http://jezebel.com/5929544/rapists-explain-themselves-on-reddit-and-we-should-listen?comment=51346779
This article and the Reddit part that it links to makes me want to puke, and stabbinate someone. Do some people really have no empathy or conciousness of what is consent? Well, obviously.
I had the idea for a rant about why we need to teach every teenager what constitutes consent and what is sexually inappropriate behaviour, and holy fuckballs, we need it like we need vaccines.
I'm just one person yelling against the tide, though, and as good as my ranting would make me feel, I'm not sure if I can do this the justice it deserves today.
If you are feeling brave and your rage gland needs oiling, go to the links to the actual Reddit discussion. Mine got so big it sprang a slow leak.
Fucking hell.
I can't finish reading this. I feel a need for a break.
Do you disagree with the article or mainly the idea that the Reddit thread offers sympathy to rapists?
Eta: or any of the other rage-inducing parts of this situation, because that sounded like I thought there were only two.
Not sure I can even stand looking at that shit right now.
It's utterly infuriating.
I find this nearly impossible to read.
That was a really good article, and I felt it made some good headway into explaining why demonizing and dehumanizing rapists only serves to perpetuate rape culture, much the same way that demonizing and dehumanizing women does. It's only when men and women can meet and relate as fellow human beings that rape stops. We victimize those we can't relate to.
Yeah the article itself was brilliant.
I read one or two linked accounts. Fucking hell.
Agreed it was a good article, but also a disgusting one. I had to watch a movie in between to finish it. I read a few of the stories as well, and they truly do range from drunken retardation to power trips, to some serious reality disassociation. Some caught themselves about halfway through and were like, "Oh shit this is wrong!" and others were "Hell yeah TAKE THAT BITCH". The scariest part of it is that at the end of the article the man speaking explained that you'd never know it was him. He's simply your neighbor, and goes into the Fun Loving Criminals category. He's going to post about bacon and cats and you're none the wiser. It's hard to see any decency in what you call "The Human Race." Though I do imagine even after all of that, there is worse, i.e. someone who fanatically reads them to live out a fantasy.
Flashbacks. Not cool. :sad:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 28, 2012, 06:06:33 AM
That was a really good article, and I felt it made some good headway into explaining why demonizing and dehumanizing rapists only serves to perpetuate rape culture, much the same way that demonizing and dehumanizing women does. It's only when men and women can meet and relate as fellow human beings that rape stops. We victimize those we can't relate to.
Finally thought to use the cell and got it to load. And yeah, maybe some of these guys are just dense:
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 28, 2012, 07:42:52 AM
Agreed it was a good article, but also a disgusting one. I had to watch a movie in between to finish it. I read a few of the stories as well, and they truly do range from drunken retardation to power trips, to some serious reality disassociation. Some caught themselves about halfway through and were like, "Oh shit this is wrong!"
others are sociopaths and don't give a rat's ass:
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 28, 2012, 07:42:52 AM
and others were "Hell yeah TAKE THAT BITCH".
You can't talk things out with sociopaths and expect anything to actually come of it. This isn't demonizing, it's just how it is. And you don't know who the sociopaths are until the damage is done:
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 28, 2012, 07:42:52 AMThe scariest part of it is that at the end of the article the man speaking explained that you'd never know it was him. He's simply your neighbor, and goes into the Fun Loving Criminals category. He's going to post about bacon and cats and you're none the wiser. It's hard to see any decency in what you call "The Human Race." Though I do imagine even after all of that, there is worse, i.e. someone who fanatically reads them to live out a fantasy.
On a side note, I thought this part was interesting:
"At about 16 I was exposed to a lot of PUA material, which (not having a father or mother really around) shaped my life until I was about 20. Most of the material was very objectifying and sexually aggressive towards women."But anyway, yeah. Having the conversations could help in some cases, at least.
I'm probably not in the mindset to read this article, based on the reactions so far.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 28, 2012, 08:14:12 AM
I'm probably not in the mindset to read this article, based on the reactions so far.
Maybe the question is whether enough people have the stomach to talk it out enough for it to help anybody. Seriously puke-inducing, disturbing shit.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 28, 2012, 08:22:04 AM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 28, 2012, 08:14:12 AM
I'm probably not in the mindset to read this article, based on the reactions so far.
Maybe the question is whether enough people have the stomach to talk it out enough for it to help anybody. Seriously puke-inducing, disturbing shit.
I'm not sober. I should probably wait.
Quote from: Murmur on July 28, 2012, 07:47:59 AM
Flashbacks. Not cool. :sad:
Sorry Murmur. In a feminist space I would have put a massive TRIGGER WARNING on the whole thing.
In fact I'm going to go back and put one in the thread title now. I considered it before posting, but I wasn't sure if PeeDee needed them. Now I know we do. Sorry again, hon.
I read this earlier today on Jezebel and have been stewing on it.
I don't know how I feel about it because I don't know if the rapists who are confessing these stories are more likely to contribute to the healing or continued harming of rape victims who choose to read them. I also don't know if the act of confessing via anonymous writing is more likely to rehabilitate or embolden rapists.
Quote from: Katie J.M. Baker
It's not hard to see why some people would dismiss this thread as a circle jerk of rape apologists, especially because some quality Redditors assured the storytellers that "it's not your fault." (This is Reddit, after all.) And certainly this isn't light reading for everyone. But I think it's a mistake to write it off. Charlotte Shane put it well in a recent essay for The New Inquiry on moving past rape by being able to talk about it in non-victimizing terms:
Quote
...our culture is unable to address rape with the sobriety and clarity the topic deserves because we are still unable to address sex with the sobriety and clarity it deserves. The contention that rape should be regarded as an asexual act has done nothing to remedy this. Nor will it. As activist and writer Wendy McElroy points out, "there can be as many motives for rape as there are for murder and other violent crimes ... Rape is every bit as complex." Insisting that no rape is ever "about" sex but is rather about an individual man acting on a patriarchal mandate to sow terror by exercising "power" does a disservice to us all.
This sorry state of affairs should foster honest conversation, not suppress it. We should not be so desperate to establish the seriousness of rape that we stigmatize intelligent discussion of it.
(Emphasis ours.)
"Let me leave you with this message, you never know who someone truly is, so be careful," said one man who posted a particularly disturbing account of how he used to repeatedly rape women. "I'm going back to my main account to do normal reddit looking at cats and posting pictures of bacon, and I think it's kind of funny that no one will ever know if the person they're talking to on reddit, or someone who moderates their subreddit, is me on my main account... just food for thought."
He's right — not about the "be careful" victim-blaming, but about his multifaceted identity. We have to acknowledge that the people telling these stories and making these decisions are the men (and women) next door, not necessarily inhuman savages. Otherwise, anti-rape campaigns will continue to tell victims to dress and act differently as a matter of "prevention," college campuses will continue to report high rates of sexual assault, and people will continue to take advantage of others without even looking them in the eye while doing so.
It also seems just as likely that this one man (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/x6yef/reddits_had_a_few_threads_about_sexual_assault/c5jtt3p), quoted above, is actually a
troll, either by a sociopath for thrills or by a government agency to nab sociopaths. Perhaps the origin of the story doesn't matter (especially if they cannot be traced to a Media Access Control address) if it serves to provoke sincere exchanges between rape apologists, feminists, fence-sitters, men's rights activists, and so on. And as an outsider to the Reddit community, I can't tell which participants may be counter-trolls as well.
:?
Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived....
Quote from: Signor Paesior on July 28, 2012, 03:27:06 AM
Do you disagree with the article or mainly the idea that the Reddit thread offers sympathy to rapists?
Eta: or any of the other rage-inducing parts of this situation, because that sounded like I thought there were only two.
well, Paes. I agree with the main article, about listening to people, as Nigel pointed out, Reddit was overly sympathetic to the whole thing, mind.
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 28, 2012, 07:42:52 AM
Agreed it was a good article, but also a disgusting one. I had to watch a movie in between to finish it. I read a few of the stories as well, and they truly do range from drunken retardation to power trips, to some serious reality disassociation. Some caught themselves about halfway through and were like, "Oh shit this is wrong!" and others were "Hell yeah TAKE THAT BITCH". The scariest part of it is that at the end of the article the man speaking explained that you'd never know it was him. He's simply your neighbor, and goes into the Fun Loving Criminals category. He's going to post about bacon and cats and you're none the wiser. It's hard to see any decency in what you call "The Human Race." Though I do imagine even after all of that, there is worse, i.e. someone who fanatically reads them to live out a fantasy.
Yea, the OP in the Reddit thread made me so mad. The responses weren't any better in some cases.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 28, 2012, 06:06:33 AM
That was a really good article, and I felt it made some good headway into explaining why demonizing and dehumanizing rapists only serves to perpetuate rape culture, much the same way that demonizing and dehumanizing women does. It's only when men and women can meet and relate as fellow human beings that rape stops. We victimize those we can't relate to.
Society as a whole needs a healthier attitude towards sex in general, not just rape. I know people who are actually confused as to what constitutes proper consent, yet the guy I know just blamed feminists for "moving the goalposts", in a massive kneejerk reaction, in his case, the girl who felt wronged by him and him were both almost too drunk to stand, and he stopped halfway through because it felt wrong. He had no ill intentions, but ill intentions is not the sole cause of this kind of crap. I am so pissed off that he placed the blame elsewhere, rather than "how can I do things differently so that I don't hurt someone again".
Sex education needs to be turned up to 11, and include discussions on what is abusive, from emotional abuse, violence within a relationship, to sexually damaging behaviours. We need to start early, because I know I mentioned teens in the OP, but kids are exposed to abuse too, but I am at a loss as to how these things should work for younger kids. That IS the only way I can see of tackling rape culture so it has any meaningful effect.
Quote from: Net on July 28, 2012, 11:58:40 AM
I read this earlier today on Jezebel and have been stewing on it.
I don't know how I feel about it because I don't know if the rapists who are confessing these stories are more likely to contribute to the healing or continued harming of rape victims who choose to read them. I also don't know if the act of confessing via anonymous writing is more likely to rehabilitate or embolden rapists.
Quote from: Katie J.M. Baker
It's not hard to see why some people would dismiss this thread as a circle jerk of rape apologists, especially because some quality Redditors assured the storytellers that "it's not your fault." (This is Reddit, after all.) And certainly this isn't light reading for everyone. But I think it's a mistake to write it off. Charlotte Shane put it well in a recent essay for The New Inquiry on moving past rape by being able to talk about it in non-victimizing terms:
Quote
...our culture is unable to address rape with the sobriety and clarity the topic deserves because we are still unable to address sex with the sobriety and clarity it deserves. The contention that rape should be regarded as an asexual act has done nothing to remedy this. Nor will it. As activist and writer Wendy McElroy points out, "there can be as many motives for rape as there are for murder and other violent crimes ... Rape is every bit as complex." Insisting that no rape is ever "about" sex but is rather about an individual man acting on a patriarchal mandate to sow terror by exercising "power" does a disservice to us all.
This sorry state of affairs should foster honest conversation, not suppress it. We should not be so desperate to establish the seriousness of rape that we stigmatize intelligent discussion of it.
(Emphasis ours.)
"Let me leave you with this message, you never know who someone truly is, so be careful," said one man who posted a particularly disturbing account of how he used to repeatedly rape women. "I'm going back to my main account to do normal reddit looking at cats and posting pictures of bacon, and I think it's kind of funny that no one will ever know if the person they're talking to on reddit, or someone who moderates their subreddit, is me on my main account... just food for thought."
He's right — not about the "be careful" victim-blaming, but about his multifaceted identity. We have to acknowledge that the people telling these stories and making these decisions are the men (and women) next door, not necessarily inhuman savages. Otherwise, anti-rape campaigns will continue to tell victims to dress and act differently as a matter of "prevention," college campuses will continue to report high rates of sexual assault, and people will continue to take advantage of others without even looking them in the eye while doing so.
It also seems just as likely that this one man (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/x6yef/reddits_had_a_few_threads_about_sexual_assault/c5jtt3p), quoted above, is actually a troll, either by a sociopath for thrills or by a government agency to nab sociopaths. Perhaps the origin of the story doesn't matter (especially if they cannot be traced to a Media Access Control address) if it serves to provoke sincere exchanges between rape apologists, feminists, fence-sitters, men's rights activists, and so on. And as an outsider to the Reddit community, I can't tell which participants may be counter-trolls as well.
:?
Maybe I'm just sleep-deprived....
I considered the possibility that it was a troll.
Then I read this. http://www.shakesville.com/2012/07/what-does-serial-rapist-sound-like.html
and the pattern seemed too real.
Pet hate: I have a trigger for trigger warnings. We're all adults and can discuss unpleasant topics without having you have our hands held.
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 12:25:27 PM
Pet hate: I have a trigger for trigger warnings. We're all adults and can discuss unpleasant topics without having you have our hands held.
Murmur had flashbacks, dude. Sorry if my wanting to prevent someone from having an actual emotional trauma from the thread annoys you.
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 12:25:27 PM
Pet hate: I have a trigger for trigger warnings. We're all adults and can discuss unpleasant topics without having you have our hands held.
Translation: I am a sheltered git who has never had to deal with actual trauma, let alone PTSD, and I have no idea what any of it really means so it bugs me.
Seriously, what a completely fucktarded thing to say. Now I'm pissed off.
"I have a trigger for trigger warnings"
\
:redneck2:
Seriously, if trigger warnings give you flashbacks, make you nauseous, cause you to shake and sweat while a combination of adrenaline and paralysis pins you down and either results in complete immobility and crushing depression, or in lashing out at those around you and going on a self destructive rampage, you truly have a unique trauma and should probably join those of us who have trauma-related triggers in enjoying years of therapy to try to get to a place where you can safely cope with triggering subjects.
Otherwise, FUCK OFF. And if you're offended by this and can't be fucked to rethink your moronic position, well aren't you a special little snowflake like every other special little fucking frat brat.
As a victim of childhood sexual abuse who can still talk about rape without insulting things like trigger warnings I find your comments moronic and offensive.
Or to use your stock response: I'm sorry of isn't nice enoug for your delicate sensibilities.
Quote from: Pixie on July 28, 2012, 12:27:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 12:25:27 PM
Pet hate: I have a trigger for trigger warnings. We're all adults and can discuss unpleasant topics without having you have our hands held.
Murmur had flashbacks, dude. Sorry if my wanting to prevent someone from having an actual emotional trauma from the thread annoys you.
Anyway, sorry pixie.
It's a topic that needs to be talked about open and without reservation. I understand if murmur doesn't wish to interact and that it is difficult but I find the trigger thing that has cropped up on the net very belittling of the issue.
I kind of cringe a a little at the idea of trigger warnings in general just because I know the human tendency to take everything and run way too far with it. Given the pathetic state of civil dialogue in general, the last thing we need is to develop yet another way to help people avoid uncomfortable discussions. Having uncomfortable discussions is about the absolute minimum we owe to the rest of society if we say we're interested at all in solving big problems and not just distracting ourselves with frivolity all the time.
I don't think it's necessary to post a big "trigger warning" at the top of a thread just because an article linked from it shows people being horrible about a topic like rape. The OP can outline the situation and anyone who has too much trouble with it is free to click the other way.
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
Having uncomfortable discussions is about the absolute minimum we owe to the rest of society if we say we're interested at all in solving big problems and not just distracting ourselves with frivolity all the time.
People who have been through sexual trauma
owe it to society to re-traumatize themselves by subjecting themselves to content they are not ready to read?
Yes, that sounds like very non-counterproductive "big problem" solving.
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 12:25:27 PM
Pet hate: I have a trigger for trigger warnings. We're all adults and can discuss unpleasant topics without having you have our hands held.
WTF was that?
Okay...Some people find certain topics extremely uncomfortable. Some people worry that their topic may make people uncomfortable. They then have the common decency to warn people in the title that the subject may be so. The fact that they do shows that they give a fuck about the people around them, and that is what should be considered, not "I've seen that before".
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
I don't think it's necessary to post a big "trigger warning" at the top of a thread just because an article linked from it shows people being horrible about a topic like rape. The OP can outline the situation and anyone who has too much trouble with it is free to click the other way.
Or the title can. And did.
In any case, way to go. Pixie's thread has been effectively trashed.
Pixie, would you like a thread split?
Quote from: Net on July 28, 2012, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
Having uncomfortable discussions is about the absolute minimum we owe to the rest of society if we say we're interested at all in solving big problems and not just distracting ourselves with frivolity all the time.
People who have been through sexual trauma owe it to society to re-traumatize themselves by subjecting themselves to content they are not ready to read?
Yes, that sounds like very non-counterproductive "big problem" solving.
Hence the "This topic involves rape" which would naturally be part of any decent OP. People can see that and move on. I don't object to a "trigger warning" in this case, but you know how people get. Pretty soon we'll have a "trigger warning" for politics in general, or "trigger warning" for pie vs. cake. Probably not HERE, but imagine Facebook. That's what I object to.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 28, 2012, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
I don't think it's necessary to post a big "trigger warning" at the top of a thread just because an article linked from it shows people being horrible about a topic like rape. The OP can outline the situation and anyone who has too much trouble with it is free to click the other way.
Or the title can. And did.
In any case, way to go. Pixie's thread has been effectively trashed.
Pixie, would you like a thread split?
Topic migration happens in at least half of the threads on this forum, it isn't anything new.
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:45:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 28, 2012, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
I don't think it's necessary to post a big "trigger warning" at the top of a thread just because an article linked from it shows people being horrible about a topic like rape. The OP can outline the situation and anyone who has too much trouble with it is free to click the other way.
Or the title can. And did.
In any case, way to go. Pixie's thread has been effectively trashed.
Pixie, would you like a thread split?
Topic migration happens in at least half of the threads on this forum, it isn't anything new.
Yes, and screaming at the person starting the thread for putting a warning in the thread title is a perfectly acceptable way to move things along.
We post "NSFW" warnings, Faust. I'd be more inclined to post "Trigger Warning" so people can avoid flashbacks (which, as Nigel pointed out, can go far beyond "uncomfortable") than to worry about somebody getting called on the carpet because they accidentally clicked a pron link. FFS. Not making light of what happened to you, but not everybody is at a place where they can just rise above it or whatever.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 28, 2012, 06:47:09 PM
Yes, and screaming at the person starting the thread for putting a warning in the thread title is a perfectly acceptable way to move things along.
I didn't see any screaming, I saw 2 people who expressed reservations about the idea of trigger warnings, and 5 people who started dropping obscenities and vitriol because their opinions had been challenged.
Anyway, people are going to post trigger warnings if they want to either way. I'm can't stop them and won't complain too loudly if I see them. The fact that I don't like them doesn't mean anything, unless it's offensive that I don't share the Collective Opinion all the time.
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 05:26:19 PM
As a victim of childhood sexual abuse who can still talk about rape without insulting things like trigger warnings I find your comments moronic and offensive.
In what way is a trigger warning "insulting"?
Jesus fuck, pull your head out of your ass. If you'd rather be on a forum where people don't feel the need for human consideration when it's appropriate, totse2.com is probably more your speed.
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 07:00:19 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 28, 2012, 06:47:09 PM
Yes, and screaming at the person starting the thread for putting a warning in the thread title is a perfectly acceptable way to move things along.
I didn't see any screaming, I saw 2 people who expressed reservations about the idea of trigger warnings, and 5 people who started dropping obscenities and vitriol because their opinions had been challenged.
Anyway, people are going to post trigger warnings if they want to either way. I'm can't stop them and won't complain too loudly if I see them. The fact that I don't like them doesn't mean anything, unless it's offensive that I don't share the Collective Opinion all the time.
It doesn't mean anything except that I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for you.
I find it obscenely offensive, to the point of grotesque, that Faust declared himself to have a "trigger" about trigger warnings. I am pretty close to putting you in the same shit can with him. There is nothing "insulting" about using the words "trigger warning" or "trigger alert" when you're about to post a topic that could legitimately put someone with PTSD in a panic mode. Personally, I prefer to just put a description in the title or OP, but actually understanding what a trigger IS and what it means with relation to PTSD, I don't object to the use of the word.
And yeah, I do have PTSD from being molested as a child and raped as a teenager, so yes, this is an emotional topic for me, but mostly right now I'm pissed at how callous some people can be toward people who are already in a vulnerable position, simply because they don't like a word.
Way to keep the internet unsafe for women and support rape culture, assholes.
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:43:59 PM
Quote from: Net on July 28, 2012, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
Having uncomfortable discussions is about the absolute minimum we owe to the rest of society if we say we're interested at all in solving big problems and not just distracting ourselves with frivolity all the time.
People who have been through sexual trauma owe it to society to re-traumatize themselves by subjecting themselves to content they are not ready to read?
Yes, that sounds like very non-counterproductive "big problem" solving.
Hence the "This topic involves rape" which would naturally be part of any decent OP. People can see that and move on. I don't object to a "trigger warning" in this case, but you know how people get. Pretty soon we'll have a "trigger warning" for politics in general, or "trigger warning" for pie vs. cake. Probably not HERE, but imagine Facebook. That's what I object to.
"WHAT IF THIS THING THAT TOTALLY ISN'T HAPPENING HAPPENS? WHAT IF PEOPLE START APPLYING TRIGGER WARNINGS TO TOPICS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PTSD? WHAT IF HUMAN BEINGS WEREN'T SO SMART? WHAT IF COWS DIDN'T HAVE LEGS? WHAT THEN?"
Did you catch a virus from Trollbear or something?
I swear to god, you people make me sick.
IMHO, "rape" in the title doesn't quite convey how fucked up some of the shit in this article is.
I don't know how you quantify this stuff, you probably can't, I just know this article left a worse aftertaste than "somebody got raped someplace".
The idea of dialogue with these people reminds me of those stories of detectives who have to get inside the minds of serial killers and end up needing therapy themselves. The concept of the article (not sure I can find the right words, bear with me) involves kind of opening up to these guys, seeing a fellow human there and relating to that. This is threatening in some ways and also creepy as fuck. It's NOT a standard rape article and while "trigger warning" may sound trite and annoying, it needed SOMETHING and I really don't have anything better...do you?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 28, 2012, 07:27:57 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 07:00:19 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 28, 2012, 06:47:09 PM
Yes, and screaming at the person starting the thread for putting a warning in the thread title is a perfectly acceptable way to move things along.
I didn't see any screaming, I saw 2 people who expressed reservations about the idea of trigger warnings, and 5 people who started dropping obscenities and vitriol because their opinions had been challenged.
Anyway, people are going to post trigger warnings if they want to either way. I'm can't stop them and won't complain too loudly if I see them. The fact that I don't like them doesn't mean anything, unless it's offensive that I don't share the Collective Opinion all the time.
It doesn't mean anything except that I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for you.
I find it obscenely offensive, to the point of grotesque, that Faust declared himself to have a "trigger" about trigger warnings. I am pretty close to putting you in the same shit can with him. There is nothing "insulting" about using the words "trigger warning" or "trigger alert" when you're about to post a topic that could legitimately put someone with PTSD in a panic mode. Personally, I prefer to just put a description in the title or OP, but actually understanding what a trigger IS and what it means with relation to PTSD, I don't object to the use of the word.
And yeah, I do have PTSD from being molested as a child and raped as a teenager, so yes, this is an emotional topic for me, but mostly right now I'm pissed at how callous some people can be toward people who are already in a vulnerable position, simply because they don't like a word.
Way to keep the internet unsafe for women and support rape culture, assholes.
- I said I don't object to a trigger warning in this case. Specifically:
QuoteI don't object to a "trigger warning" in this case, but you know how people get.
So I'm not "keeping the internet unsafe for women."
My objection was to the larger idea of trigger warnings in general and how they could be applied, and if I'm wrong about that then I'm wrong about it. But I find it unacceptable that it can be deemed okay to fly off the handle and blow your top at anyone
just for expressing an opinion that you don't share, and accusing them of making the Internet "unsafe"
just by virtue of having that opinion. You have your right to your opinion, and so do I. The fact that we may disagree here or there has no net effect on "Internet safety," and it's preposterous to think it does.
If you are justified in dropping all semblance of rational and reasonable discussion and go directly to accusing someone of some actual offense just because they
dare to disagree with your opinion (which, because it is yours,
must be the
only correct one, I guess), then I am no less justified to continue holding that opinion on the grounds that instead of a reasonable argument against it, all you have to offer is immediate condescension and declarations of innate moral supremacy. Until a reasoned response to my opinion is put forward I have no real reason to change it. I'm certainly not going to change it just because it makes you
mad.
v3x, you're not getting it. Go back and reread the thread, and read up on PTSD and flashbacks until it sinks in.
The outrage was in order, AFAIC.
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 08:12:59 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 28, 2012, 07:27:57 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 07:00:19 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 28, 2012, 06:47:09 PM
Yes, and screaming at the person starting the thread for putting a warning in the thread title is a perfectly acceptable way to move things along.
I didn't see any screaming, I saw 2 people who expressed reservations about the idea of trigger warnings, and 5 people who started dropping obscenities and vitriol because their opinions had been challenged.
Anyway, people are going to post trigger warnings if they want to either way. I'm can't stop them and won't complain too loudly if I see them. The fact that I don't like them doesn't mean anything, unless it's offensive that I don't share the Collective Opinion all the time.
It doesn't mean anything except that I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for you.
I find it obscenely offensive, to the point of grotesque, that Faust declared himself to have a "trigger" about trigger warnings. I am pretty close to putting you in the same shit can with him. There is nothing "insulting" about using the words "trigger warning" or "trigger alert" when you're about to post a topic that could legitimately put someone with PTSD in a panic mode. Personally, I prefer to just put a description in the title or OP, but actually understanding what a trigger IS and what it means with relation to PTSD, I don't object to the use of the word.
And yeah, I do have PTSD from being molested as a child and raped as a teenager, so yes, this is an emotional topic for me, but mostly right now I'm pissed at how callous some people can be toward people who are already in a vulnerable position, simply because they don't like a word.
