got your little PUA panties in the proverbial knot, I see. 

[Pope Lecherous]

Got your little PUA panties in the proverbial knot, I see. 

You rustled my jimmies pretty good.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. 

So it's her problem, not his?

[Pope Lecherous]

Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. 

So it's her problem, not his?

Sometimes. Other times the man may have failed.  Or she's not interested. Or any number of reasons you can imagine.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Especially with the pseudo-hierarchy we have

Oh, boy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. 

So it's her problem, not his?

Sometimes.

And when it's one of those sometimes, what is the correct behavior?

[Pope Lecherous]

Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. 

So it's her problem, not his?

Sometimes.

And when it's one of those sometimes, what is the correct behavior?

Keep rolling? Let her live her life and deal with her own problems?  Refer her to a shrink?  Which one of those answers do you want to hear roger?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. 

So it's her problem, not his?

Sometimes.

And when it's one of those sometimes, what is the correct behavior?

Keep rolling? Let her live her life and deal with her own problems?  Refer her to a shrink?  Which one of those answers do you want to hear roger?

I want to hear your answer.

Let me make one thing clear:  My personal opinion is not that you are a proto-rapist or a scumbag.  I think you're looking for a uniform, so to speak.  Everyone does this, to some degree or another, and it's in my opinion the most confining part of the BIP.  Humans need a tribal identity, and today we satisfy that by applying a label to ourselves.  This guy's a democrat, that one's a teabagger, the one across the room is a PUA, or a gangsta or a juggalo, etc.

Not because they're dumb or inadaquate, but because they have primate wiring, and social drives to satisfy...And also because it permits memetic false consciousness to occur in a way that feels like thinking.

It's also a trap.  It removes "Blackfoot", and substitutes him with "Blackfoot-like food product™".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I still want an explanation for how ignoring a person's boundaries by pushing for sex is not an implication of violence.

Whatever i failed to express at the time was that at no point are someone's concerns ignored.  If the "boundaries" are created as a result of specific concerns that can be alleviated by being addressed that is preferred.  They can be addressed directly by discussing them or indirectly by demonstrating through your conduct or attitudes/beliefs on certain topics that you don't meet the criteria of an individual (or fear) they should be concerned about.

On the other hand, if this boundary is based upon a personal rule or for no reason at all , then the boundary is set in stone and is not to be crossed.

This is me attempting to be clear. Follow up questions are welcome.

You're not being clear in any way at all. You seem to be very vaguely trying to justify overriding another person's boundaries. If the boundaries are simply that she doesn't feel like having sex for some reason, in what way is it your place to "alleviate her concerns"? What if she doesn't have any concerns other than NOT FEELING LIKE IT?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I still want an explanation for how ignoring a person's boundaries by pushing for sex is not an implication of violence.

Whatever i failed to express at the time was that at no point are someone's concerns ignored.  If the "boundaries" are created as a result of specific concerns that can be alleviated by being addressed that is preferred.  They can be addressed directly by discussing them or indirectly by demonstrating through your conduct or attitudes/beliefs on certain topics that you don't meet the criteria of an individual (or fear) they should be concerned about.

On the other hand, if this boundary is based upon a personal rule or for no reason at all , then the boundary is set in stone and is not to be crossed.

This is me attempting to be clear. Follow up questions are welcome.

You're not being clear in any way at all. You seem to be very vaguely trying to justify overriding another person's boundaries. If the boundaries are simply that she doesn't feel like having sex for some reason, in what way is it your place to "alleviate her concerns"? What if she doesn't have any concerns other than NOT FEELING LIKE IT?

And what if she DOES have some sort of hang up?  Is a man entitled to "cure" her by pushing sex on her?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The way this "alleviating her concerns" usually seems to go, IME:
<making out>
Him: "do you want to get naked?"
Me: "Not tonight"
Him: "Come on baby, I'm a nice guy! I promise it'll be great..."
Me: "GTFO"
Him: "What? Wait, what did I do? Am I going to see you again?"
Me: "Fuck off. GTFO."
Him: "She must have issues."

Whereas with a normal, non-pushy guy who actually respects my ability to make my own decisions as a fellow adult human being, it goes more like:
Him: "Want to get naked?"
Me: "Not tonight"
Him: "OK"
Me: "Want to go to an opening with me Saturday night?"
Him: "That sounds fun!"
<Saturday night ensues>

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So, Blackfoot, I'll ask you once again:

1. What makes you think it's your place to second-guess a woman's decision to not have sex?

2. What would a situation look like where a woman put up resistance to sex, and you felt that it was your place to identify and alleviate her concerns? Be specific. If you have ever been in such a situation, give us an example.

3. Have you ever actually had sex with a woman?