Way to keep the internet unsafe for women and support rape culture, assholes.
- I said I don't object to a trigger warning in this case. Specifically:
QuoteI don't object to a "trigger warning" in this case, but you know how people get.
So I'm not "keeping the internet unsafe for women."
My objection was to the larger idea of trigger warnings in general and how they could be applied, and if I'm wrong about that then I'm wrong about it. But I find it unacceptable that it can be deemed okay to fly off the handle and blow your top at anyone just for expressing an opinion that you don't share, and accusing them of making the Internet "unsafe" just by virtue of having that opinion. You have your right to your opinion, and so do I. The fact that we may disagree here or there has no net effect on "Internet safety," and it's preposterous to think it does.
If you are justified in dropping all semblance of rational and reasonable discussion and go directly to accusing someone of some actual offense just because they dare to disagree with your opinion (which, because it is yours, must be the only correct one, I guess), then I am no less justified to continue holding that opinion on the grounds that instead of a reasonable argument against it, all you have to offer is immediate condescension and declarations of innate moral supremacy. Until a reasoned response to my opinion is put forward I have no real reason to change it. I'm certainly not going to change it just because it makes you mad.
Fuck off, you utter piece of shit. You want me to drop all semblance of rational discussion? Watch what happens when a male objects to "trigger warnings" on a thread about the rape of women by men. You and Faust don't like trigger warnings on rape threads? GO SUCK EACH OTHER'S DICKS. Maybe commiserate with some rapists on Reddit, you janky piece of crap.
I am out for the day; I've had enough of this shit for one sitting. I only came back to copy some particularly noxious tidbits of discussion (your and Faust's posts) for dissection elsewhere.
Quote from: Pixie on July 28, 2012, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Murmur on July 28, 2012, 07:47:59 AM
Flashbacks. Not cool. :sad:
Sorry Murmur. In a feminist space I would have put a massive TRIGGER WARNING on the whole thing.
In fact I'm going to go back and put one in the thread title now. I considered it before posting, but I wasn't sure if PeeDee needed them. Now I know we do. Sorry again, hon.
Thank you, sweetie... I didn't mean to start a flame-war. Thank you for adding the *trigger warning.*
Quote from: Murmur on July 28, 2012, 08:36:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 28, 2012, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Murmur on July 28, 2012, 07:47:59 AM
Flashbacks. Not cool. :sad:
Sorry Murmur. In a feminist space I would have put a massive TRIGGER WARNING on the whole thing.
In fact I'm going to go back and put one in the thread title now. I considered it before posting, but I wasn't sure if PeeDee needed them. Now I know we do. Sorry again, hon.
Thank you, sweetie... I didn't mean to start a flame-war. Thank you for adding the *trigger warning.*
It's no problem, these happen all the time. Sorry if I've made you feel unsafe on the Internet though :p
Ffs, there's a bit of a difference between "the opinions expressed here might make you mad" and "this subject matter could be traumatic" ...and a response which effectively says "it happened to me and I can talk about it,harden up" is a cunt move.
Quote from: Signor Paesior on July 28, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
Ffs, there's a bit of a difference between "the opinions expressed here might make you mad" and "this subject matter could be traumatic" ...and a response which effectively says "it happened to me and I can talk about it,harden up" is a cunt move.
What disgusts me the most about his statement is how he attributes his resilience to his character, and implies that anyone re-traumatized by graphic rape stories is an inferior person. Not because their personality, life history, access to mental health care, and particular details of their trauma (such as how recently it may have happened) may all be extremely different.
That's one venomous, self-serving point of view.
Quote from: Signor Paesior on July 28, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
Ffs, there's a bit of a difference between "the opinions expressed here might make you mad" and "this subject matter could be traumatic" ...and a response which effectively says "it happened to me and I can talk about it,harden up" is a cunt move.
I don't think people should harden up, but I do think that adding disclaimers is dismissive or belittling of what I'd a serious subject that does conjour up feelings. This is discussion forum by definition there are going to be topics that are hard to talk about and I don't think they should be segregated or treated differently.
I wasn't even going to mention the "it happened to me" but my personal experience was that no one would believe what was happening until the person was caught and even then no one would talk about what happened, because we're catholic and we don't dare talk about this shit in public.
YOu know what? Yes it's a fucking trigger issue for me but it's not something I'm going to shy away from
Quote from: Net on July 28, 2012, 11:14:58 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on July 28, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
Ffs, there's a bit of a difference between "the opinions expressed here might make you mad" and "this subject matter could be traumatic" ...and a response which effectively says "it happened to me and I can talk about it,harden up" is a cunt move.
What disgusts me the most about his statement is how he attributes his resilience to his character, and implies that anyone re-traumatized by graphic rape stories is an inferior person. Not because their personality, life history, access to mental health care, and particular details of their trauma (such as how recently it may have happened) may all be extremely different.
That's one venomous, self-serving point of view.
Go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 11:15:42 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on July 28, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
Ffs, there's a bit of a difference between "the opinions expressed here might make you mad" and "this subject matter could be traumatic" ...and a response which effectively says "it happened to me and I can talk about it,harden up" is a cunt move.
I don't think people should harden up, but I do think that adding disclaimers is dismissive or belittling of what I'd a serious subject that does conjour up feelings. This is discussion forum by definition there are going to be topics that are hard to talk about and I don't think they should be segregated or treated differently.
I wasn't even going to mention the "it happened to me" but my personal experience was that no one would believe what was happening until the person was caught and even then no one would talk about what happened, because we're catholic and we don't dare talk about this shit in public.
YOu know what? Yes it's a fucking trigger issue for me but it's not something I'm going to shy away from
If you see it as a weakness and you reject it IN YOURSELF, that's probably ok.
Rejecting it in SOMEBODY ELSE who might have a totally different situation than yours isn't.
If I let my dog jump all over somebody that I know is dog-phobic, that makes ME the asshole.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 28, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 11:15:42 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on July 28, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
Ffs, there's a bit of a difference between "the opinions expressed here might make you mad" and "this subject matter could be traumatic" ...and a response which effectively says "it happened to me and I can talk about it,harden up" is a cunt move.
I don't think people should harden up, but I do think that adding disclaimers is dismissive or belittling of what I'd a serious subject that does conjour up feelings. This is discussion forum by definition there are going to be topics that are hard to talk about and I don't think they should be segregated or treated differently.
I wasn't even going to mention the "it happened to me" but my personal experience was that no one would believe what was happening until the person was caught and even then no one would talk about what happened, because we're catholic and we don't dare talk about this shit in public.
YOu know what? Yes it's a fucking trigger issue for me but it's not something I'm going to shy away from
If you see it as a weakness and you reject it IN YOURSELF, that's probably ok.
Rejecting it in SOMEBODY ELSE who might have a totally different situation than yours isn't.
If I let my dog jump all over somebody that I know is dog-phobic, that makes ME the asshole.
fine, giving someone the chance to look away is one thing.
Using terminoly like "trigger warning", which sounds like a crass and dismissive way of referring to othe subject matter is another.
I'm not accusing pixey of being crass or dismissive of the subject but that's what those words conjour up for me.
Quote from: Faust on July 29, 2012, 12:41:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 28, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 11:15:42 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on July 28, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
Ffs, there's a bit of a difference between "the opinions expressed here might make you mad" and "this subject matter could be traumatic" ...and a response which effectively says "it happened to me and I can talk about it,harden up" is a cunt move.
I don't think people should harden up, but I do think that adding disclaimers is dismissive or belittling of what I'd a serious subject that does conjour up feelings. This is discussion forum by definition there are going to be topics that are hard to talk about and I don't think they should be segregated or treated differently.
I wasn't even going to mention the "it happened to me" but my personal experience was that no one would believe what was happening until the person was caught and even then no one would talk about what happened, because we're catholic and we don't dare talk about this shit in public.
YOu know what? Yes it's a fucking trigger issue for me but it's not something I'm going to shy away from
If you see it as a weakness and you reject it IN YOURSELF, that's probably ok.
Rejecting it in SOMEBODY ELSE who might have a totally different situation than yours isn't.
If I let my dog jump all over somebody that I know is dog-phobic, that makes ME the asshole.
fine, giving someone the chance to look away is one thing.
Using terminoly like "trigger warning", which sounds like a crass and dismissive way of referring to othe subject matter is another.
I'm not accusing pixey of being crass or dismissive of the subject but that's what those words conjour up for me.
I'm not crazy about jargon like "trigger warning" or "empowering" or any of that either, but those aren't going to give anybody flashbacks. I'm HAPPY to be very minorly annoyed for a split second if it keeps somebody else from reliving past trauma. WTF.
You're coming off like Mitt Romney before he cut that kids hair: "HE CAN'T LOOK LIKE THAT" Can't say "trigger warning". Same thing.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 28, 2012, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
I don't think it's necessary to post a big "trigger warning" at the top of a thread just because an article linked from it shows people being horrible about a topic like rape. The OP can outline the situation and anyone who has too much trouble with it is free to click the other way.
Or the title can. And did.
In any case, way to go. Pixie's thread has been effectively trashed.
Pixie, would you like a thread split?
I don't need a thread split. The drift wasn't really a drift, it's exactly what the OP is about, being the framework in which we as a society and a culture discuss sex and sexual assault.
Originally I hemmed and hawed about including a trigger warning.. and as Murphy's law would have it, the one time I chose not to, it turned out it WAS needed, which made me feel shitty.
And I'm sorry pixie for taking up so much of the last couple of pages on it, as I've said I don't like the terminology and for every one victim that sees the title there are people who would see if as an excuse to ignore the topic. I thought I could explain that without being attacked or suffer the indeceny of being compared to a presidential candidate.
Quote from: Faust on July 29, 2012, 08:22:09 AM
And I'm sorry pixie for taking up so much of the last couple of pages on it, as I've said I don't like the terminology and for every one victim that sees the title there are people who would see if as an excuse to ignore the topic. I thought I could explain that without being attacked or suffer the indeceny of being compared to a presidential candidate.
Don't feel bad. At least you're not the equivalent of Trollbear.
Quote from: Faust on July 29, 2012, 08:22:09 AM
And I'm sorry pixie for taking up so much of the last couple of pages on it, as I've said I don't like the terminology and for every one victim that sees the title there are people who would see if as an excuse to ignore the topic. I thought I could explain that without being attacked or suffer the indeceny of being compared to a presidential candidate.
"We can discuss this without having our hands held" was, imo, a poor way of criticising the terminology. I've never known anyone to avoid a discussion because of a trigger warning except to protect themselves from retraumatisation, so this and the suggestion that trigger warnings are triggering to you were the only cases where the issue seemed to be being belittled to me.
If there is an issue with the terminology resulting in people not addressing the topic, sure, that's a problem, but "I can talk about rape without the insult of being warned about the subject matter" as a justification for a dislike of trigger warnings is fucking stupid. Trigger warnings are a really common way of warning people of subject matter which may trigger them. What is your suggestion for a better way of handling that?
If you want to give someone a chance to leave a thread because of the subject matter you just do an introductory passage in the op, you can even explain that the subject matter is inflammatory but at least the justification of the thread has to be read, instead of just tagging the topic like its some Social media tag [rape] that people can just skim by because it's not one of their interests.
And aside from PD I've known plenty of people who ignore the topic of rape because they don't like reading about it.
http://www.aaets.org/article178.htm.
I think this section is the most relevant about triggers, and why trigger warnings are a
tool to help people who have been traumatised decide if they want to or feel up to proceeding with reading the subject matter. Triggers can arrive unnanounced outside the world of the Internets,
at least here and on the wider web we can give someone an option not to be re-traumatised.
QuoteIntrusive Symptoms: Flashbacks
Intrusive symptoms can be described as those where the traumatic event "intrudes" into everyday life, and is re-experienced. These symptoms are often referred to as Flashbacks. The event is so real and so vivid it feels like the person is actually experiencing the trauma all over again. It is happening right in front of their eyes, and they can't tell what is reality and what is memory.
These flashbacks can range in severity from mild and brief to long and strong. They can involve both sensory perceptions and motor re-enactment too. During a flashback you may experience vivid images, strong smells, or noises. Some may even involve actually acting out a traumatic experience. Many times trauma survivors don't recognize that they are having a flashback nor remember afterwards what happened. It is not unusual for someone to faint or dissociate during a flashback and be unable to recall any part of the experience, even when a witness describes their behavior to them.
Sometimes after a flashback trauma survivors are aware of what triggered especially if someone else observes the behavior and recounts it to them, or if it is a recurring situation.
Sometimes these flashbacks occur as nightmares or bad dreams too. There is some evidence to suggest that traumatic nightmares occur in the earlier, lighter stage of sleep than other dreams, and are more easily recalled upon waking. Traumatic dreams may however contain accurate and inaccurate, literal and symbolic, information and should always be interpreted with caution.
Sometimes there is no actual reliving of the trauma itself, but instead survivors experience a sudden painful emotional breakdown. These can involve crying, anger or fear for no apparent reason, and can occur repeatedly like flashbacks. Sometimes a flashback can involve just having feelings that are far more intense than a situation calls for but would have been appropriate in the original traumatic situation.
The important thing to remember about flashback experiences, especially those related to abuse and rape survivors, is that they can make you feel as afraid, as helpless, and as out of control as you were during the actual trauma, even if you don't consciously remember it. Others have the experience of losing their sense of where the flashback stops and reality begins.*
*emphasis mine.
I will continue to use a trigger warning if I find a topic like this that I KNOW will cause a trigger in one or more people on this board. Unfortunately I learned I needed to do this the hard way. If your distaste for them is a personal opinion, well that's a luxury some other people don't have.
As for those who aren't subject to this kind of traumatic experience who just don't want to discuss or think about the subject matter, that is counterproductive on
their part. I agree it does need dragging out into the light of day and to be discussed. However, I will prioritise the needs of the people that
need TW's and make it a standard approach just as we do with the NSFW threads and links. Maybe next time I will put them in the content of the OP and put a massive jump in the page, rather than the thread title, but
when I edited the thread title I was more concerned about Murmur and it was done in haste, and felt a bit like closing the gate after the horse had bolted. I'm leaving it as is.
I understand and I'm sorry pixie. I didn't realize they were put in as a reaction. I was only ever voicing my dislike of them and didn't think that was as big a deal as some others did. It certainly wasn't an attack on you and I hope you didn't pick it up this way.
Quote from: Faust on July 29, 2012, 11:23:54 AM
I understand and I'm sorry pixie. I didn't realize they were put in as a reaction. I was only ever voicing my dislike of them and didn't think that was as big a deal as some others did. It certainly wasn't an attack on you and I hope you didn't pick it up this way.
Nah, man, it's just PeeDee. We recognise our monkey nature, or at least try to..
Quote from: Faust on July 28, 2012, 08:52:24 PM
Quote from: Murmur on July 28, 2012, 08:36:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 28, 2012, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Murmur on July 28, 2012, 07:47:59 AM
Flashbacks. Not cool. :sad:
Sorry Murmur. In a feminist space I would have put a massive TRIGGER WARNING on the whole thing.
In fact I'm going to go back and put one in the thread title now. I considered it before posting, but I wasn't sure if PeeDee needed them. Now I know we do. Sorry again, hon.
Thank you, sweetie... I didn't mean to start a flame-war. Thank you for adding the *trigger warning.*
It's no problem, these happen all the time. Sorry if I've made you feel unsafe on the Internet though :p
Quote from: Pixie on July 29, 2012, 01:15:21 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 28, 2012, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
I don't think it's necessary to post a big "trigger warning" at the top of a thread just because an article linked from it shows people being horrible about a topic like rape. The OP can outline the situation and anyone who has too much trouble with it is free to click the other way.
Or the title can. And did.
In any case, way to go. Pixie's thread has been effectively trashed.
Pixie, would you like a thread split?
I don't need a thread split. The drift wasn't really a drift, it's exactly what the OP is about, being the framework in which we as a society and a culture discuss sex and sexual assault.
Originally I hemmed and hawed about including a trigger warning.. and as Murphy's law would have it, the one time I chose not to, it turned out it WAS needed, which made me feel shitty.
I did spell it out a couple of times that I edited after the fact.You probably
should have read the thread properly before going off at the deep end, and I reckon you and Vex owe Murmur more of an apology than me, as she now feels she (or rather my consideration for her emotional well being) caused a shitfest.
When I get back from hanging out with mah femininjas I'm going to push the thread towards rape myths, good and bad examples of rape prevention campaigns and other issues. Hopefully we have agreed on why TW's are needed on PeeDee, just the same as NSFW's are, and the discussion can go further.
Quote...our culture is unable to address rape with the sobriety and clarity the topic deserves because we are still unable to address sex with the sobriety and clarity it deserves. The contention that rape should be regarded as an asexual act has done nothing to remedy this. Nor will it. As activist and writer Wendy McElroy points out, "there can be as many motives for rape as there are for murder and other violent crimes ... Rape is every bit as complex." Insisting that no rape is ever "about" sex but is rather about an individual man acting on a patriarchal mandate to sow terror by exercising "power" does a disservice to us all.
... from the article. Rape is one of those things that even smart people, whom I have a lot of respect for, will put down to "evil" or "monsters" both of which, IMO, is a shortcut to thinking. Rapists are not sent to earth by satan or hatched in jam jars by mad scientists, they are ordinary people whom, for a variety of reasons, be it brain damage, upbringing, circumstance or a mixture of all of these things and more, go on to do something shitty to another human being. I'm lucky in that I don't have any personal history with rape, so when I read the accounts without a hysterical boogeman reaction, I find it interesting just how diverse the reasons are.
Do I sympathise with the rapists? Fuck no - they were weak they were stupid, they were damaged as children and never got round to taking responsibility for their shit and getting over it, whatever. Rapists are fuckheads but it does no good to think of them as the same kinds of fuckheads. It does no good to rule out a whole host of contributing factors.
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:43:59 PM
Quote from: Net on July 28, 2012, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
Having uncomfortable discussions is about the absolute minimum we owe to the rest of society if we say we're interested at all in solving big problems and not just distracting ourselves with frivolity all the time.
People who have been through sexual trauma owe it to society to re-traumatize themselves by subjecting themselves to content they are not ready to read?
Yes, that sounds like very non-counterproductive "big problem" solving.
Hence the "This topic involves rape" which would naturally be part of any decent OP. People can see that and move on. I don't object to a "trigger warning" in this case, but you know how people get. Pretty soon we'll have a "trigger warning" for politics in general, or "trigger warning" for pie vs. cake. Probably not HERE, but imagine Facebook. That's what I object to.
POINT ONE FOR SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY GOES TO VEX!
And this is the only time I will snark in the entire thread. well, at least TRY to.
Quote from: Pixie on July 29, 2012, 12:09:18 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:43:59 PM
Quote from: Net on July 28, 2012, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 28, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
Having uncomfortable discussions is about the absolute minimum we owe to the rest of society if we say we're interested at all in solving big problems and not just distracting ourselves with frivolity all the time.
People who have been through sexual trauma owe it to society to re-traumatize themselves by subjecting themselves to content they are not ready to read?
Yes, that sounds like very non-counterproductive "big problem" solving.
Hence the "This topic involves rape" which would naturally be part of any decent OP. People can see that and move on. I don't object to a "trigger warning" in this case, but you know how people get. Pretty soon we'll have a "trigger warning" for politics in general, or "trigger warning" for pie vs. cake. Probably not HERE, but imagine Facebook. That's what I object to.
POINT ONE FOR SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY GOES TO VEX!
And this is the only time I will snark in the entire thread. well, at least TRY to.
You're right of course... I was trying to make a statement about trigger warnings in a thread about rape, so I'm also guilty of threadjacking. My objection was unnecessary... so I apologize for using this discussion as a springboard.
I regret my overreaction yesterday, and I'm sorry, Faust and V3x.
I feel like I could have been a lot more effective at facilitating some sort of understanding if I had kept my cool and calmly explained PTSD from sexual assault and what triggers are within that context, and why, while not everyone finds trigger warnings useful, many people do, especially shortly after an assault or during intensive therapy while they're actively working through the trauma. I haven't read back through the thread to see what's been discussed but if I feel up for it later today maybe I will.
On the tangentially related subject of trigger warnings... it would seem to me that the benefit that it provides to those who would use it vastly outweighs the seemingly minor disapproval some seem to feel toward the concept. So why you all trippin? Opinions duly noted; let's move on.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 29, 2012, 05:52:31 PM
I regret my overreaction yesterday, and I'm sorry, Faust and V3x.
I feel like I could have been a lot more effective at facilitating some sort of understanding if I had kept my cool and calmly explained PTSD from sexual assault and what triggers are within that context, and why, while not everyone finds trigger warnings useful, many people do, especially shortly after an assault or during intensive therapy while they're actively working through the trauma. I haven't read back through the thread to see what's been discussed but if I feel up for it later today maybe I will.
I'm sorry too, and to net and murmur. I took it personally and got aggressive. I think I'll take my leave from this thread.
The message I get from this thread seems to be that words are more important than feelings.
Also that I should stop hiding NSFW material behind NSFW tags. Or warning Nigel about some full on trippy flashing animated GIFs.
Indeed, any kind of warning or disclaimer belittles possible victims, known and unknown, and prevents true discussion and debate.
The possibility that was here in this thread was precisely the kind of thing that needs to be debated in the wider world, ergo the appropriate framework that we can use as a society to openly, fully and safely talk about sex. As a microcosm of our societies at large, PD appears to have largely failed this particular task as much as our real world counterparts have.
I have long believed that sex education is lacking in the most important area, it fails to truly describe what a healthy sexual relationship is. You can learn all about not getting STIs and not impregnating or being impregnated and still have the most unhealthy concept of intercourse.
The same is also, sadly, true of discussing the most extreme cases of unhealthy sex and sexual abuse after they have happened. Otherwise, why would the words "Trigger Warning" be more abhorrent than the word "Rape"?
Well done Faust for being a largely functional person, with an intact mind and a usually healthy attitude towards tough and necessary discussions, regardless of whatever happened to you in the past. Not so well done on the whole empathy bit.
Murmer, Nigel, Faust : If you ever need to talk, you know where to find me. I will do my own empathetic best. Someone has to.
Thank you, Payne; most especially for the empathy and understanding. You are the best Messiah ever! And I'm not just saying that for the funny.
A friend of mine posted the link to this essay on my FB wall, and I found it incredibly relevant to the current dialogue:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/live-through-this/
QuoteThough some feminists regard "rape equals devastation" as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more "dangerous" to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault. Weldon ventured this same conclusion when she said that "defining it as some peculiarly awful crime may even be counter-productive."
Similarly, Germaine Greer claimed, "It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating." When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman's worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 02:14:56 AM
Thank you, Payne; most especially for the empathy and understanding. You are the best Messiah ever! And I'm not just saying that for the funny.
A friend of mine posted the link to this essay on my FB wall, and I found it incredibly relevant to the current dialogue:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/live-through-this/
QuoteThough some feminists regard "rape equals devastation" as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more "dangerous" to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault. Weldon ventured this same conclusion when she said that "defining it as some peculiarly awful crime may even be counter-productive."
Similarly, Germaine Greer claimed, "It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating." When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman's worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body.
There's a lot to be said for those quotes, but I can easily imagine how it would be -at the very least- mentally damaging in a temporary manner... I won't pretend I know anything about what it's like to be raped, but I was mugged once, and it was very traumatizing. I can only imagine that the added violation of being "entered" (for lack of a better term) by the attacker would compound that trauma exponentially.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 02:14:56 AM
Thank you, Payne; most especially for the empathy and understanding. You are the best Messiah ever! And I'm not just saying that for the funny.
A friend of mine posted the link to this essay on my FB wall, and I found it incredibly relevant to the current dialogue:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/live-through-this/
QuoteThough some feminists regard "rape equals devastation" as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more "dangerous" to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault. Weldon ventured this same conclusion when she said that "defining it as some peculiarly awful crime may even be counter-productive."
Similarly, Germaine Greer claimed, "It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating." When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman's worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body.
I like that.
"Devastation by penis" needs to go in the same anachronistic trash pile as "damaged (by penis) goods" and that old racist trope "a fate worse than death".
Quote from: Hoopla on July 30, 2012, 05:06:46 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 02:14:56 AM
Thank you, Payne; most especially for the empathy and understanding. You are the best Messiah ever! And I'm not just saying that for the funny.
A friend of mine posted the link to this essay on my FB wall, and I found it incredibly relevant to the current dialogue:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/live-through-this/
QuoteThough some feminists regard "rape equals devastation" as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more "dangerous" to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault. Weldon ventured this same conclusion when she said that "defining it as some peculiarly awful crime may even be counter-productive."
Similarly, Germaine Greer claimed, "It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating." When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman's worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body.
There's a lot to be said for those quotes, but I can easily imagine how it would be -at the very least- mentally damaging in a temporary manner... I won't pretend I know anything about what it's like to be raped, but I was mugged once, and it was very traumatizing. I can only imagine that the added violation of being "entered" (for lack of a better term) by the attacker would compound that trauma exponentially.
It can. It IS horrible. But the societal insistence that women are defined and valued by their sexual use makes it much, much more traumatizing than it would be otherwise, IMO.
I was 15, and "lost my virginity" to rape. I spent so many years trying to cope with the ramifications of that ALONE... until someone pointed out to me that "virginity" itself is not a possession to be lost, stolen, or taken, any more than "never having tried popcorn" is a possession. It's a cultural construct, an abstract invention that is directly linked to woman-as-possession.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 30, 2012, 05:09:40 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 02:14:56 AM
Thank you, Payne; most especially for the empathy and understanding. You are the best Messiah ever! And I'm not just saying that for the funny.
A friend of mine posted the link to this essay on my FB wall, and I found it incredibly relevant to the current dialogue:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/live-through-this/
QuoteThough some feminists regard "rape equals devastation" as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more "dangerous" to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault. Weldon ventured this same conclusion when she said that "defining it as some peculiarly awful crime may even be counter-productive."
Similarly, Germaine Greer claimed, "It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating." When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman's worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body.
I like that.
"Devastation by penis" needs to go in the same anachronistic trash pile as "damaged (by penis) goods" and that old racist trope "a fate worse than death".
And yes. This.
I will also say that after reading the whole article, I have to confess that I have some doubts about the author's own sense of self-value or boundaries. But that doesn't invalidate the many good points she makes.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 05:42:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 30, 2012, 05:09:40 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 02:14:56 AM
Thank you, Payne; most especially for the empathy and understanding. You are the best Messiah ever! And I'm not just saying that for the funny.
A friend of mine posted the link to this essay on my FB wall, and I found it incredibly relevant to the current dialogue:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/live-through-this/
QuoteThough some feminists regard "rape equals devastation" as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more "dangerous" to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault. Weldon ventured this same conclusion when she said that "defining it as some peculiarly awful crime may even be counter-productive."
Similarly, Germaine Greer claimed, "It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating." When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman's worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body.
I like that.
"Devastation by penis" needs to go in the same anachronistic trash pile as "damaged (by penis) goods" and that old racist trope "a fate worse than death".
And yes. This.
I will also say that after reading the whole article, I have to confess that I have some doubts about the author's own sense of self-value or boundaries. But that doesn't invalidate the many good points she makes.
Yeah, she has issues. But she's not stupid.
And it's interesting that she brought up "degrees of rape". I've wondered about that before. But nobody talks about it, probably for the reasons she gives.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 30, 2012, 06:10:17 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 05:42:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 30, 2012, 05:09:40 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 02:14:56 AM
Thank you, Payne; most especially for the empathy and understanding. You are the best Messiah ever! And I'm not just saying that for the funny.
A friend of mine posted the link to this essay on my FB wall, and I found it incredibly relevant to the current dialogue:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/live-through-this/
QuoteThough some feminists regard "rape equals devastation" as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more "dangerous" to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault. Weldon ventured this same conclusion when she said that "defining it as some peculiarly awful crime may even be counter-productive."
Similarly, Germaine Greer claimed, "It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating." When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman's worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body.
I like that.
"Devastation by penis" needs to go in the same anachronistic trash pile as "damaged (by penis) goods" and that old racist trope "a fate worse than death".
And yes. This.
I will also say that after reading the whole article, I have to confess that I have some doubts about the author's own sense of self-value or boundaries. But that doesn't invalidate the many good points she makes.
Yeah, she has issues. But she's not stupid.
And it's interesting that she brought up "degrees of rape". I've wondered about that before. But nobody talks about it, probably for the reasons she gives.
yeah, it's either LIFE DESTROYING or not rape. Which is patent bullshit. And god forbid you have any level of sympathy for your rapist, because there's no way he's a human being who feels like a piece of shit for what happened.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 06:18:49 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 30, 2012, 06:10:17 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 05:42:31 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 30, 2012, 05:09:40 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 02:14:56 AM
Thank you, Payne; most especially for the empathy and understanding. You are the best Messiah ever! And I'm not just saying that for the funny.
A friend of mine posted the link to this essay on my FB wall, and I found it incredibly relevant to the current dialogue:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/live-through-this/
QuoteThough some feminists regard "rape equals devastation" as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more "dangerous" to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault. Weldon ventured this same conclusion when she said that "defining it as some peculiarly awful crime may even be counter-productive."
Similarly, Germaine Greer claimed, "It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating." When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman's worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body.
I like that.
"Devastation by penis" needs to go in the same anachronistic trash pile as "damaged (by penis) goods" and that old racist trope "a fate worse than death".
And yes. This.
I will also say that after reading the whole article, I have to confess that I have some doubts about the author's own sense of self-value or boundaries. But that doesn't invalidate the many good points she makes.
Yeah, she has issues. But she's not stupid.
And it's interesting that she brought up "degrees of rape". I've wondered about that before. But nobody talks about it, probably for the reasons she gives.
yeah, it's either LIFE DESTROYING or not rape. Which is patent bullshit. And god forbid you have any level of sympathy for your rapist, because there's no way he's a human being who feels like a piece of shit for what happened.
America is all about frying people. Admitting to complexity like any degree of sympathy (even though most rapists are people you know) will get you labeled as "seriously fucked up." Talking about chopping off dicks and throwing them on a fire, OTOH, probably won't. :x
Wow fantastic discussion... sucks I was trapped in "internet via cell phone" over the weekend :(
Anytime one person dominates another person and removes their freedom, its a form of slavery. It is traumatic, it is horrific and its not just because it involves penises. Though our culture and penises don't really help the situation, raping someone with an object can be just as traumatic. I appreciate Nigel's point that something like virginity isn't something we own and therefore not something that can be 'taken'. I think, though, that even if we strip away the cultural views on sex, rape would still be traumatic because it enslaves a person to the will of another, even if only temporarily.
In my experience, it wasn't the act, it was the feeling that I was powerless and had no choice that really fucked me up for awhile. The act kinda grossed me out because I was taught that anal was BADWRONG and God hated it, so it made me feel dirty. It physically hurt. Those things went away in a pretty short period of time though. The feeling that I was a weakling didn't.
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 06:18:49 AM
And god forbid you have any level of sympathy for your rapist, because there's no way he's a human being who feels like a piece of shit for what happened.
He may well be. But it's not enough.
But I don't think anyone's going to argue the need for punishment.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 06:18:49 AM
And god forbid you have any level of sympathy for your rapist, because there's no way he's a human being who feels like a piece of shit for what happened.
He may well be. But it's not enough.
But I don't think anyone's going to argue the need for punishment.
Agreed... we all know that humans are not simply evil pieces of shit that do evil because they want to do evil. They all have some BiP that influences their decisions and behaviors. Most people feel bad for making bad decisions or hurting people (well minus the sociopaths and psychopaths). Empathy, however, doesn't eschew the need for the rapist taking responsibility for their actions.
Yes, there are certainly degrees and types of rape, and rape with an object is rape as much as rape with a penis or with fingers, and may be even more traumatic, depending on the circumstances.
There is the kind of rape that is a simple (and often predictable) betrayal of trust; "You can rub against me while we make out, but don't put it in" is, as a woman, truly putting yourself in a precarious situation where a single impulsive or even reflexive thrust can turn a lover into a rapist. I disagree with classifying that as rape, but the law and our society does. And it is hard to know sometimes where to draw the line, between rape and not-rape.
There are men who are rapists who will use the gray areas to their advantage; my ex-husband used to tickle me until I was laughing and trying to fight him off, and then it would turn into wrestling, and then it would turn into rape. I would cry, and afterwards, he would say he was sorry and that he thought we were "just playing". OK, maybe the first time, but it happened again. And again. That is also a betrayal of trust, and it made me cautious and reserved with my lovers for a very long time. Maybe even still.
Most rapes don't happen in back alleys or parks, or by strangers who creep in through the kitchen window at night. Those rapes are undeniably traumatizing and violating and often physically violent. But most rapes are done by someone you know, and placed a certain trust in, and so the rape is not only a violation but also a betrayal; that may be more traumatizing and have longer-reaching consequences than the rape itself.
Not all rape causes PTSD. My husband's repeated rape would not, in itself, have caused PTSD; what it did was trigger my PTSD from being raped when I was 15, bringing back not only the emotional reactions of fear and violation and horror and self-loathing, but also the physical reaction of pain, panic, shaking and nausea. A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 04:43:38 PM
Yes, there are certainly degrees and types of rape, and rape with an object is rape as much as rape with a penis or with fingers, and may be even more traumatic, depending on the circumstances.
There is the kind of rape that is a simple (and often predictable) betrayal of trust; "You can rub against me while we make out, but don't put it in" is, as a woman, truly putting yourself in a precarious situation where a single impulsive or even reflexive thrust can turn a lover into a rapist. I disagree with classifying that as rape, but the law and our society does. And it is hard to know sometimes where to draw the line, between rape and not-rape.
There are men who are rapists who will use the gray areas to their advantage; my ex-husband used to tickle me until I was laughing and trying to fight him off, and then it would turn into wrestling, and then it would turn into rape. I would cry, and afterwards, he would say he was sorry and that he thought we were "just playing". OK, maybe the first time, but it happened again. And again. That is also a betrayal of trust, and it made me cautious and reserved with my lovers for a very long time. Maybe even still.
Most rapes don't happen in back alleys or parks, or by strangers who creep in through the kitchen window at night. Those rapes are undeniably traumatizing and violating and often physically violent. But most rapes are done by someone you know, and placed a certain trust in, and so the rape is not only a violation but also a betrayal; that may be more traumatizing and have longer-reaching consequences than the rape itself.
Not all rape causes PTSD. My husband's repeated rape would not, in itself, have caused PTSD; what it did was trigger my PTSD from being raped when I was 15, bringing back not only the emotional reactions of fear and violation and horror and self-loathing, but also the physical reaction of pain, panic, shaking and nausea. A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.
Very well said, Nigel.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 04:26:56 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 06:18:49 AM
And god forbid you have any level of sympathy for your rapist, because there's no way he's a human being who feels like a piece of shit for what happened.
He may well be. But it's not enough.
But I don't think anyone's going to argue the need for punishment.
In my case, and in the case of more than a few women I've talked to about it, I would have been satisfied if he'd had to come to a mediated meeting with me and talk it through and apologize. I would be satisfied if I could see that he understood, and even more satisfied if I could see him break down in tears.
That's all.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 04:43:38 PM
A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.
I have never understood the "blame the victim" culture, which is far more widespread (through religion, etc) than the more commonsense "blame the perpetrator" mindset.
I don't find a robbery victim to be unclean. I don't find a battered person to be unclean, or a murder victim, or any other victim of violence. Instead, there is something unclean about people who would DO these things.
I doubt I'm the only person on PD who feels this way. In fact, I'm willing to bet that nobody on PD considers a rape victim to be unclean or "ruined".
I realize that doesn't help much, because it's easy to SAY that we don't feel uncomfortable or that the person isn't unclean, and much harder for the victim to accept that...Or even to not feel that way while talking to people even if they DO accept it.
Some crimes are at least partially abetted by the victim; Bernie Madoff's victims come to mind. Their unrestrained greed allowed the situation to occur, and they didn't really care how he made things happen (no way does anyone think you can get consistent 20% returns on an investment without some kind of funny business). They were accomplices turned victim.
Some crimes, on the other hand, are solely the responsibility of the criminal who commits them, no matter if that person is a spouse, or if the victim "dressed for it", etc. Holding the victim responsible means taking the side of the criminal.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 04:54:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 04:43:38 PM
A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.
I have never understood the "blame the victim" culture, which is far more widespread (through religion, etc) than the more commonsense "blame the perpetrator" mindset.
I don't find a robbery victim to be unclean. I don't find a battered person to be unclean, or a murder victim, or any other victim of violence. Instead, there is something unclean about people who would DO these things.
I doubt I'm the only person on PD who feels this way. In fact, I'm willing to bet that nobody on PD considers a rape victim to be unclean or "ruined".
I realize that doesn't help much, because it's easy to SAY that we don't feel uncomfortable or that the person isn't unclean, and much harder for the victim to accept that...Or even to not feel that way while talking to people even if they DO accept it.
Some crimes are at least partially abetted by the victim; Bernie Madoff's victims come to mind. Their unrestrained greed allowed the situation to occur, and they didn't really care how he made things happen (no way does anyone think you can get consistent 20% returns on an investment without some kind of funny business). They were accomplices turned victim.
Some crimes, on the other hand, are solely the responsibility of the criminal who commits them, no matter if that person is a spouse, or if the victim "dressed for it", etc. Holding the victim responsible means taking the side of the criminal.
I agree completely. I think a lot of the 'blame the victim' thinking, especially when it comes to the rape of women ties directly into the male dominated culture we're still struggling to extricate ourselves from and the Judeo-Christian belief system that informed that culture. The bible clearly places some of the responsibility for rape on the woman and people who still believe that stone age trash tend to think there's at least some truth in it.
I personally find the idea abhorrent. No one is responsible for someone else enslaving them. I don't care if they're wearing a mini skirt that barely covers their butt cheeks, clothing is not a goddamned invitation.
That being said, I also agree with Nigel that some definitions of rape are not really appropriate. The example she gave is a very appropriate one... letting someone go 99% of the way and then yelling rape if the intensity of the moment leads to a mistake seems to cheapen the term (yes, I realize the irony of this statement given the slavery discussion last week). Now, I will say that it might depend on the behavior and thinking of the guy afterward ("Oh My God, I am SO Sorry!!!" vs "Well, the bitch really wanted it")... intent, empathy and taking responsibility is a big part of the equation.
I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue. They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter
Rat, as for your assertion here
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread. We edit posts or put content warnings in for Suu's spider phobia, which to ME seems silly, but to Suu, her arachnophobia is real, and produces a visceral response. Maybe Suu's response to spiders isn't as visceral as something that may trigger someone's PTSD, but I'm not going to be arrogant about it and make an assumption.
When I was 21 and my boyfriend died of a brain heammorrage and the last spoken words I spoke with him were as he was being loaded into an ambulance, seeing ambulances freaked me the fuck out for a couple of years afterwards and put me right back into that scary feeling of helplessness I had that night. This is the closest (I think, anyway) I can get to someone's experience of a PTSD flashback, and typing this out is taking a lot of work for me, almost eleven years on, even though ambulances don't freak me out any more (which IS lucky as I have had to put my best friend in one twice now), its not easy to put myself back in that place, and I consider myself healed from that trauma, and am not subject to a visceral reaction unless I actively picture that point in time.
Anyway, the conversation here seems to have shifted towards the victim-blaming angle, which neatly gives the opportunity to move the conversation towards rape myths, and good and bad rape prevention campaigns.
Here are some rape myths as posted on a UK parenting website. http://www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-campaign-rape-myths-busted
there are a plenty of other ones out there, such as this one http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html, and this one contains some pretty racist as well as other types of ignorant bullshit.. It's not a great list, as it doesn't account for some cases of "misreading signals" rather than a power trip, IHMO. The "misread signals" aspect of rape IS something that can be tackled with education, as well as campaigns to outline what consent actually is, I'll let you all go over the rape myths links before I get onto that bit.
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue. They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter
Rat, as for your assertion here Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.
While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.
If there is NSFW material, I will say so. If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example: AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance. I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue. They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter
Rat, as for your assertion here Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.
While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.
If there is NSFW material, I will say so. If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example: AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance. I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).
Seems fair. I know this time I did it wrong as far as I was concerned, with the thread title not being very explicit before the edit and the body of the OP didn't explicitly spell out that it was about rape, but I assumed the full link actually spelled it out, and that didn't work out either.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
Wow fantastic discussion... sucks I was trapped in "internet via cell phone" over the weekend :(
Anytime one person dominates another person and removes their freedom, its a form of slavery. It is traumatic, it is horrific and its not just because it involves penises. Though our culture and penises don't really help the situation, raping someone with an object can be just as traumatic. I appreciate Nigel's point that something like virginity isn't something we own and therefore not something that can be 'taken'. I think, though, that even if we strip away the cultural views on sex, rape would still be traumatic because it enslaves a person to the will of another, even if only temporarily.
In my experience, it wasn't the act, it was the feeling that I was powerless and had no choice that really fucked me up for awhile. The act kinda grossed me out because I was taught that anal was BADWRONG and God hated it, so it made me feel dirty. It physically hurt. Those things went away in a pretty short period of time though. The feeling that I was a weakling didn't.
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
I'm not really comfortable with the direction of this "any loss of freedom is slavery" angle you're working. I just don't agree with it; rape is not slavery. Living in a society is not slavery. Taxes are not rape. Can we please be conscious of the way that cheapening words to make them mean less than what they were invented to define lessens them, and demeans that which they define? Applying words like "rape" and "slavery" to things that are not rape and not slavery benefits no one. Rape is bad enough, as what it is... does it really need to be equated to slavery to have enough impact, especially considering how often slavery includes rape? They are two distinctly useful words, and not interchangeable.
I'm not trying to demean your experience, and perhaps you felt enslaved by your rape, but I am alarmed by the use of the word "slavery" in place of more appropriate descriptive words. I am fairly sure that most people who have been enslaved would not appreciate it, any more than most people who have been raped appreciate the use of the word "rape" to describe things that are not rape.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 07:21:24 PM
I'm not really comfortable with the direction of this "any loss of freedom is slavery" angle you're working. I just don't agree with it; rape is not slavery. Living in a society is not slavery. Taxes are not rape. Can we please be conscious of the way that cheapening words to make them mean less than what they were invented to define lessens them, and demeans that which they define?
This. Right here.
There's no point in having strong words for bad things, if the scope of those bad things begins to blend together. The words become meaningless.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue. They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter
Rat, as for your assertion here Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.
While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.
If there is NSFW material, I will say so. If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example: AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance. I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).
Nobody here, as far as I can tell, wants to force anyone to do anything.
And you DO put trigger warnings on your threads, you just don't call them that. You, as many people do, tend to label potentially gut-wrenching threads in such a way that the content is clearly identifiable. You even label/hide images that might trigger my epilepsy, and anything involving graphic images of people being hurt or killed. I don't use the words "trigger warning", but I, as you do, try to be descriptive so that nobody clicks a link or is faced with content that could land them in therapy, or cause them to have a panic attack, or get fired, or even to load content that their kids probably shouldn't see. All of these things are day to day courtesies that thoughtful people do for each other. An enslavement to society, if you will. :wink:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 07:21:24 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
Wow fantastic discussion... sucks I was trapped in "internet via cell phone" over the weekend :(
Anytime one person dominates another person and removes their freedom, its a form of slavery. It is traumatic, it is horrific and its not just because it involves penises. Though our culture and penises don't really help the situation, raping someone with an object can be just as traumatic. I appreciate Nigel's point that something like virginity isn't something we own and therefore not something that can be 'taken'. I think, though, that even if we strip away the cultural views on sex, rape would still be traumatic because it enslaves a person to the will of another, even if only temporarily.
In my experience, it wasn't the act, it was the feeling that I was powerless and had no choice that really fucked me up for awhile. The act kinda grossed me out because I was taught that anal was BADWRONG and God hated it, so it made me feel dirty. It physically hurt. Those things went away in a pretty short period of time though. The feeling that I was a weakling didn't.
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
I'm not really comfortable with the direction of this "any loss of freedom is slavery" angle you're working. I just don't agree with it; rape is not slavery. Living in a society is not slavery. Taxes are not rape. Can we please be conscious of the way that cheapening words to make them mean less than what they were invented to define lessens them, and demeans that which they define? Applying words like "rape" and "slavery" to things that are not rape and not slavery benefits no one. Rape is bad enough, as what it is... does it really need to be equated to slavery to have enough impact, especially considering how often slavery includes rape? They are two distinctly useful words, and not interchangeable.
I'm not trying to demean your experience, and perhaps you felt enslaved by your rape, but I am alarmed by the use of the word "slavery" in place of more appropriate descriptive words. I am fairly sure that most people who have been enslaved would not appreciate it, any more than most people who have been raped appreciate the use of the word "rape" to describe things that are not rape.
You're right... I didn't intend that to come off quite that way. I meant only that while "You put your penis in me" may not really be worthy of the focus it gets in rape (but is rather due to the stupid social views of sex and morality and women as property), the forcing of someone's will over yours is... or at least it was for me. I got over the physical part, because I eventually decided God didn't hate me for being forced, but it took a lot longer to lose the feeling that I was unable to have any control over my own life.
Thinking about it now, I suspect that particular brick in my BiP may inform a lot of my views on the ideas of what freedom and slavery means... I'd never even considered that before.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue. They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter
Rat, as for your assertion here Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.
While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.
If there is NSFW material, I will say so. If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example: AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance. I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).
Nobody here, as far as I can tell, wants to force anyone to do anything.
And you DO put trigger warnings on your threads, you just don't call them that. You, as many people do, tend to label potentially gut-wrenching threads in such a way that the content is clearly identifiable. You even label/hide images that might trigger my epilepsy, and anything involving graphic images of people being hurt or killed. I don't use the words "trigger warning", but I, as you do, try to be descriptive so that nobody clicks a link or is faced with content that could land them in therapy, or cause them to have a panic attack, or get fired, or even to load content that their kids probably shouldn't see. All of these things are day to day courtesies that thoughtful people do for each other. An enslavement to society, if you will. :wink:
Okay, maybe I read it wrong.
I put warnings up because I want to. I don't want a standard imposed.
If that wasn't the suggestion, then everyone disregard my response.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue. They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter
Rat, as for your assertion here Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.
While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.
If there is NSFW material, I will say so. If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example: AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance. I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).
Nobody here, as far as I can tell, wants to force anyone to do anything.
And you DO put trigger warnings on your threads, you just don't call them that. You, as many people do, tend to label potentially gut-wrenching threads in such a way that the content is clearly identifiable. You even label/hide images that might trigger my epilepsy, and anything involving graphic images of people being hurt or killed. I don't use the words "trigger warning", but I, as you do, try to be descriptive so that nobody clicks a link or is faced with content that could land them in therapy, or cause them to have a panic attack, or get fired, or even to load content that their kids probably shouldn't see. All of these things are day to day courtesies that thoughtful people do for each other. An enslavement to society, if you will. :wink:
Okay, maybe I read it wrong.
I put warnings up because I want to. I don't want a standard imposed.
If that wasn't the suggestion, then everyone disregard my response.
Naw, I think that what Pixie meant (correct me if I'm wrong, Pixie) was that, now that we've had this conversation and people are aware, it would be immature not to learn from it and be conscious of it. And she seemed to me to be applying that principle to herself, in awareness that she posted a thread without much by way of descriptors, with a link in it that led directly to content that triggered flashbacks for Murmur. Sort of an "Oops, I'm definitely not going to do that again" moment. And Faust's objection to it turned out to be positive because of the ensuing conversation about PTSD and triggers. The way I read it, she was just saying "Let's not just forget about this; let's try to be more conscious, including me".
As far as I can tell, this board is
all about consciousness, so this shouldn't be a problem.
We should just post a generalized trigger warning on the front page.
WARNING: The content in this site has been shown to cause cancer, schizophrenia, panic attacks, flashbacks, and other dangerous medical and psychiatric conditions in lab animals. PTSD patients, victims of violent crime, children, and the Moral Majority are at especially high risk from these effects. Use PDCOM at your own risk
Quote from: v3x on July 30, 2012, 08:12:32 PM
We should just post a generalized trigger warning on the front page.
WARNING: The content in this site has been shown to cause cancer, schizophrenia, panic attacks, flashbacks, and other dangerous medical and psychiatric conditions in lab animals. PTSD patients, victims of violent crime, children, and the Moral Majority are at especially high risk from these effects. Use PDCOM at your own risk
You forgot:
Anal bleeding, sudden acceleration to dangerous speeds, terminal butthurt, exposure to Welsh people (coyote, et al), Angry Black Woman attacks (Nigel, me), and occasional TMI.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 30, 2012, 08:12:32 PM
We should just post a generalized trigger warning on the front page.
WARNING: The content in this site has been shown to cause cancer, schizophrenia, panic attacks, flashbacks, and other dangerous medical and psychiatric conditions in lab animals. PTSD patients, victims of violent crime, children, and the Moral Majority are at especially high risk from these effects. Use PDCOM at your own risk
You forgot:
Anal bleeding, sudden acceleration to dangerous speeds, terminal butthurt, exposure to Welsh people (coyote, et al), Angry Black Woman attacks (Nigel, me), and occasional TMI.
THESE are just a FEW of the known side effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL. To find out if this medication is right for you, please consult your local Holy Man™. When taking this medication never deviate from the prescribed instructions. Do not operate heavy machinery or suspend disbelief while under the effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL.
Quote from: v3x on July 30, 2012, 08:18:25 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 30, 2012, 08:12:32 PM
We should just post a generalized trigger warning on the front page.
WARNING: The content in this site has been shown to cause cancer, schizophrenia, panic attacks, flashbacks, and other dangerous medical and psychiatric conditions in lab animals. PTSD patients, victims of violent crime, children, and the Moral Majority are at especially high risk from these effects. Use PDCOM at your own risk
You forgot:
Anal bleeding, sudden acceleration to dangerous speeds, terminal butthurt, exposure to Welsh people (coyote, et al), Angry Black Woman attacks (Nigel, me), and occasional TMI.
THESE are just a FEW of the known side effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL. To find out if this medication is right for you, please consult your local Holy Man™. When taking this medication never deviate from the prescribed instructions. Do not operate heavy machinery or suspend disbelief while under the effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL.
If you are pregnant or think you might be pregnant, take way too much PDCOMUNOXIDIL. If your genital warts start talking to you, stop taking PDCOMUNOXIDIL at once, and enter a monastery or convent. If you cease breathing, you're dead and that's really not our problem.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 08:20:14 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 30, 2012, 08:18:25 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 30, 2012, 08:12:32 PM
We should just post a generalized trigger warning on the front page.
WARNING: The content in this site has been shown to cause cancer, schizophrenia, panic attacks, flashbacks, and other dangerous medical and psychiatric conditions in lab animals. PTSD patients, victims of violent crime, children, and the Moral Majority are at especially high risk from these effects. Use PDCOM at your own risk
You forgot:
Anal bleeding, sudden acceleration to dangerous speeds, terminal butthurt, exposure to Welsh people (coyote, et al), Angry Black Woman attacks (Nigel, me), and occasional TMI.
THESE are just a FEW of the known side effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL. To find out if this medication is right for you, please consult your local Holy Man™. When taking this medication never deviate from the prescribed instructions. Do not operate heavy machinery or suspend disbelief while under the effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL.
If you are pregnant or think you might be pregnant, take way too much PDCOMUNOXIDIL. If your genital warts start talking to you, stop taking PDCOMUNOXIDIL at once, and enter a monastery or convent. If you cease breathing, you're dead and that's really not our problem.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 08:20:14 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 30, 2012, 08:18:25 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 30, 2012, 08:12:32 PM
We should just post a generalized trigger warning on the front page.
WARNING: The content in this site has been shown to cause cancer, schizophrenia, panic attacks, flashbacks, and other dangerous medical and psychiatric conditions in lab animals. PTSD patients, victims of violent crime, children, and the Moral Majority are at especially high risk from these effects. Use PDCOM at your own risk
You forgot:
Anal bleeding, sudden acceleration to dangerous speeds, terminal butthurt, exposure to Welsh people (coyote, et al), Angry Black Woman attacks (Nigel, me), and occasional TMI.
THESE are just a FEW of the known side effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL. To find out if this medication is right for you, please consult your local Holy Man™. When taking this medication never deviate from the prescribed instructions. Do not operate heavy machinery or suspend disbelief while under the effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL.
If you are pregnant or think you might be pregnant, take way too much PDCOMUNOXIDIL. If your genital warts start talking to you, stop taking PDCOMUNOXIDIL at once, and enter a monastery or convent. If you cease breathing, you're dead and that's really not our problem.
For a comprehensive list of all possible side effects of PDCOMUNOXIDIL, consult this link (http://www.ecureme.com/emyhealth/disease/info_disease_main.asp).
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue. They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter
Rat, as for your assertion here Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.
While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.
If there is NSFW material, I will say so. If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example: AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance. I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).
Nobody here, as far as I can tell, wants to force anyone to do anything.
And you DO put trigger warnings on your threads, you just don't call them that. You, as many people do, tend to label potentially gut-wrenching threads in such a way that the content is clearly identifiable. You even label/hide images that might trigger my epilepsy, and anything involving graphic images of people being hurt or killed. I don't use the words "trigger warning", but I, as you do, try to be descriptive so that nobody clicks a link or is faced with content that could land them in therapy, or cause them to have a panic attack, or get fired, or even to load content that their kids probably shouldn't see. All of these things are day to day courtesies that thoughtful people do for each other. An enslavement to society, if you will. :wink:
Okay, maybe I read it wrong.
I put warnings up because I want to. I don't want a standard imposed.
If that wasn't the suggestion, then everyone disregard my response.
Naw, I think that what Pixie meant (correct me if I'm wrong, Pixie) was that, now that we've had this conversation and people are aware, it would be immature not to learn from it and be conscious of it. And she seemed to me to be applying that principle to herself, in awareness that she posted a thread without much by way of descriptors, with a link in it that led directly to content that triggered flashbacks for Murmur. Sort of an "Oops, I'm definitely not going to do that again" moment. And Faust's objection to it turned out to be positive because of the ensuing conversation about PTSD and triggers. The way I read it, she was just saying "Let's not just forget about this; let's try to be more conscious, including me".
As far as I can tell, this board is all about consciousness, so this shouldn't be a problem.
Yea, that's what I was getting at. I wasn't suggesting that we slap gurt big trigger warnings over anything that might possibly squick or freak out people in general in a visceral and nasty way, just, yanno, look after our own when we KNOW there is an issue, in whatever manner that may take. I'll use possibly a trigger warning or content note and then a big jump in the page because that's a habit I picked up in the feminist and queer spaces on teh intarwebs (and yes some people may think that is infantilising or coddling or whatever, but thats, like, your opinion, man), but how the rest of peedee choose to consider others doesn't matter as long as they consider others once a situation has been shown that it needs consideration for someone of the community, be it epilepsy warnings for Nigel, OMG SPIDER for Suu, or consideration for Murmur's PTSD.
Can we get back to rape myths and the victim blaming bullshit surrounding sexual assault now?
I think we have chewed out the squeak in the chew toy labelled "trigger warnings and stuff".
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
Can we get back to rape myths and the victim blaming bullshit surrounding sexual assault now?
I think we have chewed out the squeak in the chew toy labelled "trigger warnings and stuff".
I did. Everyone ignored it. :(
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 04:54:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 30, 2012, 04:43:38 PM
A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.
I have never understood the "blame the victim" culture, which is far more widespread (through religion, etc) than the more commonsense "blame the perpetrator" mindset.
I don't find a robbery victim to be unclean. I don't find a battered person to be unclean, or a murder victim, or any other victim of violence. Instead, there is something unclean about people who would DO these things.
I doubt I'm the only person on PD who feels this way. In fact, I'm willing to bet that nobody on PD considers a rape victim to be unclean or "ruined".
I realize that doesn't help much, because it's easy to SAY that we don't feel uncomfortable or that the person isn't unclean, and much harder for the victim to accept that...Or even to not feel that way while talking to people even if they DO accept it.
Some crimes are at least partially abetted by the victim; Bernie Madoff's victims come to mind. Their unrestrained greed allowed the situation to occur, and they didn't really care how he made things happen (no way does anyone think you can get consistent 20% returns on an investment without some kind of funny business). They were accomplices turned victim.
Some crimes, on the other hand, are solely the responsibility of the criminal who commits them, no matter if that person is a spouse, or if the victim "dressed for it", etc. Holding the victim responsible means taking the side of the criminal.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 08:50:20 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
Can we get back to rape myths and the victim blaming bullshit surrounding sexual assault now?
I think we have chewed out the squeak in the chew toy labelled "trigger warnings and stuff".
I did. Everyone ignored it. :(
I didn't. I think your point was dead on. (I modified it a bit so we don't get threadjacked on my poor use of words earlier):
QuoteI agree completely. I think a lot of the 'blame the victim' thinking, especially when it comes to the rape of women ties directly into the male dominated culture we're still struggling to extricate ourselves from and the Judeo-Christian belief system that informed that culture. The bible clearly places some of the responsibility for rape on the woman and people who still believe that stone age trash tend to think there's at least some truth in it.
I personally find the idea abhorrent. No one is responsible for someone else taking the freedom of choice away from them. I don't care if they're wearing a mini skirt that barely covers their butt cheeks, clothing is not a goddamned invitation.
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
Here are some rape myths as posted on a UK parenting website. http://www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-campaign-rape-myths-busted
there are a plenty of other ones out there, such as this one http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html, and this one contains some pretty racist as well as other types of ignorant bullshit.. It's not a great list, as it doesn't account for some cases of "misreading signals" rather than a power trip, IHMO. The "misread signals" aspect of rape IS something that can be tackled with education, as well as campaigns to outline what consent actually is, I'll let you all go over the rape myths links before I get onto that bit.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 09:11:15 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 30, 2012, 08:50:20 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 08:47:41 PM
Can we get back to rape myths and the victim blaming bullshit surrounding sexual assault now?
I think we have chewed out the squeak in the chew toy labelled "trigger warnings and stuff".
I did. Everyone ignored it. :(
I didn't. I think your point was dead on. (I modified it a bit so we don't get threadjacked on my poor use of words earlier):
QuoteI agree completely. I think a lot of the 'blame the victim' thinking, especially when it comes to the rape of women ties directly into the male dominated culture we're still struggling to extricate ourselves from and the Judeo-Christian belief system that informed that culture. The bible clearly places some of the responsibility for rape on the woman and people who still believe that stone age trash tend to think there's at least some truth in it.
I personally find the idea abhorrent. No one is responsible for someone else taking the freedom of choice away from them. I don't care if they're wearing a mini skirt that barely covers their butt cheeks, clothing is not a goddamned invitation.
In addition to Rat and Roger's excellent observations, I'd like to add this... (which due to PeeDee going down I had to copy and paste into Word to avoid losing over 750 words and has been saved as "Pixie's Massive Rape Culture Essay," It took over 2 hours to write this. It may just be the biggest post I have ever posted here. Maybe it's so big that I crashed PeeDee!)
I think the myths about rape and victim blaming that constitute what feminism terms as being rape culture go hand in hand, because what the media and society see as "really real rape for realness" is only a fraction of rapes committed. The scary man in the bushes rapist or the sleazy spike your drink at the bar guy is the common perception of it, and anything outside of that perception falls prey to what some feminist blogs has called the "Not My Nigel!" response :horrormirth:,(which, in the context of peedee and peedee only, I find the phrase hilarious. the concept, not so much.) where people cannot see their friends, colleagues, partners, siblings or children as the perp for something that sits outside of what they know about rape.
When you are deep in "Not My Nigel!" country, victim blaming happens, because no one wants to believe that their loved ones and pillars of their lives and communities is capable of something so heinous and taboo in our culture. Ergo "the bitch must be LYING" responses and all the other myriad rape myth bollocks , where those who report rape break the comfortable little bubble of the lives of the perp and their friends and loved ones, and it turns into a kneejerking hairless ape shitflinging contest. This is why rape and sexual assault is such an under-reported crime, because those who are assaulted KNOW that they will not be believed, that the defence will turn up with a massive bag of rape myths to fling around with abandon
if it even gets to court in the first place. It is such a heated concept that in mainstream society with it's fucked up attitudes toward sex in general, the gender binaries of what we expect from women
(passivity, people pleasing, non-aggression and worth based on appearance, not wanting sex and a whole heap of bullshit that could make it's own thread), and what we expect of men
(competitiveness, aggression, ambition, being a slave to their penises and sexual urges, not showing emotion or empathy and fear of being :O likened to anything feminine and some other heap of bullshit that could make up it's own thread.) which reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PsHlSZ_3jo which may be slightly relevant, but I'm a weird person, and its a great fucking song, and if you've been following this whole thread, you deserve a wee break. (but NO COOKIES, OKAY! /feminist in-joke.)
Anyway the end of that paragraph turned into somewhat a ramble... the point is the tropes about sexuality, gender and the transgressions or outliers impede our understanding of rape and sexual assault and lead to the traditional "don't get raped" anti rape campaigns such as this one, which in my opinion is a pretty bad example-http://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/campaigns-and-initiatives/rape-short-word-long-sentence.html (http://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/campaigns-and-initiatives/rape-short-word-long-sentence.html) are mostly aimed at policing women's behaviour for fear of offending men(!).
Campaigns like this one cause a massive shitstorm (http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/image/1/639/0//images/RCS-TopTen-postA4FINweb.jpg) which is a shame, because I find this and the video from Rape Crisis Scotland to be actually quite funny, albeit very darkly funny.
Whereas this website-http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/KnowTheDifference/DoYouKnowTheDifference.htm (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/KnowTheDifference/DoYouKnowTheDifference.htm)
is actually pretty good, even if the home part of it exploits the "real man" anxiety and tropes, but you got to target your message somehow, and this one seems to have managed to do it without provoking a massive backlash, although it was only launched last week and I stay off the somewhat odious Men's Rights Activist sinkholes of the internet. It challenges behaviours of men and educates them on what constitutes consent, soon to be all up in London buses and such, and to me and other feminists, is what we'd like to see more of.
To me, if we remove all the historical patriarchal baggage about purity, sexuality and so on, rape is a crime of egregious disrespect of boundaries, although in some cases people don't even fucking know where the goalposts are, which is why abstinence only sex ed, and the "don't get knocked up or catch an STI" schools of thought are woefully fucking inadequate, because society doesn't teach us about healthy and positive expressions of sexuality and what is a healthy relationship, and it is sorely needed if we are going to end victim blaming and rape culture.
Anyway, I fear I may be repeating myself on the last paragraph, and it's a long assed post to digest, so for now I'm going to leave it there.
Any questions?
^^^^^ bless this post
That post was awesome, and I'm going to put that info graph URVERWAIR!
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 31, 2012, 02:20:55 AM
That post was awesome, and I'm going to put that info graph URVERWAIR!
Awesome! Well I have a deadline for my community project volunteering that I need to sort out, and tomorrow is my off duty feminist day (I gotta look at kittens and puppies and not stuff like this for one day a week, or else I'll turn into some kind of all froth and rage cliché about second wave feminism and be all made of straw or something whilst gleefully getting all stabbity stab-stab on my housemates /sarcasm), so I will see you spags..... Later.
I am sure Nigel and Garbo can clarify any points of interest about the post.
That post was great, Pixie!
Quote from: Pixie on July 31, 2012, 02:56:55 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 31, 2012, 02:20:55 AM
That post was awesome, and I'm going to put that info graph URVERWAIR!
Awesome! Well I have a deadline for my community project volunteering that I need to sort out, and tomorrow is my off duty feminist day (I gotta look at kittens and puppies and not stuff like this for one day a week, or else I'll turn into some kind of all froth and rage cliché about second wave feminism and be all made of straw or something whilst gleefully getting all stabbity stab-stab on my housemates /sarcasm), so I will see you spags..... Later.
I am sure Nigel and Garbo can clarify any points of interest about the post.
Later, lady!
I appreciate how informative this thread has been. Both on the subjects of trigger warnings and rape culture.
Awesome stuff, Pixie, thank you.
This is great. It took me for a moment to realise that the poster felt 'odd' because I wasn't used to seein anti-rape messages specifically addressed to men.
I've always been very respectful and worried about people's limits. Too much so. Ive had to teach myself that approaching women, talking about sex, or being more overt, loud etc was OK. So sometimes I do see things like 'if a woman is walking leave her alone' or 'don't be sexually overt' etc and feel a bit... I dunno. Uncertain. Just because the limits I always assumed were there aren't as restrictive as I thought so sometimes I'm not certain how far is too far.
I mean, the obvious is obvious. Consent is king. But sometimes that fringe of what will make someone uncomfortable vs just being appropriately direct-fun-etc isnt intuitive. But as a positive (or possibly just as a male?) I haven't ever felt like I'll be drawn and quartered for an honest mistake.
Hopefully what I'm saying is clear.
That being said, considering my background and the way I was brought up, it's a fair call that I'm not the intended audience which may explain my reading of things like dont come up to a woman walking alone... I'm picturing daytime, university, good vibes etc because coming up to a woman at night alone, on a street is intuitively creepy.
I'm really hoping I'm not just rambling shit at this point.
Quote from: PixieI think the myths about rape and victim blaming that constitute what feminism terms as being rape culture go hand in hand, because what the media and society see as "really real rape for realness" is only a fraction of rapes committed. The scary man in the bushes rapist or the sleazy spike your drink at the bar guy is the common perception of it, and anything outside of that perception falls prey to what some feminist blogs has called the "Not My Nigel!" response ,(which, in the context of peedee and peedee only, I find the phrase hilarious. the concept, not so much.) where people cannot see their friends, colleagues, partners, siblings or children as the perp for something that sits outside of what they know about rape.
When you are deep in "Not My Nigel!" country, victim blaming happens, because no one wants to believe that their loved ones and pillars of their lives and communities is capable of something so heinous and taboo in our culture.
This, I think (I feel?) was perhaps the intention of the Reddit thread. Of if it wasn't, it almost turned out to be. While you
did get apologists (how could you not? It's the internet), you got a lot of posts by guys who
weren't "pervs in the bushes" and didn't assault some random woman. They were posts by all the
other rapists, the guys who thought they didn't fit the profile of Back-Alley Rapist, so there was no way
they could be rapists. And a lot of them (according to their posts, at least), when confronted with what they did were horrified.
Of course,
of course, that doesn't absolve them. But for me, the thread wasn't about absolution or apologies. It was about the many, many ways rape manifets, and how it doesn't hinge on anonymity, or violence; it hinges on
consent.
Incidentally, I'm quite sure I may have mis- over- or under-stated some positions, ideas, stances, or concepts in the above post. I apologize in advance, but I'm ready to have poo thrown at me because of it.
Wait a minute. Sex with a sleeping person is rape?
I'm pretty sure, yeah. It works on the same principle as if you have sex with someone who's passed out at a party.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
I'm pretty sure, yeah. It works on the same principle as if you have sex with someone who's passed out at a party.
So, waking up and midnight and going to town is a bad thing?
I'm going to have my wife arrested for rape.
:lulz:
I'm pretty sure a married, or committed couple has a different set of boundaries (but marital rape exists) that include some sort of implied consent (but marital rape exists) in circumstances like that (but marital rape exists).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:11:19 PM
I'm pretty sure a married, or committed couple has a different set of boundaries (but marital rape exists) that include some sort of implied consent (but marital rape exists) in circumstances like that (but marital rape exists).
I think we all know marital rape exists. No argument there. The implied consent thing might also apply in a non-marital relationship, given that everyone is on board ahead of time.
Some absolute statements are perfectly valid ("Don't drug your date's drink"), and some are leaning into being just
silly because of the absolutism of the statement.
Are you suggesting we E-Prime statements about rape?
:argh!:
Although, that would certainly be effective.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:16:45 PM
Are you suggesting we E-Prime statements about rape?
:argh!:
Although, that would certainly be effective.
How about:
"Rape is the act of having sex with someone without their prior consent or ability to give consent."
So long as "having sex" is a broad enough definition to cover something like jamming a plunger handle into someone's ass, then sure.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:50:10 PM
So long as "having sex" is a broad enough definition to cover something like jamming a plunger handle into someone's ass, then sure.
It's your thing, do whatcha wanna do. :lulz:
"Rape is sticking things into people without their consent or their ability to give consent."
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:01:08 PM
"Rape is sticking things into people without their consent or their ability to give consent."
Or vice-versa.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:01:08 PM
"Rape is sticking things into people without their consent or their ability to give consent."
Or vice-versa.
:lulz:
I had a mouth full of coffee you bastard!
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:03:05 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:01:08 PM
"Rape is sticking things into people without their consent or their ability to give consent."
Or vice-versa.
:lulz:
I had a mouth full of coffee you bastard!
But did the coffee have your consent?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:03:05 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:01:08 PM
"Rape is sticking things into people without their consent or their ability to give consent."
Or vice-versa.
:lulz:
I had a mouth full of coffee you bastard!
But did the coffee have your consent?
It did for my mouth, but not for my nose.
BREAKING: Juan Valdez Arrested For Nose Rape.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 02:08:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
I'm pretty sure, yeah. It works on the same principle as if you have sex with someone who's passed out at a party.
So, waking up and midnight and going to town is a bad thing?
I'm going to have my wife arrested for rape.
:lulz:
Um I am pretty sure that if Enabler is pretty sure that you'd totally be into it, and you just wake up, grin and say "hey baby" and get with the sexytimes, that your wife is clear of all charges. However if you had communicated that it's not something you're comfortable with then it would be.
Trying to mek sexytimes with a sleeping lady is not advisable unless she's said previously she'd be into it, and are prepared to stop if the response is "gerroff i'm sleepy", and passed out drunk is DO NEVAR!
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 02:13:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:11:19 PM
I'm pretty sure a married, or committed couple has a different set of boundaries (but marital rape exists) that include some sort of implied consent (but marital rape exists) in circumstances like that (but marital rape exists).
I think we all know marital rape exists. No argument there. The implied consent thing might also apply in a non-marital relationship, given that everyone is on board ahead of time.
Some absolute statements are perfectly valid ("Don't drug your date's drink"), and some are leaning into being just silly because of the absolutism of the statement.
You need to consider the target audience. The intent is to educate men who DON'T understand the boundaries, let alone how to negotiate them within the context of an established relationship.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:16:45 PM
Are you suggesting we E-Prime statements about rape?
:argh!:
Although, that would certainly be effective.
How about:
"Rape is the act of having sex with someone without their prior consent or ability to give consent."
That's overly simplistic. A lot of men out there who are going too far are
unclear on the very concept of consent.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 31, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:16:45 PM
Are you suggesting we E-Prime statements about rape?
:argh!:
Although, that would certainly be effective.
How about:
"Rape is the act of having sex with someone without their prior consent or ability to give consent."
That's overly simplistic. A lot of men out there who are going too far are unclear on the very concept of consent.
That hurts my brain... How is consent not clear?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:48:42 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 31, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:16:45 PM
Are you suggesting we E-Prime statements about rape?
:argh!:
Although, that would certainly be effective.
How about:
"Rape is the act of having sex with someone without their prior consent or ability to give consent."
That's overly simplistic. A lot of men out there who are going too far are unclear on the very concept of consent.
That hurts my brain... How is consent not clear?
How many guys in that Reddit thread were under the impression that "she was into it"? That's what I mean. They may THINK it's consensual, or that a lack of struggle is consent. They simply don't understand what consent IS. Why do you think that so much effort goes into spelling out exactly what is "yes" and what is "no"? You can't compare the general population of guys to yourself, because if all guys were like you, do you think rape would be the problem that it is? Gonna go out on a limb here and say "probably not".
It's tempting for a lot of people to say "well, the kind of guys who rape aren't going to respond to education programs about consent anyway", but that's false. The "kind of guys who rape" are more likely to be ignorant and/or selfish than malicious or sadistic, and education, as millions of psychology 101 students have learned over the years, is the most powerful and effective solution to resolve both ignorance and selfishness.
Or the idea of ' she isn't saying no so thats yes'. Which obviously is not right.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 03:48:42 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 31, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:16:45 PM
Are you suggesting we E-Prime statements about rape?
:argh!:
Although, that would certainly be effective.
How about:
"Rape is the act of having sex with someone without their prior consent or ability to give consent."
That's overly simplistic. A lot of men out there who are going too far are unclear on the very concept of consent.
That hurts my brain... How is consent not clear?
Because in the UK, anyway, the definition of what is consent has had new legal precedents set on it within the last 10 years or so and it's shifting from "no means no" to "anything less than a yes is a no", you factor in coercion and consent under duress, cultural signals about masculinity and "really real rapists for realness" and a lack of relationship education within sex ed or decent advertising campaigns when there is a legal shift in attitudes, equals confusion and sadly, rapists who if they were better educated would most likely NOT have got all rapey.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on July 31, 2012, 03:28:47 AM
I appreciate how informative this thread has been. Both on the subjects of trigger warnings and rape culture.
Oh, this is just bare basics stuff really on the rape culture thing. I've only been doing femininja readings and stuff for about 4 months. The objectification/ male entitlement side of things is something I've not even covered here.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 31, 2012, 04:02:05 PM
Or the idea of ' she isn't saying no so thats yes'. Which obviously is not right.
That's a direct offshoot of the "no means no" campaign, which essentially placed responsibility for rape on the woman.
The whole "but did you say no?" defense.
"silence is consent" :/
Quote from: Pixie on July 31, 2012, 03:42:54 PM
and passed out drunk is DO NEVAR!
Again, arrangements made in advance. We have both agreed that incoherency is not an obstacle, as we're both just fine with being on the receiving end of that sort of thing. Although I do have to say that it's a one-way street, because I personally couldn't get excited if she was to be actually unconscious (she doesn't ever drink that much, so it's moot anyway). She, on the other hand, is immoral as hell, and fails to respect my Holy™ personage under any circumstances.
But in any other situation, you are 169% correct.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 31, 2012, 04:48:58 PM
"silence is consent" :/
In our house, a pulse is consent, apparently. :lulz:
But again, we are both very comfortable with each other, and we know our limitations. In any other situation, consent is never a default, so silence is NOT consent.
And, as Pixie says, "GEROFF" nullifies all pre-existing arrangements.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 31, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:16:45 PM
Are you suggesting we E-Prime statements about rape?
:argh!:
Although, that would certainly be effective.
How about:
"Rape is the act of having sex with someone without their prior consent or ability to give consent."
That's overly simplistic. A lot of men out there who are going too far are unclear on the very concept of consent.
Absolutely correct. I was speaking to what I perceive as a general understanding in THIS crowd.
Consent: An
active acceptance of the proposed activities. Yes = consent, no = not consent, no answer = no = not consent.
The whole thing boils down to your attitude toward other people. If this sort of shit has to be explained, then the person you are explaining to cannot follow you on a moral level. They may act appropriately to avoid legal trouble, etc (which is usually enough), but they still won't respect the other person as a person.
And that's the heart of the matter. People who "weasel" the rules - or fail to follow them at all - do so because they do not place any value on the other person as a human being.
I am unsure if any level of explanation (not involving a halligan tool) would make them understand.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 31, 2012, 04:42:03 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 31, 2012, 04:02:05 PM
Or the idea of ' she isn't saying no so thats yes'. Which obviously is not right.
That's a direct offshoot of the "no means no" campaign, which essentially placed responsibility for rape on the woman.
The whole "but did you say no?" defense.
"No means no" was a good start...In the 1980s. The situation hasn't gotten
worse to require a more clear understanding, it's just that the information being imparted was inadequate in the first place.
Sometimes PeeDee restores my faith in humanity by a couple percent. This thread is one of those times.
And then I see how much we fight with each other, and I'm confused again.
Considering we have to voluntarily log in to PD, I always assume that means we consent to fight with each other.
Quote from: Pixie on July 31, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
Sometimes PeeDee restores my faith in humanity by a couple percent. This thread is one of those times.
And then I see how much we fight with each other, and I'm confused again.
Thinking monkeys, while rare, are still monkeys ;-)
Quote from: Pixie on July 31, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
Sometimes PeeDee restores my faith in humanity by a couple percent. This thread is one of those times.
And then I see how much we fight with each other, and I'm confused again.
I'm not confused at all. PD is full of smart people, and we preach individuality. That is not a recipe for consensus on too many topics.
I'm glad we seem to have a consensus on this particular subject. The quibbling here is mostly over details, not over the general message.
The one thing PD IS a good recipe for is feminism
the way I understand it1: All humans have all the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of gender, orientation, race, or anything else.
1 You may notice that there is a type of person who cannot accept this idea, and refers to feminism as an alleged list of "special rights" for women, etc. These people are morons, and can usually be found explaining why Jesus owns your ovaries.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 31, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
Sometimes PeeDee restores my faith in humanity by a couple percent. This thread is one of those times.
And then I see how much we fight with each other, and I'm confused again.
I'm not confused at all. PD is full of smart people, and we preach individuality. That is not a recipe for consensus on too many topics.
I'm glad we seem to have a consensus on this particular subject. The quibbling here is mostly over details, not over the general message.
The one thing PD IS a good recipe for is feminism the way I understand it1: All humans have all the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of gender, orientation, race, or anything else.
1 You may notice that there is a type of person who cannot accept this idea, and refers to feminism as an alleged list of "special rights" for women, etc. These people are morons, and can usually be found explaining why Jesus owns your ovaries.
Agreed. Equal is Equal and should be Equal for everyone. Anything else is bullshit.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 06:04:10 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 31, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 02:16:45 PM
Are you suggesting we E-Prime statements about rape?
:argh!:
Although, that would certainly be effective.
How about:
"Rape is the act of having sex with someone without their prior consent or ability to give consent."
That's overly simplistic. A lot of men out there who are going too far are unclear on the very concept of consent.
Absolutely correct. I was speaking to what I perceive as a general understanding in THIS crowd.
Consent: An active acceptance of the proposed activities. Yes = consent, no = not consent, no answer = no = not consent.
The whole thing boils down to your attitude toward other people. If this sort of shit has to be explained, then the person you are explaining to cannot follow you on a moral level. They may act appropriately to avoid legal trouble, etc (which is usually enough), but they still won't respect the other person as a person.
And that's the heart of the matter. People who "weasel" the rules - or fail to follow them at all - do so because they do not place any value on the other person as a human being.
I am unsure if any level of explanation (not involving a halligan tool) would make them understand.
Yep.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 31, 2012, 04:02:05 PM
Or the idea of ' she isn't saying no so thats yes'. Which obviously is not right.
That and the fact that there are people out there who misread everything as "SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME", to wit:
"She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME." (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)
etc.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
Considering we have to voluntarily log in to PD, I always assume that means we consent to fight with each other.
This is a cogent and very valid point.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 31, 2012, 07:03:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 31, 2012, 04:02:05 PM
Or the idea of ' she isn't saying no so thats yes'. Which obviously is not right.
That and the fact that there are people out there who misread everything as "SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME", to wit:
"She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME." (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)
etc.
aaand that's the short hand version of the women as public property and objectification aspect of rape culture, right there.
Quote from: Pixie on July 31, 2012, 07:18:38 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 31, 2012, 07:03:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 31, 2012, 04:02:05 PM
Or the idea of ' she isn't saying no so thats yes'. Which obviously is not right.
That and the fact that there are people out there who misread everything as "SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME", to wit:
"She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME." (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)
etc.
aaand that's the short hand version of the women as public property and objectification aspect of rape culture, right there.
Also, one fuck of a case of confirmation bias.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 31, 2012, 07:03:30 PM
That and the fact that there are people out there who misread everything as "SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME", to wit:
"She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME." (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)
etc.
This in itself isn't so bad, provided the person in questions
asks first.
She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."Hey, do you want to fuck me?"
She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."Hey, do you want to fuck me?"
Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME. (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)"Hey, do you want to go somewhere warmer, and fuck me?"
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 31, 2012, 07:03:30 PM
That and the fact that there are people out there who misread everything as "SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME", to wit:
"She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME." (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)
etc.
This in itself isn't so bad, provided the person in questions asks first.
She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME.
"Hey, do you want to fuck me?"
She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME.
"Hey, do you want to fuck me?"
Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME. (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)
"Hey, do you want to go somewhere warmer, and fuck me?"
:lulz: at the last one.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 31, 2012, 07:03:30 PM
That and the fact that there are people out there who misread everything as "SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME", to wit:
"She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME."
"Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME." (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)
etc.
This in itself isn't so bad, provided the person in questions asks first.
She dropped something and bent over to pick it up. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME.
"Hey, do you want to fuck me?"
She smiled. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME.
"Hey, do you want to fuck me?"
Her nipples are hard. SHE WANTS TO FUCK ME. (Never mind that the ambient temperature is about 40F.)
"Hey, do you want to go somewhere warmer, and fuck me?"
Some people just aren't that smooth. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
IMO, that leads back to the general sexual culture in our society. In a climate of repression where many (if not most) people are programmed to be embarrassed/fearful/etc. of sexual expression, some people who don't feel comfortable openly discussing sex will resort to confirmation bias and/or exploitation because they'll never feel comfortable just saying things like "hey, you wanna go somewhere and get naked?" That doesn't excuse them in any way, but ultimately the cultural changes that would drastically reduce criminal sexual behavior need to come in a form that makes people realize that sex is OK, talking about sex is OK, and being rejected for sex is OK and doesn't make you less of a person.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:17:15 PM
IMO, that leads back to the general sexual culture in our society. In a climate of repression where many (if not most) people are programmed to be embarrassed/fearful/etc. of sexual expression, some people who don't feel comfortable openly discussing sex will resort to confirmation bias and/or exploitation because they'll never feel comfortable just saying things like "hey, you wanna go somewhere and get naked?" That doesn't excuse them in any way, but ultimately the cultural changes that would drastically reduce criminal sexual behavior need to come in a form that makes people realize that sex is OK, talking about sex is OK, and being rejected for sex is OK and doesn't make you less of a person.
Sure, stating a fact is not the same as endorsing it.
And very yes. If you ask, the worst that can usually happen is she says "no".
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards:
Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 01:48:26 PM
Wait a minute. Sex with a sleeping person is rape?
I'm going back a bit, here, but... Yes.
Quote
US Expands Definition of Rape
January 12, 2012
The Justice Department recently announced that it had changed the federal definition of "rape." Going forward rape will include male victims and female perpetrators, as well as, situations in which victims are unable to give consent, such as a disabled person or someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The new definition defines it as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
http://rinow.org/2012/01/12/us-expands-definition-of-rape/
If you're asleep, you can't give consent. However, as was stated before in this thread, prior arrangements MIGHT get you off any charges, mostly because, presumably, if you had said prior arrangements, nobody would be calling the cops, anyway.
Quote from: Luna on July 31, 2012, 09:28:52 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 01:48:26 PM
Wait a minute. Sex with a sleeping person is rape?
I'm going back a bit, here, but... Yes.
Quote
US Expands Definition of Rape
January 12, 2012
The Justice Department recently announced that it had changed the federal definition of "rape." Going forward rape will include male victims and female perpetrators, as well as, situations in which victims are unable to give consent, such as a disabled person or someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The new definition defines it as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
http://rinow.org/2012/01/12/us-expands-definition-of-rape/
If you're asleep, you can't give consent. However, as was stated before in this thread, prior arrangements MIGHT get you off any charges, mostly because, presumably, if you had said prior arrangements, nobody would be calling the cops, anyway.
It's not ME that's in trouble, here.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: Luna on July 31, 2012, 09:28:52 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 01:48:26 PM
Wait a minute. Sex with a sleeping person is rape?
I'm going back a bit, here, but... Yes.
Quote
US Expands Definition of Rape
January 12, 2012
The Justice Department recently announced that it had changed the federal definition of "rape." Going forward rape will include male victims and female perpetrators, as well as, situations in which victims are unable to give consent, such as a disabled person or someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The new definition defines it as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
http://rinow.org/2012/01/12/us-expands-definition-of-rape/
If you're asleep, you can't give consent. However, as was stated before in this thread, prior arrangements MIGHT get you off any charges, mostly because, presumably, if you had said prior arrangements, nobody would be calling the cops, anyway.
It's not ME that's in trouble, here.
:lulz:
I got that. "You" in the general sense, I meant.
Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xf5c2/reddit_are_you_aware_how_dangerous_the_askarapist/
I'm still reading and digesting this one.
Quote from: Pixie on August 01, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.
Wat
I can't see reddit from here.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 01, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.
Wat
I can't see reddit from here.
Basically it could encourage existing rapists because they're going to be encouraged by the attention they get from having an audience.
I haven't really looked through the Reddit thread in detail but I do have doubts just in that from what I've seen, there's mostly repentant self-loathing guys who want to get something off their chest. Not men who want to shock with their exploits. So I don't know if the type of guys who she's afraid of encouraging are the type who are actually sharing their stories.
The fact that this conversation is being held, in its whole complexity, i think this is good. Our society needs to talk about sex, rape, consent. ECH fucking nailed it with our weird sexual culture. Repression repression SIXTY FOOT BOOBS ON BILLBOARD repression repression.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 01, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Basically it could encourage existing rapists because they're going to be encouraged by the attention they get from having an audience.
So could any conversation about rape.
I don't think existing rapists are going to be affected one way or the other by anything other than themselves or perhaps a jail sentence.
I'd say the general culture of 4Chan would be more encouraging to rapists than a single Reddit thread.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 01, 2012, 02:49:45 PM
I'd say the general culture of 4Chan would be more encouraging to rapists than a single Reddit thread.
And even that wouldn't have much effect.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 01, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 01, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.
Wat
I can't see reddit from here.
Basically it could encourage existing rapists because they're going to be encouraged by the attention they get from having an audience.
I haven't really looked through the Reddit thread in detail but I do have doubts just in that from what I've seen, there's mostly repentant self-loathing guys who want to get something off their chest. Not men who want to shock with their exploits. So I don't know if the type of guys who she's afraid of encouraging are the type who are actually sharing their stories.
The fact that this conversation is being held, in its whole complexity, i think this is good. Our society needs to talk about sex, rape, consent. ECH fucking nailed it with our weird sexual culture. Repression repression SIXTY FOOT BOOBS ON BILLBOARD repression repression.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm pretty skeptical of his rationale. Repression and secrecy haven't ever helped anything before, why would it now?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 01, 2012, 03:53:41 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 01, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 01, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.
Wat
I can't see reddit from here.
Basically it could encourage existing rapists because they're going to be encouraged by the attention they get from having an audience.
I haven't really looked through the Reddit thread in detail but I do have doubts just in that from what I've seen, there's mostly repentant self-loathing guys who want to get something off their chest. Not men who want to shock with their exploits. So I don't know if the type of guys who she's afraid of encouraging are the type who are actually sharing their stories.
The fact that this conversation is being held, in its whole complexity, i think this is good. Our society needs to talk about sex, rape, consent. ECH fucking nailed it with our weird sexual culture. Repression repression SIXTY FOOT BOOBS ON BILLBOARD repression repression.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm pretty skeptical of his rationale. Repression and secrecy haven't ever helped anything before, why would it now?
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking.
The tendency among humans when a vile act is being discussed is to get religion over it. They have to go completely overboard, so that people will understand just how much the individual speaking hates it.
This is also why you hear people say that so-and-so that has been accused of a particularly nasty crime should be killed without trial (Khara springs to mind, here), which is of course vile in its own right.
And sometimes, you just get this reaction that it's too nasty to talk about, because people might get ideas or some such ridiculous shit...While the fact is, if a that type of person didn't already have "ideas", the issue wouldn't exist in the first place.
So I'm saying instead to drag the fucking thing by the heels, out into the light of day where everyone can see it. Secrecy is the enemy of truth, and truth is about the only way to deal with this sort of thing.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 04:21:17 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 01, 2012, 03:53:41 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 01, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 01, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.
Wat
I can't see reddit from here.
Basically it could encourage existing rapists because they're going to be encouraged by the attention they get from having an audience.
I haven't really looked through the Reddit thread in detail but I do have doubts just in that from what I've seen, there's mostly repentant self-loathing guys who want to get something off their chest. Not men who want to shock with their exploits. So I don't know if the type of guys who she's afraid of encouraging are the type who are actually sharing their stories.
The fact that this conversation is being held, in its whole complexity, i think this is good. Our society needs to talk about sex, rape, consent. ECH fucking nailed it with our weird sexual culture. Repression repression SIXTY FOOT BOOBS ON BILLBOARD repression repression.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm pretty skeptical of his rationale. Repression and secrecy haven't ever helped anything before, why would it now?
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking.
The tendency among humans when a vile act is being discussed is to get religion over it. They have to go completely overboard, so that people will understand just how much the individual speaking hates it.
This is also why you hear people say that so-and-so that has been accused of a particularly nasty crime should be killed without trial (Khara springs to mind, here), which is of course vile in its own right.
And sometimes, you just get this reaction that it's too nasty to talk about, because people might get ideas or some such ridiculous shit...While the fact is, if a that type of person didn't already have "ideas", the issue wouldn't exist in the first place.
So I'm saying instead to drag the fucking thing by the heels, out into the light of day where everyone can see it. Secrecy is the enemy of truth, and truth is about the only way to deal with this sort of thing.
It really disgusts me when people say that so-and-so should be executed without trial, strictly based on being accused of the crime, as if being accused was the actual verdict, and I hear it a lot. Apparently a lot of people are still not aware of how many false accusations still exist out there. Khara does this?
I think the last big blow up was over an accused pedophile.
Although, she's not the only person on PD who has advocated a "just kill them" approach to these kinds of crimes.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 04:31:15 PM
It really disgusts me when people say that so-and-so should be executed without trial, strictly based on being accused of the crime, as if being accused was the actual verdict, and I hear it a lot. Apparently a lot of people are still not aware of how many false accusations still exist out there. Khara does this?
Khara went off about an accused pedophile. When asked why the accused should not get a trial, she said that nobody who would do such a thing deserved a trial. When it was mentioned that the trial is there to find out IF the person did that thing, she threw a fit about how she just felt that way because pedos are bad. And then she flounced. Again.
She doesn't do it anymore, as she was banned a few months back.
Jesus. I obviously missed that.
Yeah pedos are very touchy subjects for a lot of people... but still... if we don't have a justice system we might as well just send them all out to the wall to take the black.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 04:49:50 PM
Jesus. I obviously missed that.
Yeah pedos are very touchy subjects for a lot of people... but still... if we don't have a justice system we might as well just send them all out to the wall to take the black.
Well, it's like I said earlier: The American mindset REQUIRES that you adopt a hair-shirt, summary punishment system for certain crimes, or you're obviously some kind of sympathyzer.
I'd like to blame this on the various red scares of the 20th century, but the fact is that this has been part of our culture since the puritan days.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 04:49:50 PM
Jesus. I obviously missed that.
Yeah pedos are very touchy subjects for a lot of people... but still... if we don't have a justice system we might as well just send them all out to the wall to take the black.
Well, it's like I said earlier: The American mindset REQUIRES that you adopt a hair-shirt, summary punishment system for certain crimes, or you're obviously some kind of sympathyzer.
I'd like to blame this on the various red scares of the 20th century, but the fact is that this has been part of our culture since the puritan days.
Probably even earlier... I'm no history expert, but I've noticed a trend in that lynch mobs and those who respect due process rarely seem to mix.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 04:59:27 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 04:49:50 PM
Jesus. I obviously missed that.
Yeah pedos are very touchy subjects for a lot of people... but still... if we don't have a justice system we might as well just send them all out to the wall to take the black.
Well, it's like I said earlier: The American mindset REQUIRES that you adopt a hair-shirt, summary punishment system for certain crimes, or you're obviously some kind of sympathyzer.
I'd like to blame this on the various red scares of the 20th century, but the fact is that this has been part of our culture since the puritan days.
Probably even earlier... I'm no history expert, but I've noticed a trend in that lynch mobs and those who respect due process rarely seem to mix.
Well, that's everywhere, but American sort of refined it with tarring & feathering anyone that didn't hate King George III enough. And it's been party time ever since.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 04:59:27 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 04:49:50 PM
Jesus. I obviously missed that.
Yeah pedos are very touchy subjects for a lot of people... but still... if we don't have a justice system we might as well just send them all out to the wall to take the black.
Well, it's like I said earlier: The American mindset REQUIRES that you adopt a hair-shirt, summary punishment system for certain crimes, or you're obviously some kind of sympathyzer.
I'd like to blame this on the various red scares of the 20th century, but the fact is that this has been part of our culture since the puritan days.
Probably even earlier... I'm no history expert, but I've noticed a trend in that lynch mobs and those who respect due process rarely seem to mix.
Well, that's everywhere, but American sort of refined it with tarring & feathering anyone that didn't hate King George III enough. And it's been party time ever since.
I have to say I find tarring and feathering fascinating.
I wonder if tarring on its own was a thing for a while, and then some cruel bastard with a strange streak of humor was like "Hey, it would be really fucking awesome if we added feathers to this, while the pitch is still hot and sticky."
It's really horrible, and yet there is a hint of whimsy... or am I the only one who sees this?
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 05:04:19 PM
I wonder if tarring on its own was a thing for a while, and then some cruel bastard with a strange streak of humor was like "Hey, it would be really fucking awesome if we added feathers to this, while the pitch is still hot and sticky."
It's really horrible, and yet there is a hint of whimsy... or am I the only one who sees this?
There were two methods of doing it, "torso" and "pitchcapping" which was done mostly by British troops to suspected Irish troublemakers, in which the head was shaved and tarred, feathered, and then the feathers lit on fire.
Interestingly enough, there are no recorded cases of the normal method resulting in death. Also, the practice went on well into the last century, and was used against labor unionists, and in one truly American™ case, against one John Meints, when he didn't show support for a WWI war bond drive.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 05:11:54 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 05:04:19 PM
I wonder if tarring on its own was a thing for a while, and then some cruel bastard with a strange streak of humor was like "Hey, it would be really fucking awesome if we added feathers to this, while the pitch is still hot and sticky."
It's really horrible, and yet there is a hint of whimsy... or am I the only one who sees this?
There were two methods of doing it, "torso" and "pitchcapping" which was done mostly by British troops to suspected Irish troublemakers, in which the head was shaved and tarred, feathered, and then the feathers lit on fire.
Interestingly enough, there are no recorded cases of the normal method resulting in death. Also, the practice went on well into the last century, and was used against labor unionists, and in one truly American™ case, against one John Meints, when he didn't show support for a WWI war bond drive.
Interesting... your info prodded me to go reading some more, apparently tar in old times wasn't as hot when applied... that makes the whole thing even cuter. "Let's add feathers!"
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 05:11:54 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 05:04:19 PM
I wonder if tarring on its own was a thing for a while, and then some cruel bastard with a strange streak of humor was like "Hey, it would be really fucking awesome if we added feathers to this, while the pitch is still hot and sticky."
It's really horrible, and yet there is a hint of whimsy... or am I the only one who sees this?
There were two methods of doing it, "torso" and "pitchcapping" which was done mostly by British troops to suspected Irish troublemakers, in which the head was shaved and tarred, feathered, and then the feathers lit on fire.
Interestingly enough, there are no recorded cases of the normal method resulting in death. Also, the practice went on well into the last century, and was used against labor unionists, and in one truly American™ case, against one John Meints, when he didn't show support for a WWI war bond drive.
Interesting... your info prodded me to go reading some more, apparently tar in old times wasn't as hot when applied... that makes the whole thing even cuter. "Let's add feathers!"
Well, they used pine tar, not petroleum tar.
Burns resulted, but not badly enough to kill. Just badly enough to scar you for life.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 06:21:35 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 05:11:54 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 05:04:19 PM
I wonder if tarring on its own was a thing for a while, and then some cruel bastard with a strange streak of humor was like "Hey, it would be really fucking awesome if we added feathers to this, while the pitch is still hot and sticky."
It's really horrible, and yet there is a hint of whimsy... or am I the only one who sees this?
There were two methods of doing it, "torso" and "pitchcapping" which was done mostly by British troops to suspected Irish troublemakers, in which the head was shaved and tarred, feathered, and then the feathers lit on fire.
Interestingly enough, there are no recorded cases of the normal method resulting in death. Also, the practice went on well into the last century, and was used against labor unionists, and in one truly American™ case, against one John Meints, when he didn't show support for a WWI war bond drive.
Interesting... your info prodded me to go reading some more, apparently tar in old times wasn't as hot when applied... that makes the whole thing even cuter. "Let's add feathers!"
Well, they used pine tar, not petroleum tar.
Burns resulted, but not badly enough to kill. Just badly enough to scar you for life.
Like I said, cute.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 06:23:20 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 06:21:35 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 05:11:54 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 05:04:19 PM
I wonder if tarring on its own was a thing for a while, and then some cruel bastard with a strange streak of humor was like "Hey, it would be really fucking awesome if we added feathers to this, while the pitch is still hot and sticky."
It's really horrible, and yet there is a hint of whimsy... or am I the only one who sees this?
There were two methods of doing it, "torso" and "pitchcapping" which was done mostly by British troops to suspected Irish troublemakers, in which the head was shaved and tarred, feathered, and then the feathers lit on fire.
Interestingly enough, there are no recorded cases of the normal method resulting in death. Also, the practice went on well into the last century, and was used against labor unionists, and in one truly American™ case, against one John Meints, when he didn't show support for a WWI war bond drive.
Interesting... your info prodded me to go reading some more, apparently tar in old times wasn't as hot when applied... that makes the whole thing even cuter. "Let's add feathers!"
Well, they used pine tar, not petroleum tar.
Burns resulted, but not badly enough to kill. Just badly enough to scar you for life.
Like I said, cute.
We are nothing if not an adorable, fun-loving people.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 04:21:17 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 01, 2012, 03:53:41 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 01, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 01, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.
Wat
I can't see reddit from here.
Basically it could encourage existing rapists because they're going to be encouraged by the attention they get from having an audience.
I haven't really looked through the Reddit thread in detail but I do have doubts just in that from what I've seen, there's mostly repentant self-loathing guys who want to get something off their chest. Not men who want to shock with their exploits. So I don't know if the type of guys who she's afraid of encouraging are the type who are actually sharing their stories.
The fact that this conversation is being held, in its whole complexity, i think this is good. Our society needs to talk about sex, rape, consent. ECH fucking nailed it with our weird sexual culture. Repression repression SIXTY FOOT BOOBS ON BILLBOARD repression repression.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm pretty skeptical of his rationale. Repression and secrecy haven't ever helped anything before, why would it now?
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking.
The tendency among humans when a vile act is being discussed is to get religion over it. They have to go completely overboard, so that people will understand just how much the individual speaking hates it.
This is also why you hear people say that so-and-so that has been accused of a particularly nasty crime should be killed without trial (Khara springs to mind, here), which is of course vile in its own right.
And sometimes, you just get this reaction that it's too nasty to talk about, because people might get ideas or some such ridiculous shit...While the fact is, if a that type of person didn't already have "ideas", the issue wouldn't exist in the first place.
So I'm saying instead to drag the fucking thing by the heels, out into the light of day where everyone can see it. Secrecy is the enemy of truth, and truth is about the only way to deal with this sort of thing.
Absolfuckinglutely.
This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.
Quote from: :regret: on August 02, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.
How would one do that? I don't know about anyone else, but I was thinking about sex-related things before the age of five. Maybe I was a perv.
Quote from: :regret: on August 02, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
And I think you'd fuck people up to no end.
But that's a small price to pay, right?
Quote from: Hoopla on August 02, 2012, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: :regret: on August 02, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.
How would one do that? I don't know about anyone else, but I was thinking about sex-related things before the age of five. Maybe I was a perv.
I'd rather we taught that respect for your partner and their boundaries is paramount, and is not trumped by your boner/panties wet patch.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 02, 2012, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: :regret: on August 02, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.
How would one do that? I don't know about anyone else, but I was thinking about sex-related things before the age of five. Maybe I was a perv.
I don't think so. I was looking for and at internet porn by age 10, so... Or :?
Quote from: Pixie on July 30, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
Rat, as for your assertion here Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 30, 2012, 03:50:42 PM
ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.
This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread. We edit posts or put content warnings in for Suu's spider phobia, which to ME seems silly, but to Suu, her arachnophobia is real, and produces a visceral response. Maybe Suu's response to spiders isn't as visceral as something that may trigger someone's PTSD, but I'm not going to be arrogant about it and make an assumption.
Just a quick question, but I'm in the habit of *generally* writing a descriptive topic title for any thread that I'd like to get some serious discussion on.
So if I were to start a thread about rape, it'd probably feature the word "rape" in the title.
That would be enough, right? Or do I have to explicitly say "A few questions about rape [WARNING: QUESTIONS ABOUT RAPE]"?
I mean a person with PTSD can know what to expect also without the warning?
I like descriptive titles because it also works when I don't really think about it. And I don't have to put tags "Trigger warning: Oranges" so Net doesn't get PTSD flashbacks from his heroic Orange ulcer explosion. Or something.
(hey and, looking at our emoticon popup, there's quite a few rape-themed ones that would require trigger warnings all by themselves! though I do believe that the one featuring the two bananas could very well be consensual ...)
I'd just mention in the OP that it was graphic or incredibly squicky/rage inducing and talks about rape if you don't want to put a content notice or a trigger warning...
I just use "Trigger Warning" out of a habit I picked up elsewhere and because I'm a lazy typist.
BTW sorry I'm still only just halfway reading the thread and now I see that my question was already pretty much answered in the posts that came after.
s'okay Trip.
As for Net, and his oranges, he did it with agency and full consent. ;)
OK done with reading :) BTW that poster, I was reading with a zoomed in browser (easier on the eyes as it's nearly 1am here), so I didn't see the whole image at once:
(http://i.imgur.com/Sd4ts.jpg)
:lulz:
Anyway, in full, I agree that it's darkly funny. I think I've heard or seen it before, or maybe something very similar. In what way did it cause a shitstorm?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards: Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.
But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that
all PUA-types are proto-rapists.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 31, 2012, 06:30:31 PMQuote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 06:19:53 PMThe one thing PD IS a good recipe for is feminism the way I understand it1: All humans have all the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of gender, orientation, race, or anything else.
Agreed. Equal is Equal and should be Equal for everyone. Anything else is bullshit.
No, not "or anything else": age, health and probably some other things are exceptions that can give different humans a different set of rights and responsibilities.
Interestingly enough, yesterday somebody told me about a difference in point of view in the US versus here (not sure if they meant Europe or NL in particular) that kind of ties in with that sentiment: In the US "freedom" is stated in terms of "freedom
of/to X" (freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, etc) while here we consider our freedoms to be (mostly) "freedom
from X" (freedom from illness, freedom from poverty, etc).
But that's getting a bit off-topic for this thread.
Quote from: Hoopla on August 01, 2012, 05:04:19 PM
I have to say I find tarring and feathering fascinating.
I wonder if tarring on its own was a thing for a while, and then some cruel bastard with a strange streak of humor was like "Hey, it would be really fucking awesome if we added feathers to this, while the pitch is still hot and sticky."
It's really horrible, and yet there is a hint of whimsy... or am I the only one who sees this?
No. In fact, there's a Franco-Belgian comic Lucky Luke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luke), quite popular in Europe (at least when I was a kid), about a cowboy in the wild west, and the criminals in that cartoon are generally tarred-and-feathered to comedic effect.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 01, 2012, 03:53:41 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 01, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 01, 2012, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 01, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.
Wat
I can't see reddit from here.
Basically it could encourage existing rapists because they're going to be encouraged by the attention they get from having an audience.
I haven't really looked through the Reddit thread in detail but I do have doubts just in that from what I've seen, there's mostly repentant self-loathing guys who want to get something off their chest. Not men who want to shock with their exploits. So I don't know if the type of guys who she's afraid of encouraging are the type who are actually sharing their stories.
The fact that this conversation is being held, in its whole complexity, i think this is good. Our society needs to talk about sex, rape, consent. ECH fucking nailed it with our weird sexual culture. Repression repression SIXTY FOOT BOOBS ON BILLBOARD repression repression.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm pretty skeptical of his rationale. Repression and secrecy haven't ever helped anything before, why would it now?
This edit pretty much answered my feels about his suggesting repression and secrecy... as well as addressing the fact that rape is more complex than sadism.
QuoteFourth edit, 2:09 pm 31 July: My point is that speech has power, and it can be dangerous. I wanted to outline why it might be dangerous in this instance. Is censorship the answer? No. Responsible and accountable speech is the answer. I don't know what the answer is. That question is in the domains of law and philosophy, for it is a question of values, a question about how the world ought to be. My point is about how the world is, and it stands whether or not there is free speech. Also, yes, I fully agree that rape is a complex phenomenon with multiple motives. I'm speaking specifically about sadistic, serial rape, which can indeed involve euphoria and the triggering of cravings.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 03, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards: Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.
But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.
Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women
in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 02, 2012, 09:11:56 PM
Quote from: :regret: on August 02, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
And I think you'd fuck people up to no end.
But that's a small price to pay, right?
Nevermind, i used the wrong
word. Everything. I was thinking of the social pressure to do X and Y before you're age whatever because otherwise you are a loser.
Sometimes I am amazed by how badly i word things.
Apologies.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 03, 2012, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 03, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards: Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.
But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.
Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.
Obviously, talking to lots of people is exactly the same as "forcing the kiss" or whatever the fuck they call it.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 03, 2012, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 03, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards: Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.
But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.
Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.
It's not that tricky. The idea that all PUA types want to rape women is ridiculous.
I mean, there's a lot wrong with that culture. But to me it seems obviously hyperbolic to suggest all PUA types are would be rapists.
I think I see what Placid is getting at.
The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people. One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her. Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".
Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".
So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".
HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.
And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.
IS there a difference between the following victims:
Victim A was robbed at gunpoint and forced to empty their bank account.
Victim B wanted to make some fast money on investments and handed a wad of cash over to Bernie Madoff.
Bernie manipulated Victim B, giving them what they wanted, and ripped them off with their consent. The other thief used a gun and forced the person.
Is manipulation for sex, rape?
Let me expand that, is manipulating a situation by 'giving a person what they want' (emotionally/psychologically) in order to get into their pants, rape? Manipulation is a tool almost everyone uses, consciously or unconsciously, to get what they want. Is that rapey?
On the one hand, I might say yes, rape drugs subvert the free will of the individual, alcohol induced 'passed the fuck out' subverts the free will of the individual. NLP and/or other psychologically manipulative trickery subvert the free will of the individual.
On the other hand, maybe no... giving a person some date rape drug that knocks them the fuck out, is one thing. Trying to convince someone, or manipulate someone into wanting to get laid seems like something else. Dehumanizing, yes. Shitty, yes. But rapey? I dunno. Can a person's free will really be subverted through some hokey psych 101?
I suppose one important question would be how the woman feels. If she's drugged and fucked, I think we can all agree she's going to feel horrible, violated and well, raped. If someone convinces her that a one night stand is just what she needs (and if she enjoys it and has a good time physically), then maybe she won't feel violated or raped... maybe she'll feel like she had a good romp. On the other hand, maybe she'll feel manipulated thinking about it later. So it may boil down to that 'later' feeling. Was the manipulation so great that she will feel violated, or was the manipulation just enough that she chose to make a bad decision? (and does bad decision = rape?)
No means no, anything other than Yes means no. It seems to be tricky territory, though, to say "Yes means no, if the guy convinced her that it was a good idea at the time".
Not defending PUA's, I figure they're con artists for sex, basically, which brings us back to the Madoff metaphor...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
I think I see what Placid is getting at.
The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people. One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her. Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".
Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".
So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".
HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.
And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.
PUA = Pick Up Artist. Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).
Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.
PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves. That is the definition I am working with.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 03, 2012, 03:53:47 PM
No means no, anything other than Yes means no. It seems to be tricky territory, though, to say "Yes means no, if the guy convinced her that it was a good idea at the time".
Not defending PUA's, I figure they're con artists for sex, basically, which brings us back to the Madoff metaphor...
That the PUA is a con artist for sex implies a couple of things-
A: Women need to be manipulated into having sex. It is the PUA's job to do this.
B: Outside of their potential for sex, woman are held in very low esteem by the PUA.
To say that a PUA is a rapist is a bit of a stretch. To say that a PUA is 'rapey' is simply to acknowledge that the above mindset is right on the same continuum as that what does the rape.
--And Trip, I don't really see that wanting a 'how-to talk to women' guide because a person is maybe shaky and a little awkward is really on the same level as making a lifestyle of 'sport-hunting the untamed vagina'. I'm fairly sure that when anyone on here says 'PUA', they are referring almost exclusively to the latter.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 05:42:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
I think I see what Placid is getting at.
The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people. One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her. Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".
Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".
So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".
HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.
And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.
PUA = Pick Up Artist. Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).
Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.
PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves. That is the definition I am working with.
See, I agree with you, TDRR. I was just trying to lay out Placid's POV.
LMNO
-obnoxiously reasonable.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 06:26:49 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 05:42:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
I think I see what Placid is getting at.
The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people. One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her. Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".
Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".
So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".
HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.
And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.
PUA = Pick Up Artist. Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).
Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.
PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves. That is the definition I am working with.
See, I agree with you, TDRR. I was just trying to lay out Placid's POV.
LMNO
-obnoxiously reasonable.
:tgrr:
Anyway, we're starting the lift back up, so I gotta go to work.
BRB.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 06:27:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 06:26:49 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 05:42:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
I think I see what Placid is getting at.
The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people. One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her. Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".
Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".
So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".
HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.
And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.
PUA = Pick Up Artist. Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).
Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.
PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves. That is the definition I am working with.
See, I agree with you, TDRR. I was just trying to lay out Placid's POV.
LMNO
-obnoxiously reasonable.
:tgrr:
Anyway, we're starting the lift back up, so I gotta go to work.
BRB.
It's hard not to invoke the true scotsman fallacy here, but i may have to.
I think that label has been claimed by all kinds of losers and it's hard not to see them when you think/hear "PUA." If you see a man that doesn't attempt to
convince a woman or
deceive a woman into
letting him have sex with her, but instead become genuinely attractive to the individual they're speaking to so that the woman wants him... is this wrong?
Can anyone get something they want from another person without debasing them as human? I think so. Does a "pickup artist" have to be seeking to get something from a woman? A "true" and good pickup artist can create real desire and real rapport in an ethical manner, much like a good leader can lead men and give them an opportunity to shine. Much like a diplomat can negotiate a situation between adversaries and reach compromise, if not mutual benefit. In this way, the ideal/true pickup artist has the artistry of a diplomat. He negotiates the conflict between a woman's sexual desire and social expectations and fear of getting used/abused... And like a leader, not in a manner that is persuasive, but in a manner that allows the woman to answer these questions for herself: By example.
If the woman chooses to be distrustful, it may be because she detects some incongruence with his words/actions/demeanor, she may have her own baggage to deal with before she can engage the PUA in whatever way proposed, or she may simply not be interested in what he has to offer. He moves on. It may be his loss or her loss. If he has nothing but goodness to offer to this woman, it
is her loss.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 07:17:45 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 06:27:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 06:26:49 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 05:42:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
I think I see what Placid is getting at.
The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people. One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her. Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".
Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".
So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".
HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.
And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.
PUA = Pick Up Artist. Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).
Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.
PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves. That is the definition I am working with.
See, I agree with you, TDRR. I was just trying to lay out Placid's POV.
LMNO
-obnoxiously reasonable.
:tgrr:
Anyway, we're starting the lift back up, so I gotta go to work.
BRB.
It's hard not to invoke the true scotsman fallacy here, but i may have to.
I think that label has been claimed by all kinds of losers and it's hard not to see them when you think/hear "PUA." If you see a man that doesn't attempt to convince a woman or deceive a woman into letting him have sex with her, but instead become genuinely attractive to the individual they're speaking to so that the woman wants him... is this wrong?
Can anyone get something they want from another person without debasing them as human? I think so. Does a "pickup artist" have to be seeking to get something from a woman? A "true" and good pickup artist can create real desire and real rapport in an ethical manner, much like a good leader can lead men and give them an opportunity to shine. Much like a diplomat can negotiate a situation between adversaries and reach compromise, if not mutual benefit. In this way, the ideal/true pickup artist has the artistry of a diplomat. He negotiates the conflict between a woman's sexual desire and social expectations and fear of getting used/abused... And like a leader, not in a manner that is persuasive, but in a manner that allows the woman to answer these questions for herself: By example.
If the woman chooses to be distrustful, it may be because she detects some incongruence with his words/actions/demeanor, she may have her own baggage to deal with before she can engage the PUA in whatever way proposed, or she may simply not be interested in what he has to offer. He moves on. It may be his loss or her loss. If he has nothing but goodness to offer to this woman, it is her loss.
All you need to do is spell it out: "Pick up artist".
There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing. It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".
If you're out looking to get laid, fine. If you're out looking for a companion, great. If you're out looking to SCORE WITH HOT WOMEN regardless of methodology, as an ego thing, then you're a bit of a shit.
And the very title "pick up artist" implies the latter. And the methodology in the subculture is vile.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 03, 2012, 03:53:47 PM
IS there a difference between the following victims:
Victim A was robbed at gunpoint and forced to empty their bank account.
Victim B wanted to make some fast money on investments and handed a wad of cash over to Bernie Madoff.
Bernie manipulated Victim B, giving them what they wanted, and ripped them off with their consent. The other thief used a gun and forced the person.
Is manipulation for sex, rape?
Let me expand that, is manipulating a situation by 'giving a person what they want' (emotionally/psychologically) in order to get into their pants, rape? Manipulation is a tool almost everyone uses, consciously or unconsciously, to get what they want. Is that rapey?
On the one hand, I might say yes, rape drugs subvert the free will of the individual, alcohol induced 'passed the fuck out' subverts the free will of the individual. NLP and/or other psychologically manipulative trickery subvert the free will of the individual.
On the other hand, maybe no... giving a person some date rape drug that knocks them the fuck out, is one thing. Trying to convince someone, or manipulate someone into wanting to get laid seems like something else. Dehumanizing, yes. Shitty, yes. But rapey? I dunno. Can a person's free will really be subverted through some hokey psych 101?
"Forcing the kiss".
EOS.
That always sounded like a good way to get a face full of drink to me.
A fair bit of what they do is legitimately emotionally abusive - negging for example. "Here, let me undermine your self confidence as a human being so I can score."
And then there's the forcing the kiss, which is sexual assault and leads to the idea that coercing women into sexual contact is totally okay.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
All you need to do is spell it out: "Pick up artist".
There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing. It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".
If you're out looking to get laid, fine.
How do you speak these two sentences in a row? Being a "good" pickup artist would be, not sucking at it and doing it in an ethical manner. Such people do exist. Just because you're hung up on this label doesn't mean that people like i have described do not exist.
And people choose to have sex with others for a variety of reasons. Either healthy or not. Having sex because you enjoy it and because you want to is probably among the healthiest reasons. I'm concerned with how the woman leaves the affair. No damage or better for it. That's what is ideal. Furthermore, you can have sex with someone for all the right reasons and throw their identity into question causing them to ask hard questions of themselves. Is this your fault if they have baggage they need to deal with before they can have healthy sexual relationships and you didn't realize it? How you handle it is what it matters.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
If you're out looking for a companion, great. If you're out looking to SCORE WITH HOT WOMEN regardless of methodology, as an ego thing, then you're a bit of a shit.
And the very title "pick up artist" implies the latter. And the methodology in the subculture is vile.
No one is
talking about defending what you think a pickup artist is. If someone is great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong. A magician who pokes you in the eye and runs off with your money is hardly an artist, even if he'd like to call himself one.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 03, 2012, 08:15:39 PM
That always sounded like a good way to get a face full of drink to me.
A fair bit of what they do is legitimately emotionally abusive - negging for example. "Here, let me undermine your self confidence as a human being so I can score."
And then there's the forcing the kiss, which is sexual assault and leads to the idea that coercing women into sexual contact is totally okay.
And the fact is, as The Confessor used to say, "You get judged by the company you keep."
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:20:09 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
All you need to do is spell it out: "Pick up artist".
There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing. It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".
If you're out looking to get laid, fine.
How do you speak these two sentences in a row? Being a "good" pickup artist would be, not sucking at it and doing it in an ethical manner. Such people do exist. Just because you're hung up on this label doesn't mean that people like i have described do not exist.
You don't seem to be grasping the nuance, here. The two statements you quoted are not contradictory. There is a difference in values between them.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:20:09 PM
No one is talking about what you think a pickup artist is. If someone is great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong. A magician who pokes you in the eye and runs off with your money is hardly an artist, even if he'd like to call himself one.
I am using the definition as currently used in society. The definition used by the self-identified PUAs, such as the scumbag "Mystery". In short, I am using the common definition of the word. If you want to change the definition of the word to try to validate it, then there's really not much I can say.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 03, 2012, 03:53:47 PM
Is manipulation for sex, rape?
It is in Israel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew)
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:24:31 PM
You don't seem to be grasping the nuance, here. The two statements you quoted are not contradictory. There is a difference in values between them.
I quoted the wrong sentences. But your point stands that there's nothing wrong with trying to get laid, but doing it for validation is not the best reason.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:24:31 PM
I am using the definition as currently used in society. The definition used by the self-identified PUAs, such as the scumbag "Mystery". In short, I am using the common definition of the word. If you want to change the definition of the word to try to validate it, then there's really not much I can say.
I would like to change the definition of the term. Otherwise, what would you call the kind of person i've been describing as the ideal kind of pickup artist?
Blackfoot, I know this is anectdotal, but do you know anyone who calls themselves a PUA who isn't a douchebag? You can posit that at least one must exist, but have you ever seen one in the wild?
Remember, we're talking self-described PUAs here, not just any Lothario or Cassanova.
I think my position that the probability a self-described PUA is a douchebag rapidly approaches 1, stands; and therefore, a casual user can use it as a near-universal manner.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 03, 2012, 08:31:31 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 03, 2012, 03:53:47 PM
Is manipulation for sex, rape?
It is in Israel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew)
I heard Sweden has similar laws.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 08:34:03 PM
Blackfoot, I know this is anectdotal, but do you know anyone who calls themselves a PUA who isn't a douchebag? You can posit that at least one must exist, but have you ever seen one in the wild?
Remember, we're talking self-described PUAs here, not just any Lothario or Cassanova.
I think my position that the probability a self-described PUA is a douchebag rapidly approaches 1, stands; and therefore, a casual user can use it as a near-universal manner.
I've met a few guys in the club scene that definitely knew what they were doing. But just once did a person identify that way and i wasn't repulsed by their methodology. I'll give that one to you though. (Rapidly approaching 1)
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I think we can probably agree that either way, the PUA (from some almost rapey douche to a Don Juan di Marco) objectifies women. Rather than seeing them as equal human beings, they see them as a prize or prey or target. In all situations though, they somehow convince the woman to say yes.
Rapists, on the other had fall into the categories stretching from "I didn't understand that what I did was rape" to some freak that tries to dominate or hold power over another person (not just to get a little nookie). In all situations though, the woman doesn't say yes.
So maybe we can agree that they all have some seriously fucked up view of women and they all could probably use a good bit of reprogramming/BiP modification.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 03, 2012, 08:56:12 PM
I think we can probably agree that either way, the PUA (from some almost rapey douche to a Don Juan di Marco) objectifies women. Rather than seeing them as equal human beings, they see them as a prize or prey or target. In all situations though, they somehow convince the woman to say yes.
Rapists, on the other had fall into the categories stretching from "I didn't understand that what I did was rape" to some freak that tries to dominate or hold power over another person (not just to get a little nookie). In all situations though, the woman doesn't say yes.
So maybe we can agree that they all have some seriously fucked up view of women and they all could probably use a good bit of reprogramming/BiP modification.
I don't consider a PUA to be automatically a rapist. If they go with "the program", though, they are.
Someone needs to do a ven diagram of scumbags, PUAs, and rapists.
To the Gliffy machine!
Wait -- it's 4:00. Fuck that.
TO THE GAY BAR!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 03, 2012, 09:05:07 PM
To the Gliffy machine!
Wait -- it's 4:00. Fuck that.
TO THE GAY BAR!
TO THE GAY BAR!
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 03, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
That's more of a status than a label, I think.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 03, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
That's more of a status than a label, I think.
1. Unconscious Incompetence
2. Conscious Incompetence
3. Conscious Competence
4. Unconscious Competence
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 09:35:57 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 03, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
That's more of a status than a label, I think.
1. Unconscious Incompetence
2. Conscious Incompetence
3. Conscious Competence
4. Unconscious Competence
What are you talking about?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 09:35:57 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 03, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
That's more of a status than a label, I think.
1. Unconscious Incompetence
2. Conscious Incompetence
3. Conscious Competence
4. Unconscious Competence
What are you talking about?
skill levels. levels of mastery for any given skill.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 03, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
To me Single and Looking doesn't equal "Looking for a sexual conquest" as much as "looking for a potential companion".
PUA (rapey or Don Juany) seem focused on the bag 'em and tag 'em mindset.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 03, 2012, 10:10:11 PM
PUA (rapey or Don Juany) seem focused on the bag 'em and tag 'em mindset.
And that is the irredeemable root cause of the problem.
Humans are not deer.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 09:35:57 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 03, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
That's more of a status than a label, I think.
1. Unconscious Incompetence
2. Conscious Incompetence
3. Conscious Competence
4. Unconscious Competence
What are you talking about?
skill levels. levels of mastery for any given skill.
Viewing looking for a companion, etc, as a skill implies that it is a regular activity.
At best, that is an empty lifestyle.
And there is no need for skill. Be yourself. Be pleasant. Show some interest in the other person.
That's really all there is to it.
LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)
I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.
Rat made some good points about deception.
There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.
In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.
What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'
Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.
Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?
Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.
Quote from: :regret: on August 02, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.
Let's fix the problem by ADDING MORE REPRESSION!
:facepalm:
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)
I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.
Rat made some good points about deception.
There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.
In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.
What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'
Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.
Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?
Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.
I beg your pardon? "Millionaire astronauts?" So if I'm reading you right, women only want to sleep with men who are rich and have stupidly unattainable jobs, so guys have to lie to get them into bed, and it's a woman's fault if she OS stupid enough to believe whatever retarded ducking lie pops out of his fucking mouth, and it isn't the Guy's fault he has to lie because uppity fucking broads refuse to sleep with normal dudes because they're snooty and have a high opinion of themselves.
You wanna try again, Cochise? You fucking prick.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 03, 2012, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 03, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards: Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.
But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.
Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.
It's not that tricky. The idea that all PUA types want to rape women is ridiculous.
I mean, there's a lot wrong with that culture. But to me it seems obviously hyperbolic to suggest all PUA types are would be rapists.
I think you are confusing the individuals with the culture. PUA philosophy and culture are conducive to rape. People who self-identify as PUA are people who support a philosophy and culture which is proto-rapist; the philosophy behind it is the cesspool from which rape arises.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 03, 2012, 03:53:47 PM
IS there a difference between the following victims:
Victim A was robbed at gunpoint and forced to empty their bank account.
Victim B wanted to make some fast money on investments and handed a wad of cash over to Bernie Madoff.
Bernie manipulated Victim B, giving them what they wanted, and ripped them off with their consent. The other thief used a gun and forced the person.
Is manipulation for sex, rape?
Let me expand that, is manipulating a situation by 'giving a person what they want' (emotionally/psychologically) in order to get into their pants, rape? Manipulation is a tool almost everyone uses, consciously or unconsciously, to get what they want. Is that rapey?
On the one hand, I might say yes, rape drugs subvert the free will of the individual, alcohol induced 'passed the fuck out' subverts the free will of the individual. NLP and/or other psychologically manipulative trickery subvert the free will of the individual.
On the other hand, maybe no... giving a person some date rape drug that knocks them the fuck out, is one thing. Trying to convince someone, or manipulate someone into wanting to get laid seems like something else. Dehumanizing, yes. Shitty, yes. But rapey? I dunno. Can a person's free will really be subverted through some hokey psych 101?
I suppose one important question would be how the woman feels. If she's drugged and fucked, I think we can all agree she's going to feel horrible, violated and well, raped. If someone convinces her that a one night stand is just what she needs (and if she enjoys it and has a good time physically), then maybe she won't feel violated or raped... maybe she'll feel like she had a good romp. On the other hand, maybe she'll feel manipulated thinking about it later. So it may boil down to that 'later' feeling. Was the manipulation so great that she will feel violated, or was the manipulation just enough that she chose to make a bad decision? (and does bad decision = rape?)
No means no, anything other than Yes means no. It seems to be tricky territory, though, to say "Yes means no, if the guy convinced her that it was a good idea at the time".
Not defending PUA's, I figure they're con artists for sex, basically, which brings us back to the Madoff metaphor...
I'm going to give you a much more typical scenario:
You're out with a guy and have a few drinks, and then he walks you back to your apartment. You let him in "for a minute" even though you really need to go to bed, and you make out a little bit, and you say "I'm really tired, I need to go to sleep". He keeps kissing you, starts fondling you, and you keep protesting but he's just not listening and you start to freak out internally... if you make a scene, will he hurt you? You try saying no a few more times, but he's just that much more insistent, overriding your protests. Eventually you decide that it's probably easiest and safest to just let him fuck you so that he'll go away without hurting you.
PUA walks our fifteen minutes later, feeling smug about his conquest. He overrode your protests; he talked you into it, just like he was trained to do. He has a success story to share with the community.
How do you feel? Did you just get raped?
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 03, 2012, 08:15:39 PM
That always sounded like a good way to get a face full of drink to me.
A fair bit of what they do is legitimately emotionally abusive - negging for example. "Here, let me undermine your self confidence as a human being so I can score."
And then there's the forcing the kiss, which is sexual assault and leads to the idea that coercing women into sexual contact is totally okay.
Not to mention the doctrine that a PUA keeps on moving from woman to woman until he finds one these techniques works on, and the women it works on are women with self-esteem and boundary issues; damaged women who are continuing the cycle of their own damage by submitting to dehumanizing tactics.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:20:09 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
All you need to do is spell it out: "Pick up artist".
There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing. It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".
If you're out looking to get laid, fine.
How do you speak these two sentences in a row? Being a "good" pickup artist would be, not sucking at it and doing it in an ethical manner. Such people do exist. Just because you're hung up on this label doesn't mean that people like i have described do not exist.
And people choose to have sex with others for a variety of reasons. Either healthy or not. Having sex because you enjoy it and because you want to is probably among the healthiest reasons. I'm concerned with how the woman leaves the affair. No damage or better for it. That's what is ideal. Furthermore, you can have sex with someone for all the right reasons and throw their identity into question causing them to ask hard questions of themselves. Is this your fault if they have baggage they need to deal with before they can have healthy sexual relationships and you didn't realize it? How you handle it is what it matters.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
If you're out looking for a companion, great. If you're out looking to SCORE WITH HOT WOMEN regardless of methodology, as an ego thing, then you're a bit of a shit.
And the very title "pick up artist" implies the latter. And the methodology in the subculture is vile.
No one is talking about defending what you think a pickup artist is. If someone is great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong. A magician who pokes you in the eye and runs off with your money is hardly an artist, even if he'd like to call himself one.
Oh, are we playing the "redefining things in a way that differs from consensus in order to suit our idea of what the world should be if it were perfect" game?
:lol:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 03, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 03, 2012, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 03, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards: Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.
But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.
Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.
It's not that tricky. The idea that all PUA types want to rape women is ridiculous.
I mean, there's a lot wrong with that culture. But to me it seems obviously hyperbolic to suggest all PUA types are would be rapists.
I think you are confusing the individuals with the culture. PUA philosophy and culture are conducive to rape. People who self-identify as PUA are people who support a philosophy and culture which is proto-rapist; the philosophy behind it is the cesspool from which rape arises.
Ok I can accept that depiction.
I'm not confusing them I'm drawing a distinction. I dint think men get into this stuff wanting to rape. I can accept what you say about the culture. But I'm saying I disagree that men get into it wanting to rape.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:24:31 PM
You don't seem to be grasping the nuance, here. The two statements you quoted are not contradictory. There is a difference in values between them.
I quoted the wrong sentences. But your point stands that there's nothing wrong with trying to get laid, but doing it for validation is not the best reason.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:24:31 PM
I am using the definition as currently used in society. The definition used by the self-identified PUAs, such as the scumbag "Mystery". In short, I am using the common definition of the word. If you want to change the definition of the word to try to validate it, then there's really not much I can say.
I would like to change the definition of the term. Otherwise, what would you call the kind of person i've been describing as the ideal kind of pickup artist?
Why? What is the benefit of that? The words mean what they mean. Why not just use another convenient word that already means what it means? Meanings may shift over time with culture shifts and consensus shifts, but it's not easy or likely to be something you can force. Sort of like I mentioned upthread; you can decide that "vagina" really means "armpit", but you're still going to get funny looks when you talk about vagina deodorant.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
I have a label for that. I call it "being single and available".
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 03, 2012, 11:54:08 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)
I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.
Rat made some good points about deception.
There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.
In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.
What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'
Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.
Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?
Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.
I beg your pardon? "Millionaire astronauts?" So if I'm reading you right, women only want to sleep with men who are rich and have stupidly unattainable jobs, so guys have to lie to get them into bed, and it's a woman's fault if she OS stupid enough to believe whatever retarded ducking lie pops out of his fucking mouth, and it isn't the Guy's fault he has to lie because uppity fucking broads refuse to sleep with normal dudes because they're snooty and have a high opinion of themselves.
You wanna try again, Cochise? You fucking prick.
Youre NOT reading me right.
Millionaire astronauts was a flippant way of saying that if we called every man (or woman for that matter) who's misrepresented themselves to try to get laid, a rapists, we'd have nearly as many rapists as people. And a shallow definition of rape.
I made mention of it because there was a discussion about rape through deception and I was running through some thoughts on the topic.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 03, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
:lulz: great minds.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 09:35:57 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 03, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
I would like to change the definition of the term.
Why?
I don't have a particular reason. Do you have any good alternatives?
I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.
I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.
There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?
That's more of a status than a label, I think.
1. Unconscious Incompetence
2. Conscious Incompetence
3. Conscious Competence
4. Unconscious Competence
And the Johari window has what significance in this conversation? Can you add some context for bringing it up, and/or maybe try to establish a point?
Because what I, personally, get from it is that anybody who is seeking guidance from PUA books/websites would be better served with a decent therapist.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)
I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.
Rat made some good points about deception.
There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.
In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.
What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'
Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.
Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?
Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.
Holy crap, this post speaks volumes about your level of fucked-upness in terms of the way you view women. I bet you don't think of yourself as a misogynist, either. :lol:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 12:58:15 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 03, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 03, 2012, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 03, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards: Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.
But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.
Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.
It's not that tricky. The idea that all PUA types want to rape women is ridiculous.
I mean, there's a lot wrong with that culture. But to me it seems obviously hyperbolic to suggest all PUA types are would be rapists.
I think you are confusing the individuals with the culture. PUA philosophy and culture are conducive to rape. People who self-identify as PUA are people who support a philosophy and culture which is proto-rapist; the philosophy behind it is the cesspool from which rape arises.
Ok I can accept that depiction.
I'm not confusing them I'm drawing a distinction. I dint think men get into this stuff wanting to rape. I can accept what you say about the culture. But I'm saying I disagree that men get into it wanting to rape.
Who are you disagreeing with? I don't recall anyone saying they did.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
Just kinda whines? Wow. Just wow.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 04, 2012, 01:36:51 AM
Just kinda whines? Wow. Just wow.
Sorry if that came across badly. It was a very inappropriate way to phrase my thought.
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:14:11 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 12:58:15 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 03, 2012, 11:59:03 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 03, 2012, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 03, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 31, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 31, 2012, 08:28:00 PM
And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.
We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that. Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving. If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.
He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone. Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.
That's not PUA, of course. He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on. He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards: Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.
But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.
Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.
Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.
It's not that tricky. The idea that all PUA types want to rape women is ridiculous.
I mean, there's a lot wrong with that culture. But to me it seems obviously hyperbolic to suggest all PUA types are would be rapists.
I think you are confusing the individuals with the culture. PUA philosophy and culture are conducive to rape. People who self-identify as PUA are people who support a philosophy and culture which is proto-rapist; the philosophy behind it is the cesspool from which rape arises.
Ok I can accept that depiction.
I'm not confusing them I'm drawing a distinction. I dint think men get into this stuff wanting to rape. I can accept what you say about the culture. But I'm saying I disagree that men get into it wanting to rape.
Who are you disagreeing with? I don't recall anyone saying they did.
Texas Faires said all PUAs want to be rapists I believe. That's what I disagreed with specifically.
EDIT: This post
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 28, 2012, 08:31:41 PM
PUA's are essentially wannabe rapists anyway and this "beta" shit falls in the same box.
"I'M GONNA DOMINATE THE SHIT OUT OF THAT BETA GUY SHE LIKES AND FUCK SHIT OUTTA HER." Nevermind what SHE wants.
Trip referenced it ITT. I read it as a comment on the people (and in my defence it is specifically written about the PUA's not the culture) but I can understand if it was meant to be a comment on the culture.
I got into PUA breifly when I hit Uni because it was the first thing I saw that actually articulated the social process. Not negging, not Alpha/Beta etc, just stuff like project confidence, make eye contact, speak loudly and clearly etc really helped me. Then I got a girlfriend and forgot about it, and by the time that relationship ended I'd pretty much outgrown it. So you can see why I took offence to being told PUA types want to rape women.
Kind of embarressing and a bit naive? Sure. Evidence I was on my way to being a rapist? NO.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
So how do you differentiate between some horny guy with a poor understanding of boundaries and a rapist?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:11:24 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)
I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.
Rat made some good points about deception.
There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.
In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.
What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'
Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.
Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?
Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.
Holy crap, this post speaks volumes about your level of fucked-upness in terms of the way you view women. I bet you don't think of yourself as a misogynist, either. :lol:
That's really hurtful, actually. Sorry to be a sook, and I know this is the Internet and all but, 1, I actually really value your opinion Nigel on most things and, 2, personally respect for women and equality between genders is extremely important to me on a fairly fundamental level.
This probably isn't going to shock anyone on PDcom but I do seem to word things rather badly at times, to the point of misrepresenting my views. To put it in really clear term; I find it hard to believe that one person lying to another (in the sense that they misrepresent themselves to make themselves look better, smarter, richer, kinder, more successfull etc) is rape. Now if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm ok with being wrong and being corrected.
I feel I may have implied that women only want to be with men for their money and success and are superficially satisfied with any partner if they're wealthy and successful. If so, I apologise, it's not what I believe.
If there's something else I'm implying please let me know because the honest truth is I like women (or anyway I generally like people) and believe very strongly in equality and I identify as a feminist, so if I'm sending off mysogynist vibes I'd appreciate knowing how so so I can cut that shit out.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 02:18:39 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
So how do you differentiate between some horny guy with a poor understanding of boundaries and a rapist?
A horny guy with poor understanding of boundaries can still commit rape. I think you need to go re-read Pixie's article because that's part of what the OP is about, you know.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
This.
One thing that I think a lot of guys don't think about, and probably don't want to think about, is that
we are afraid of you. Categorically, not personally. We are afraid, and with good reason. This is not an irrational fear; this is a simple reality of survival and self-preservation. PUA techniques train men to exploit that fear by pushing boundaries, rather than engaging in courtship, a process which builds trust.
The reason the absence of yes means no is because of this fear. If you just met a woman and don't yet know her enough for her to have built up the level of trust to trust that you WON'T hurt her if she struggles, if you have sex with her despite what you are choosing to perceive as ambivalence, yes, it could very well be rape. The odds of her letting you kiss her at the end of the evening just to be polite are higher than you might guess, and the odds of her not knowing how to put up a fight or being afraid to seem rude, skyrocket if she's ever been previously raped or abused. It's simple self-preservation; "this one seems pushy, better to just let him do it than get the shit beat out of me again".
Pushing the blame for this onto the woman is bullshit, simply because the reason this happens in the first place is because of the power imbalance. If men were, categorically speaking, afraid that women would physically hurt them, reluctant men might more often succumb to sex with a pushy woman, and that, too, would be rape.
The bottom line; if she's not on board, back off. You can court her until she is on board, but pushing her boundaries and ignoring her protests is not unlikely to result in rape, whether you think it is or not.
The amazing thing is how many of these guys don't understand why a woman they had sex with, or made out with, won't return their phone calls. They just don't hear "no".
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 02:18:39 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
So how do you differentiate between some horny guy with a poor understanding of boundaries and a rapist?
I am not sure I understand why you are making that distinction. Rape is not defined by
intention.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 02:28:27 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:11:24 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)
I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.
Rat made some good points about deception.
There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.
In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.
What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'
Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.
Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?
Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.
Holy crap, this post speaks volumes about your level of fucked-upness in terms of the way you view women. I bet you don't think of yourself as a misogynist, either. :lol:
That's really hurtful, actually. Sorry to be a sook, and I know this is the Internet and all but, 1, I actually really value your opinion Nigel on most things and, 2, personally respect for women and equality between genders is extremely important to me on a fairly fundamental level.
This probably isn't going to shock anyone on PDcom but I do seem to word things rather badly at times, to the point of misrepresenting my views. To put it in really clear term; I find it hard to believe that one person lying to another (in the sense that they misrepresent themselves to make themselves look better, smarter, richer, kinder, more successfull etc) is rape. Now if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm ok with being wrong and being corrected.
I feel I may have implied that women only want to be with men for their money and success and are superficially satisfied with any partner if they're wealthy and successful. If so, I apologise, it's not what I believe.
If there's something else I'm implying please let me know because the honest truth is I like women (or anyway I generally like people) and believe very strongly in equality and I identify as a feminist, so if I'm sending off mysogynist vibes I'd appreciate knowing how so so I can cut that shit out.
OK, I will accept that what you said was just horrendously poor wording. I found it rather shocking, and would rather not believe that's the way you think, so I'm relieved to hear that.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
Is that the scenario I described in my example?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 02:56:31 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 02:28:27 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:11:24 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)
I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.
Rat made some good points about deception.
There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.
In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.
What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'
Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.
Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?
Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.
Holy crap, this post speaks volumes about your level of fucked-upness in terms of the way you view women. I bet you don't think of yourself as a misogynist, either. :lol:
That's really hurtful, actually. Sorry to be a sook, and I know this is the Internet and all but, 1, I actually really value your opinion Nigel on most things and, 2, personally respect for women and equality between genders is extremely important to me on a fairly fundamental level.
This probably isn't going to shock anyone on PDcom but I do seem to word things rather badly at times, to the point of misrepresenting my views. To put it in really clear term; I find it hard to believe that one person lying to another (in the sense that they misrepresent themselves to make themselves look better, smarter, richer, kinder, more successfull etc) is rape. Now if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm ok with being wrong and being corrected.
I feel I may have implied that women only want to be with men for their money and success and are superficially satisfied with any partner if they're wealthy and successful. If so, I apologise, it's not what I believe.
If there's something else I'm implying please let me know because the honest truth is I like women (or anyway I generally like people) and believe very strongly in equality and I identify as a feminist, so if I'm sending off mysogynist vibes I'd appreciate knowing how so so I can cut that shit out.
OK, I will accept that what you said was just horrendously poor wording. I found it rather shocking, and would rather not believe that's the way you think, so I'm relieved to hear that.
Alright, thanks. Not expressing things in hidiously mangled ways that start twelve page arguments is going to be my PD focus for
the next few week all time.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 02:51:28 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
This.
One thing that I think a lot of guys don't think about, and probably don't want to think about, is that we are afraid of you. Categorically, not personally. We are afraid, and with good reason. This is not an irrational fear; this is a simple reality of survival and self-preservation. PUA techniques train men to exploit that fear by pushing boundaries, rather than engaging in courtship, a process which builds trust.
The reason the absence of yes means no is because of this fear. If you just met a woman and don't yet know her enough for her to have built up the level of trust to trust that you WON'T hurt her if she struggles, if you have sex with her despite what you are choosing to perceive as ambivalence, yes, it could very well be rape. The odds of her letting you kiss her at the end of the evening just to be polite are higher than you might guess, and the odds of her not knowing how to put up a fight or being afraid to seem rude, skyrocket if she's ever been previously raped or abused. It's simple self-preservation; "this one seems pushy, better to just let him do it than get the shit beat out of me again".
Pushing the blame for this onto the woman is bullshit, simply because the reason this happens in the first place is because of the power imbalance. If men were, categorically speaking, afraid that women would physically hurt them, reluctant men might more often succumb to sex with a pushy woman, and that, too, would be rape.
The bottom line; if she's not on board, back off. You can court her until she is on board, but pushing her boundaries and ignoring her protests is not unlikely to result in rape, whether you think it is or not.
The amazing thing is how many of these guys don't understand why a woman they had sex with, or made out with, won't return their phone calls. They just don't hear "no".
THIS is the sort of thing that I think I've really only ever heard here. It's the kind of thing that isn't really discussed, and is a good example of what NEEDS to be.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 03, 2012, 08:20:09 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
All you need to do is spell it out: "Pick up artist".
There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing. It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".
If you're out looking to get laid, fine.
How do you speak these two sentences in a row? Being a "good" pickup artist would be, not sucking at it and doing it in an ethical manner. Such people do exist. Just because you're hung up on this label doesn't mean that people like i have described do not exist.
And people choose to have sex with others for a variety of reasons. Either healthy or not. Having sex because you enjoy it and because you want to is probably among the healthiest reasons. I'm concerned with how the woman leaves the affair. No damage or better for it. That's what is ideal. Furthermore, you can have sex with someone for all the right reasons and throw their identity into question causing them to ask hard questions of themselves. Is this your fault if they have baggage they need to deal with before they can have healthy sexual relationships and you didn't realize it? How you handle it is what it matters.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 03, 2012, 07:58:45 PM
If you're out looking for a companion, great. If you're out looking to SCORE WITH HOT WOMEN regardless of methodology, as an ego thing, then you're a bit of a shit.
And the very title "pick up artist" implies the latter. And the methodology in the subculture is vile.
No one is talking about defending what you think a pickup artist is. If someone is great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong. A magician who pokes you in the eye and runs off with your money is hardly an artist, even if he'd like to call himself one.
Let's try it from this angle, shall we?
Non-rapey, non-proto-rapey guy goes about his normal business. He hopes to get laid but does not employ "techniques". Talks casually to everybody about whatever is going on. Some of these people are women. Some of these women seem to be sending signals that YES THEY WOULDN'T MIND FUCKING THIS GUY. Guy asks for phone numbers and often gets them. If he doesn't, NO HARM DONE HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. Guy calls a few days later. Hangs out, talks. Kissing and stuff at some point and then "Hey you want to mess around?" or something of that nature. By then, it usually happens. If not, NO HARM DONE, HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. And guess what? He doesn't stop talking to them if he can't get his dick wet after all (or if he does), BECAUSE HE SAW THEM AS PEOPLE TO BEGIN WITH.
Is not a "billionaire astronaut". Has not misrepresented his job or income.
Is "great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong". Might have LOTS of girlfriends, if that's what he's into, if not, he has no problem getting a regular girlfriend. Being "great with women" requires actually LIKING them. We can tell.
DOES NOT EMPLOY CREEPY PROTO-RAPEY PUA TECHNIQUES.
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
If I make out with someone who does that, even if it's someone I've known for years, that sets off the fear, because he's clearly not thinking of me as a human being with my own set of desires and motivations. And most rapists ARE someone the victim knows, often very well.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 03:00:25 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 02:56:31 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 02:28:27 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:11:24 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 03, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)
I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.
Rat made some good points about deception.
There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.
In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.
What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'
Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.
Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?
Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.
Holy crap, this post speaks volumes about your level of fucked-upness in terms of the way you view women. I bet you don't think of yourself as a misogynist, either. :lol:
That's really hurtful, actually. Sorry to be a sook, and I know this is the Internet and all but, 1, I actually really value your opinion Nigel on most things and, 2, personally respect for women and equality between genders is extremely important to me on a fairly fundamental level.
This probably isn't going to shock anyone on PDcom but I do seem to word things rather badly at times, to the point of misrepresenting my views. To put it in really clear term; I find it hard to believe that one person lying to another (in the sense that they misrepresent themselves to make themselves look better, smarter, richer, kinder, more successfull etc) is rape. Now if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm ok with being wrong and being corrected.
I feel I may have implied that women only want to be with men for their money and success and are superficially satisfied with any partner if they're wealthy and successful. If so, I apologise, it's not what I believe.
If there's something else I'm implying please let me know because the honest truth is I like women (or anyway I generally like people) and believe very strongly in equality and I identify as a feminist, so if I'm sending off mysogynist vibes I'd appreciate knowing how so so I can cut that shit out.
OK, I will accept that what you said was just horrendously poor wording. I found it rather shocking, and would rather not believe that's the way you think, so I'm relieved to hear that.
Alright, thanks. Not expressing things in hidiously mangled ways that start twelve page arguments is going to be my PD focus for the next few week all time.
:lulz: This place is good for making people be better human beings, in various ways, including communication. It's done wonders for me.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
If I make out with someone who does that, even if it's someone I've known for years, that sets off the fear, because he's clearly not thinking of me as a human being with my own set of desires and motivations. And most rapists ARE someone the victim knows, often very well.
^^^ That.
It's not discussed because we're told we're "overreacting" when we do. Men, ime/o, tend to say things to the effect of "I would never hurt you/a woman/female!" Sure.
You mightn't. But that doesn't change the fact that we have to spend our entire lives looking over our shoulders.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 03:03:00 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 02:51:28 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
This.
One thing that I think a lot of guys don't think about, and probably don't want to think about, is that we are afraid of you. Categorically, not personally. We are afraid, and with good reason. This is not an irrational fear; this is a simple reality of survival and self-preservation. PUA techniques train men to exploit that fear by pushing boundaries, rather than engaging in courtship, a process which builds trust.
The reason the absence of yes means no is because of this fear. If you just met a woman and don't yet know her enough for her to have built up the level of trust to trust that you WON'T hurt her if she struggles, if you have sex with her despite what you are choosing to perceive as ambivalence, yes, it could very well be rape. The odds of her letting you kiss her at the end of the evening just to be polite are higher than you might guess, and the odds of her not knowing how to put up a fight or being afraid to seem rude, skyrocket if she's ever been previously raped or abused. It's simple self-preservation; "this one seems pushy, better to just let him do it than get the shit beat out of me again".
Pushing the blame for this onto the woman is bullshit, simply because the reason this happens in the first place is because of the power imbalance. If men were, categorically speaking, afraid that women would physically hurt them, reluctant men might more often succumb to sex with a pushy woman, and that, too, would be rape.
The bottom line; if she's not on board, back off. You can court her until she is on board, but pushing her boundaries and ignoring her protests is not unlikely to result in rape, whether you think it is or not.
The amazing thing is how many of these guys don't understand why a woman they had sex with, or made out with, won't return their phone calls. They just don't hear "no".
THIS is the sort of thing that I think I've really only ever heard here. It's the kind of thing that isn't really discussed, and is a good example of what NEEDS to be.
A lot of women still think it's "not nice" to be assertive.
^^ And also that. Women are trained from a very early age to be pleasing to others and that means putting ourselves in the backseat a lot of the time.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 03:03:00 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 02:51:28 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
This.
One thing that I think a lot of guys don't think about, and probably don't want to think about, is that we are afraid of you. Categorically, not personally. We are afraid, and with good reason. This is not an irrational fear; this is a simple reality of survival and self-preservation. PUA techniques train men to exploit that fear by pushing boundaries, rather than engaging in courtship, a process which builds trust.
The reason the absence of yes means no is because of this fear. If you just met a woman and don't yet know her enough for her to have built up the level of trust to trust that you WON'T hurt her if she struggles, if you have sex with her despite what you are choosing to perceive as ambivalence, yes, it could very well be rape. The odds of her letting you kiss her at the end of the evening just to be polite are higher than you might guess, and the odds of her not knowing how to put up a fight or being afraid to seem rude, skyrocket if she's ever been previously raped or abused. It's simple self-preservation; "this one seems pushy, better to just let him do it than get the shit beat out of me again".
Pushing the blame for this onto the woman is bullshit, simply because the reason this happens in the first place is because of the power imbalance. If men were, categorically speaking, afraid that women would physically hurt them, reluctant men might more often succumb to sex with a pushy woman, and that, too, would be rape.
The bottom line; if she's not on board, back off. You can court her until she is on board, but pushing her boundaries and ignoring her protests is not unlikely to result in rape, whether you think it is or not.
The amazing thing is how many of these guys don't understand why a woman they had sex with, or made out with, won't return their phone calls. They just don't hear "no".
THIS is the sort of thing that I think I've really only ever heard here. It's the kind of thing that isn't really discussed, and is a good example of what NEEDS to be.
Thanks... I've been trying to get to the heart of what I guess I think of as "run of the mill" rape for a while now, and I think that the dismal truth of it is that it's vastly more influenced by ignorance and privilege than most people think it is. Only certain types of rape are reported or make the news, and they aren't the typical rapes, which are the ones where the woman says "no", or "not tonight", or "I really have to go" and the man just keeps on pushing because she's not hitting or screaming, so it must be OK.
Those are all excellent and eloquent points. It's clarified the argument succinctly for me. Thanks.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 03:15:55 AM
^^ And also that. Women are trained from a very early age to be pleasing to others and that means putting ourselves in the backseat a lot of the time.
Yeah. Until they don't KNOW anything else. Like some anachronistic Jane Austen character who's expected to always be "amiable". I've known a lot of women who had no trouble with passive-aggressive snarking and cattiness, but when it comes time to put their foot down, they just can't. It's "not nice". :x
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 03:06:20 AM
Let's try it from this angle, shall we?
Non-rapey, non-proto-rapey guy goes about his normal business. He hopes to get laid but does not employ "techniques". Talks casually to everybody about whatever is going on. Some of these people are women. Some of these women seem to be sending signals that YES THEY WOULDN'T MIND FUCKING THIS GUY. Guy asks for phone numbers and often gets them. If he doesn't, NO HARM DONE HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. Guy calls a few days later. Hangs out, talks. Kissing and stuff at some point and then "Hey you want to mess around?" or something of that nature. By then, it usually happens. If not, NO HARM DONE, HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. And guess what? He doesn't stop talking to them if he can't get his dick wet after all (or if he does), BECAUSE HE SAW THEM AS PEOPLE TO BEGIN WITH.
Is not a "billionaire astronaut". Has not misrepresented his job or income.
Is "great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong". Might have LOTS of girlfriends, if that's what he's into, if not, he has no problem getting a regular girlfriend. Being "great with women" requires actually LIKING them. We can tell.
DOES NOT EMPLOY CREEPY PROTO-RAPEY PUA TECHNIQUES.
Yea. What's wrong with that? This can happen in the course of one night as well without forcing someone out of their comfort zone. If you took two guys who were roughly equivalent financially and in the looks department, but one of them couldn't hold his own in the conversation and the other had the eye of all the women and the respect of the dudes as well does this make him a bad guy? Of course not. If he could accomplish this easily in most social situations does this make him wrong? It's a skill he has. That's why i brought up the levels of mastery.
I don't know if you were asking a question or :?
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:30:49 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 03:06:20 AM
Let's try it from this angle, shall we?
Non-rapey, non-proto-rapey guy goes about his normal business. He hopes to get laid but does not employ "techniques". Talks casually to everybody about whatever is going on. Some of these people are women. Some of these women seem to be sending signals that YES THEY WOULDN'T MIND FUCKING THIS GUY. Guy asks for phone numbers and often gets them. If he doesn't, NO HARM DONE HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. Guy calls a few days later. Hangs out, talks. Kissing and stuff at some point and then "Hey you want to mess around?" or something of that nature. By then, it usually happens. If not, NO HARM DONE, HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. And guess what? He doesn't stop talking to them if he can't get his dick wet after all (or if he does), BECAUSE HE SAW THEM AS PEOPLE TO BEGIN WITH.
Is not a "billionaire astronaut". Has not misrepresented his job or income.
Is "great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong". Might have LOTS of girlfriends, if that's what he's into, if not, he has no problem getting a regular girlfriend. Being "great with women" requires actually LIKING them. We can tell.
DOES NOT EMPLOY CREEPY PROTO-RAPEY PUA TECHNIQUES.
Yea. What's wrong with that?
Nothing's wrong with it. I was seeing examples of what not to do, so I posted what to do.
QuoteThis can happen in the course of one night as well without forcing someone out of their comfort zone.
Yes, it can. And if it's really consensual, great.
Believe it or not, a lot of GUYS like to wait a little while and make sure a woman isn't an opportunist or a psycho stalker first, but it's not mandatory and doesn't make you a PUA if you don't.
QuoteIf you took two guys who were roughly equivalent financially and in the looks department, but one of them couldn't hold his own in the conversation and the other had the eye of all the women and the respect of the dudes as well does this make him a bad guy? Of course not. If he could accomplish this easily in most social situations does this make him wrong? It's a skill he has. That's why i brought up the levels of mastery.
That sounds like social skills, not some slimey PUA "mastery". There's also the possibility that these people actually know him, and he's EARNED the respect and attention.
QuoteI don't know if you were asking a question or :?
Not at all. Just saying you can get more ass than a toilet seat if that's your thing, and NOT be a PUA.
As a matter of fact, the guys I've known who were most successful with women (in the sense of getting almost whoever they wanted) weren't anything approaching PUA's, and they loved women. I mean, they enjoyed female company and listened when women talked. They looked out for women. Poly as hell, but they loved every one of them.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she
can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to
listen.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 05:00:58 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.
At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.
HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)
THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.
THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS
YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:30:49 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 03:06:20 AM
Let's try it from this angle, shall we?
Non-rapey, non-proto-rapey guy goes about his normal business. He hopes to get laid but does not employ "techniques". Talks casually to everybody about whatever is going on. Some of these people are women. Some of these women seem to be sending signals that YES THEY WOULDN'T MIND FUCKING THIS GUY. Guy asks for phone numbers and often gets them. If he doesn't, NO HARM DONE HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. Guy calls a few days later. Hangs out, talks. Kissing and stuff at some point and then "Hey you want to mess around?" or something of that nature. By then, it usually happens. If not, NO HARM DONE, HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. And guess what? He doesn't stop talking to them if he can't get his dick wet after all (or if he does), BECAUSE HE SAW THEM AS PEOPLE TO BEGIN WITH.
Is not a "billionaire astronaut". Has not misrepresented his job or income.
Is "great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong". Might have LOTS of girlfriends, if that's what he's into, if not, he has no problem getting a regular girlfriend. Being "great with women" requires actually LIKING them. We can tell.
DOES NOT EMPLOY CREEPY PROTO-RAPEY PUA TECHNIQUES.
Yea. What's wrong with that? This can happen in the course of one night as well without forcing someone out of their comfort zone. If you took two guys who were roughly equivalent financially and in the looks department, but one of them couldn't hold his own in the conversation and the other had the eye of all the women and the respect of the dudes as well does this make him a bad guy? Of course not. If he could accomplish this easily in most social situations does this make him wrong? It's a skill he has. That's why i brought up the levels of mastery.
I don't know if you were asking a question or :?
Having good social skills is not the same thing as buying into the pick-up artist MO. Why do you keep trying to equate them?
Nigel: has way more patience than I do.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag. You may not want to believe that because you find that pushing past the boundaries a woman sets with you has succeeded for you in the sense of getting you laid, but any issues there are yours, not hers. In fact, the opposite is true; if you succeed in pushing past a woman's boundaries and it results in a relationship, you are 100% guaranteed to be in a relationship with someone who has boundary issues, because people who enter relationships with people who trample their boundaries are people with problems.
A woman with a healthy sense of self and boundaries is observing closely to see whether her boundaries are being respected. If they are not respected, she will move on quickly. The PUA curriculum labels these women "no fun" or declares that they "have issues". This assessment, again, is incorrect.
I strongly suspect that you are parroting some PUA psychobabble you've picked up somewhere along the line. It's bullshit, and it will eventually cause you problems if it isn't already.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 05:17:23 AM
Nigel: has way more patience than I do.
:lol: I'm not so much spelling it out for him, but for other readers of this thread who might be in danger of drinking the PUA kool-aid.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag.
What i'm talking about is addressing and/or alleviating concerns. Not bypassing/ignoring legitimate fears. Who decides what is legitimate? Ultimately she will (in my world). It's the same as what's happening right now. You are trying to make me understand what you think is true. With women, they can be shown that what you have to offer is good and true. If they don't see it that way, fine. That doesn't make you wrong or me wrong.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
You may not want to believe that because you find that pushing past the boundaries a woman sets with you has succeeded for you in the sense of getting you laid, but any issues there are yours, not hers. In fact, the opposite is true; if you succeed in pushing past a woman's boundaries and it results in a relationship, you are 100% guaranteed to be in a relationship with someone who has boundary issues, because people who enter relationships with people who trample their boundaries are people with problems.
A woman with a healthy sense of self and boundaries is observing closely to see whether her boundaries are being respected. If they are not respected, she will move on quickly. The PUA curriculum labels these women "no fun" or declares that they "have issues". This assessment, again, is incorrect.
I posted earlier that her having issues is only one reason she may not be interested. She may simply not be interested in me or what i have to offer. I'm fine with that. If she has a reason, that's cool. If she has decided against it as some sort of policy, that's kind of dumb to me in the sense that it's unnecessary because i'm not trying to fuck her over but the rule may serve her/protect her well, and that's cool.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
I strongly suspect that you are parroting some PUA psychobabble you've picked up somewhere along the line. It's bullshit, and it will eventually cause you problems if it isn't already.
I'm not.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:24:19 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 05:17:23 AM
Nigel: has way more patience than I do.
:lol: I'm not so much spelling it out for him, but for other readers of this thread who might be in danger of drinking the PUA kool-aid.
Good move.
I tend to think of PD in terms of the more active members, who don't seem to need this. Sometimes I forget the others.
Anyway, he IS good "example material". :lulz:
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 05:40:15 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag.
What i'm talking about is addressing and/or alleviating concerns. Not bypassing/ignoring legitimate fears. Who decides what is legitimate? Ultimately she will (in my world). It's the same as what's happening right now. You are trying to make me understand what you think is true. With women, they can be shown that what you have to offer is good and true.
"Shown" how? By continuing to talk shit?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 05:08:41 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 05:00:58 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.
At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.
HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)
THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.
THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.
It's Pope Lecherous.
Insult if you like, i don't know if you've read my other posts, i don't know if you think a man can or can't develop skill to become attractive to and attract a woman. I don't endorse deceit. I don't endorse hurting others. I don't endorse using techniques that employ either. Be outraged.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 05:43:56 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 05:40:15 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag.
What i'm talking about is addressing and/or alleviating concerns. Not bypassing/ignoring legitimate fears. Who decides what is legitimate? Ultimately she will (in my world). It's the same as what's happening right now. You are trying to make me understand what you think is true. With women, they can be shown that what you have to offer is good and true.
"Shown" how? By continuing to talk shit?
I don't tell shit. What is it that you
think i believe that you have a problem with? This should be funny.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 05:40:15 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag.
What i'm talking about is addressing and/or alleviating concerns. Not bypassing/ignoring legitimate fears. Who decides what is legitimate? Ultimately she will (in my world). It's the same as what's happening right now. You are trying to make me understand what you think is true. With women, they can be shown that what you have to offer is good and true. If they don't see it that way, fine. That doesn't make you wrong or me wrong.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
You may not want to believe that because you find that pushing past the boundaries a woman sets with you has succeeded for you in the sense of getting you laid, but any issues there are yours, not hers. In fact, the opposite is true; if you succeed in pushing past a woman's boundaries and it results in a relationship, you are 100% guaranteed to be in a relationship with someone who has boundary issues, because people who enter relationships with people who trample their boundaries are people with problems.
A woman with a healthy sense of self and boundaries is observing closely to see whether her boundaries are being respected. If they are not respected, she will move on quickly. The PUA curriculum labels these women "no fun" or declares that they "have issues". This assessment, again, is incorrect.
I posted earlier that her having issues is only one reason she may not be interested. She may simply not be interested in me or what i have to offer. I'm fine with that. If she has a reason, that's cool. If she has decided against it as some sort of policy, that's kind of dumb to me in the sense that it's unnecessary because i'm not trying to fuck her over but the rule may serve her/protect her well, and that's cool.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
I strongly suspect that you are parroting some PUA psychobabble you've picked up somewhere along the line. It's bullshit, and it will eventually cause you problems if it isn't already.
I'm not.
You're moving the goalposts, and saying you didn't say what you said. I am talking about pushing past/ignoring boundaries being disrespectful and a red flag. Do you disagree with that, or not?
You can't talk someone into being attracted to you, nor can you talk down their objections to having sex at any given moment without disrespecting their wishes. That, for me, is an automatic disqualifier. You might decide that's because I "have issues", but frankly, it's because anyone who is pushy with my boundaries is most likely going to be a huge pain in the ass who will ultimately irritate the fuck out of me, and I don't want to deal with some high-maintenance asshole who thinks he can override me. So, I nip it in the bud and move on to the next candidate. He can sour grapes rationalize it any way he wants; I don't care.
In fact, the next guy who disqualifies himself by being pushy, I'm going to just tell him flat out that's the reason he doesn't have a chance with me, on the off chance it'll make him think... although, I am pretty sure it won't.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 05:45:19 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 05:08:41 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 05:00:58 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.
At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.
HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)
THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.
THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.
It's Pope Lecherous.
Insult if you like, i don't know if you've read my other posts, i don't know if you think a man can or can't develop skill to become attractive to and attract a woman. I don't endorse deceit. I don't endorse hurting others. I don't endorse using techniques that employ either. Be outraged.
:backpedal:
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 05:45:19 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 05:08:41 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 05:00:58 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.
At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.
HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)
THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.
THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.
It's Pope Lecherous.
Insult if you like, i don't know if you've read my other posts, i don't know if you think a man can or can't develop skill to become attractive to and attract a woman. I don't endorse deceit. I don't endorse hurting others. I don't endorse using techniques that employ either. Be outraged.
Then why are you defending PUA methods?
May I ask you if you've ever "pushed past" a woman's boundaries, only to find that she never calls you or answers your phone calls again?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:14:17 AM
Having good social skills is not the same thing as buying into the pick-up artist MO. Why do you keep trying to equate them?
I'm really not. I think those skills, among others, can be taught to a person. If it needs to be called something outside of pickup to not be associated with the losers who are pickup artists, that's cool. All that i've been saying is that it's an overall skill that is a sum of other skills and it can be learned and practiced ethically. Everyone is raging and thinking i'm supporting pickup artists, when all i'm supporting is having the ability to be successful with women in an ethical manner.
I would like to address the above post i made if you feel like it. You probably are tired of trying to convince me of something, but i'm pretty sure that most of the things you are trying to convince me of i already believe and the things we do disagree on can be discussed logically. It's just that i don't seem to know if you really know where i stand or what i'm meaning to say.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:05:51 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 05:45:19 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 05:08:41 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 05:00:58 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.
At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.
HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)
THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.
THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.
It's Pope Lecherous.
Insult if you like, i don't know if you've read my other posts, i don't know if you think a man can or can't develop skill to become attractive to and attract a woman. I don't endorse deceit. I don't endorse hurting others. I don't endorse using techniques that employ either. Be outraged.
Then why are you defending PUA methods?
May I ask you if you've ever "pushed past" a woman's boundaries, only to find that she never calls you or answers your phone calls again?
Name a PUA method that i have endorsed. I haven't. I don't.
I'm pretty straight forward but not disrespectful. That's enough to protect me and whoever it is i'm speaking to from having to question whether anyone's boundaries are being pushed. So no.
And in case you're sitting there thinking "Oh yeah, another ball-buster who only likes meek men she can dominate", the opposite is true. I require a strong man who can absolutely hold his own with me and won't let me push him around, nor is intimidated by me. Someone with the character and confidence to be able to fully respect me and collaborate with me without ever letting himself get trampled. Men with that kind of strength are not the type who try to push boundaries or talk around them. At all. I cannot see Roger, Alty, LMNO, or ECH (to name but a few folks on the board) "pushing" a date's boundaries. Strong, secure people don't. Strong, secure people go "eh, he/she isn't into it at the moment... I'll see how it goes another time".
For the record, pushing/coaxing after I've put up resistance is the #1 disqualifier I find with guys. If I've decided to kiss them, fuck yeah I'm assessing them for a potential sex partner. If they're a decent kisser, there's a total possibility it'll go somewhere, if not that night then maybe the next time. If I put on the stops and they get pushy, there's no reason for me to waste any more of their time or mine. Luckily, most guys DON'T do that. The ones that do always come across to me as pathetic and laughable, and possibly mildly retarded.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:18:54 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:05:51 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 05:45:19 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 05:08:41 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 05:00:58 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.
At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.
HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)
THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.
THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.
It's Pope Lecherous.
Insult if you like, i don't know if you've read my other posts, i don't know if you think a man can or can't develop skill to become attractive to and attract a woman. I don't endorse deceit. I don't endorse hurting others. I don't endorse using techniques that employ either. Be outraged.
Then why are you defending PUA methods?
May I ask you if you've ever "pushed past" a woman's boundaries, only to find that she never calls you or answers your phone calls again?
Name a PUA method that i have endorsed. I haven't. I don't.
I'm pretty straight forward but not disrespectful. That's enough to protect me and whoever it is i'm speaking to from having to question whether anyone's boundaries are being pushed. So no.
Then why are you arguing against people who find PUA methods to be creepy and rapey? Just to be contrary? That's adolescent and tiresome.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:10:12 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:14:17 AM
Having good social skills is not the same thing as buying into the pick-up artist MO. Why do you keep trying to equate them?
I'm really not. I think those skills, among others, can be taught to a person. If it needs to be called something outside of pickup to not be associated with the losers who are pickup artists, that's cool. All that i've been saying is that it's an overall skill that is a sum of other skills and it can be learned and practiced ethically. Everyone is raging and thinking i'm supporting pickup artists, when all i'm supporting is having the ability to be successful with women in an ethical manner.
I would like to address the above post i made if you feel like it. You probably are tired of trying to convince me of something, but i'm pretty sure that most of the things you are trying to convince me of i already believe and the things we do disagree on can be discussed logically. It's just that i don't seem to know if you really know where i stand or what i'm meaning to say.
You keep going to the "I wasn't actually arguing with that, I was arguing with something else you
didn't say" rebuttal. WTF, dude?
U R RONG AND PUA ISN'T BAD I MEAN NOT PUA BUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS NOT PUA AND PUSHING BOUNDARIES ISN'T DISRESPECTFUL NO I MEAN NOT PUSHING BOUNDARIES BUT BEING STRAIGHTFORWARD AND DIRECT
NOW THAT YOU HAVE DISMANTLED MY ARGUMENTS I AM NOT RILLY DISAGREEING WITH YOU I AM DISAGREEING WITH SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFRENT.
Logical consistency, have you heard of it? :lol:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:19:08 AM
And in case you're sitting there thinking "Oh yeah, another ball-buster who only likes meek men she can dominate", the opposite is true. I require a strong man who can absolutely hold his own with me and won't let me push him around, nor is intimidated by me. Someone with the character and confidence to be able to fully respect me and collaborate with me without ever letting himself get trampled. Men with that kind of strength are not the type who try to push boundaries or talk around them. At all. I cannot see Roger, Alty, LMNO, or ECH (to name but a few folks on the board) "pushing" a date's boundaries. Strong, secure people don't. Strong, secure people go "eh, he/she isn't into it at the moment... I'll see how it goes another time".
I don't presume to imagine you in any sort of way, much less a ball-buster. I have heard nothing but healthy and enlightened attitudes about sex and the sexes from you.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:19:08 AM
For the record, pushing/coaxing after I've put up resistance is the #1 disqualifier I find with guys. If I've decided to kiss them, fuck yeah I'm assessing them for a potential sex partner. If they're a decent kisser, there's a total possibility it'll go somewhere, if not that night then maybe the next time. If I put on the stops and they get pushy, there's no reason for me to waste any more of their time or mine. Luckily, most guys DON'T do that. The ones that do always come across to me as pathetic and laughable, and possibly mildly retarded.
For the record, i completely agree with that. What i meant by alleviating concerns/resistance isn't in the context of getting physical. Those are things i don't fuck with whatsoever.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:25:59 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:19:08 AM
And in case you're sitting there thinking "Oh yeah, another ball-buster who only likes meek men she can dominate", the opposite is true. I require a strong man who can absolutely hold his own with me and won't let me push him around, nor is intimidated by me. Someone with the character and confidence to be able to fully respect me and collaborate with me without ever letting himself get trampled. Men with that kind of strength are not the type who try to push boundaries or talk around them. At all. I cannot see Roger, Alty, LMNO, or ECH (to name but a few folks on the board) "pushing" a date's boundaries. Strong, secure people don't. Strong, secure people go "eh, he/she isn't into it at the moment... I'll see how it goes another time".
I don't presume to imagine you in any sort of way, much less a ball-buster. I have heard nothing but healthy and enlightened attitudes about sex and the sexes from you.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:19:08 AM
For the record, pushing/coaxing after I've put up resistance is the #1 disqualifier I find with guys. If I've decided to kiss them, fuck yeah I'm assessing them for a potential sex partner. If they're a decent kisser, there's a total possibility it'll go somewhere, if not that night then maybe the next time. If I put on the stops and they get pushy, there's no reason for me to waste any more of their time or mine. Luckily, most guys DON'T do that. The ones that do always come across to me as pathetic and laughable, and possibly mildly retarded.
For the record, i completely agree with that. What i meant by alleviating concerns/resistance isn't in the context of getting physical. Those are things i don't fuck with whatsoever.
Are you even reading the posts before deciding to "disagree" with them? Because you are backpedaling like a motherfucker.
Blackfoot can you give a solid example of what alleviating concerns/resistance looks like? Because I'm not really following exactly what youre trying to say
Blackfoot, I suggest going back through this conversation sometime when you are fully lucid, because currently, you are making an ass of yourself. I mean this sincerely.
Also, what Dingo said.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:22:19 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:10:12 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 05:14:17 AM
Having good social skills is not the same thing as buying into the pick-up artist MO. Why do you keep trying to equate them?
I'm really not. I think those skills, among others, can be taught to a person. If it needs to be called something outside of pickup to not be associated with the losers who are pickup artists, that's cool. All that i've been saying is that it's an overall skill that is a sum of other skills and it can be learned and practiced ethically. Everyone is raging and thinking i'm supporting pickup artists, when all i'm supporting is having the ability to be successful with women in an ethical manner.
I would like to address the above post i made if you feel like it. You probably are tired of trying to convince me of something, but i'm pretty sure that most of the things you are trying to convince me of i already believe and the things we do disagree on can be discussed logically. It's just that i don't seem to know if you really know where i stand or what i'm meaning to say.
You keep going to the "I wasn't actually arguing with that, I was arguing with something else you didn't say" rebuttal. WTF, dude?
Strawman shit. Probably what he uses when he's trying to get laid.
"IF I JUST KEEP TALKING SHIT AND
PUSHING..."
Fucking pathetic. :lulz:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:25:42 AM
U R RONG AND PUA ISN'T BAD I MEAN NOT PUA BUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS NOT PUA AND PUSHING BOUNDARIES ISN'T DISRESPECTFUL NO I MEAN NOT PUSHING BOUNDARIES BUT BEING STRAIGHTFORWARD AND DIRECT
NOW THAT YOU HAVE DISMANTLED MY ARGUMENTS I AM NOT RILLY DISAGREEING WITH YOU I AM DISAGREEING WITH SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFRENT.
Logical consistency, have you heard of it? :lol:
We haven't been talking about the same things this entire time. I blame it on a failure to define terms. Or me. This is something i'd like to discuss but we can't move forward like this.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 04, 2012, 06:28:44 AM
Blackfoot can you give a solid example of what alleviating concerns/resistance looks like? Because I'm not really following exactly what youre trying to say
Yeah, I am pretty damn curious about this myself. If I say "I'm not up for anything more tonight", I'm a little confused about what anyone might have to say about that, that wouldn't just be second-guessing what I'm up for.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:30:11 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:25:42 AM
U R RONG AND PUA ISN'T BAD I MEAN NOT PUA BUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS NOT PUA AND PUSHING BOUNDARIES ISN'T DISRESPECTFUL NO I MEAN NOT PUSHING BOUNDARIES BUT BEING STRAIGHTFORWARD AND DIRECT
NOW THAT YOU HAVE DISMANTLED MY ARGUMENTS I AM NOT RILLY DISAGREEING WITH YOU I AM DISAGREEING WITH SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFRENT.
Logical consistency, have you heard of it? :lol:
We haven't been talking about the same things this entire time. I blame it on a failure to define terms. Or me. This is something i'd like to discuss but we can't move forward like this.
Then why did you state that you "disagreed" with my statements if you don't actually disagree with my statements, but with something else entirely, that I did not say? I'm sure you can see how that
might have been a little confusing.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:30:11 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:25:42 AM
U R RONG AND PUA ISN'T BAD I MEAN NOT PUA BUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS NOT PUA AND PUSHING BOUNDARIES ISN'T DISRESPECTFUL NO I MEAN NOT PUSHING BOUNDARIES BUT BEING STRAIGHTFORWARD AND DIRECT
NOW THAT YOU HAVE DISMANTLED MY ARGUMENTS I AM NOT RILLY DISAGREEING WITH YOU I AM DISAGREEING WITH SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFRENT.
Logical consistency, have you heard of it? :lol:
We haven't been talking about the same things this entire time. I blame it on a failure to define terms. Or me. This is something i'd like to discuss but we can't move forward like this.
ALL TERMS HAVE BEEN DEFINED AND CLARIFIED.
RE-READ THREAD. S-L-O-W-L-Y.
Because if you have a learning disability or cognitive disorder, maybe this all makes sense. Otherwise, you're a fuckwad.
"a failure to define terms"
:lol:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:35:25 AM
"a failure to define terms"
:lol:
He's trying to OVERCOME YOUR RESISTANCE, Nigel. :horrormirth:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:27:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:38:44 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:27:43 AM
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.
I still want an explanation for how ignoring a person's boundaries by pushing for sex is not an implication of violence.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 06:41:12 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:38:44 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:27:43 AM
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.
Blackfoot, your inability to convey your ideas in a manner that other people understand is nobody's problem but yours.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 04, 2012, 06:55:26 AM
Blackfoot, your inability to convey your ideas in a manner that other people understand is nobody's problem but yours.
Youre right. If someone wants to participate in a discussion they
should make an effort to understand what is being said so a discussion can take place, that's the way i'd have it. Or they can, you know... choose not to. idk man.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 07:00:34 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 04, 2012, 06:55:26 AM
Blackfoot, your inability to convey your ideas in a manner that other people understand is nobody's problem but yours.
Youre right. If someone wants to participate in a discussion they should make an effort to understand what is being said so a discussion can take place, that's the way i'd have it. Or they can, you know... choose not to. idk man.
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.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 04, 2012, 07:18:41 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 07:00:34 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 04, 2012, 06:55:26 AM
Blackfoot, your inability to convey your ideas in a manner that other people understand is nobody's problem but yours.
Youre right. If someone wants to participate in a discussion they should make an effort to understand what is being said so a discussion can take place, that's the way i'd have it. Or they can, you know... choose not to. idk man.
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.
This.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 04, 2012, 07:18:41 AM
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 07:25:17 AM
This.
^^This.
ETA: I don't know if this behavior i'm talking about is intentional or just a bad habit. It hurts the site. Especially with the pseudo-hierarchy we have
Also, the irony of having this conversation with someone who used to call themselves "Pope Lecherous".
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 07:32:10 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 04, 2012, 07:18:41 AM
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 07:25:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:57:21 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 04, 2012, 07:33:18 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 07:32:10 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 04, 2012, 07:18:41 AM
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 07:25:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:53:52 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 06:41:12 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 06:38:44 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:27:43 AM
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. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 08:14:47 AM
Got your little PUA panties in the proverbial knot, I see. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
You rustled my jimmies pretty good.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
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?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
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?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
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?
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 02:09:49 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
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™".
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 07:50:43 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
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?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:28:40 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 07:50:43 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
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?
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>
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?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 02:25:01 PM
I want to hear your answer.
I move on.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 06:33:37 PM
And what if she DOES have some sort of hang up? Is a man entitled to "cure" her by pushing sex on her?
Of course not, that would only damage her more. A "cure" would involve some sort of counseling, something that actually heals the damage.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 04:53:35 AM
As a matter of fact, the guys I've known who were most successful with women (in the sense of getting almost whoever they wanted) weren't anything approaching PUA's, and they loved women. I mean, they enjoyed female company and listened when women talked. They looked out for women. Poly as hell, but they loved every one of them.
An Ethical Man Slut rather than a PUA.
Quote from: Pixie on August 04, 2012, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 04:53:35 AM
As a matter of fact, the guys I've known who were most successful with women (in the sense of getting almost whoever they wanted) weren't anything approaching PUA's, and they loved women. I mean, they enjoyed female company and listened when women talked. They looked out for women. Poly as hell, but they loved every one of them.
An Ethical Man Slut rather than a PUA.
We prefer to think of ourselves as DIRTY LITTLE GIRLS, thank you so much.
Quote from: Pixie on August 04, 2012, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 04:53:35 AM
As a matter of fact, the guys I've known who were most successful with women (in the sense of getting almost whoever they wanted) weren't anything approaching PUA's, and they loved women. I mean, they enjoyed female company and listened when women talked. They looked out for women. Poly as hell, but they loved every one of them.
An Ethical Man Slut rather than a PUA.
Ethics are hawt. :lol:
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 08:11:20 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 02:25:01 PM
I want to hear your answer.
I move on.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 06:33:37 PM
And what if she DOES have some sort of hang up? Is a man entitled to "cure" her by pushing sex on her?
Of course not, that would only damage her more. A "cure" would involve some sort of counseling, something that actually heals the damage.
Blackfoot, what do you define as a "hang up" that requires counseling?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on August 04, 2012, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 04, 2012, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 04:53:35 AM
As a matter of fact, the guys I've known who were most successful with women (in the sense of getting almost whoever they wanted) weren't anything approaching PUA's, and they loved women. I mean, they enjoyed female company and listened when women talked. They looked out for women. Poly as hell, but they loved every one of them.
An Ethical Man Slut rather than a PUA.
We prefer to think of ourselves as DIRTY LITTLE GIRLS, thank you so much.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:28:40 PM
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?
That would fall under the above category.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
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."
By the time it gets to this point it's over. The only choice he has is to respect her wishes and end that line of conversation gracefully or they'd get a response like you continued with. I would respond with something to the effect of, "ok." I would let an awkward pause ensue then ask you if i made things awkward. The conversation would go from there, but would not include any sort of propositioning.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:50:23 PM
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?
I don't. I deal with it long before it reaches the point in your example.
Quote
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.
The key is that, by the time there is resistance to sex, I leave it alone. It's done. I anticipate the potential hangups and handle them before they become an issue. A few examples in a club setting would be; I barely know you, I can't leave my friends, I have a boyfriend, we don't have a place, i have work in the morning, i'm a conservative christian, etc.
Reading body language, facial expressions, and mood is critical. If i have one skill it is certainly the ability to read these things. Not even joking, i have saved my own life and the lives of others reading body language.
Quote
3. Have you ever actually had sex with a woman?
Yes. Do you find that doubtful?
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 08:39:47 PM
Quote
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:28:40 PM
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?
That would fall under the above category.
So you wouldn't consider it OK to push her boundaries under those circumstances?
Quote
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
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."
By the time it gets to this point it's over. The only choice he has is to respect her wishes and end that line of conversation gracefully or they'd get a response like you continued with. I would respond with something to the effect of, "ok." I would let an awkward pause ensue then ask you if i made things awkward. The conversation would go from there, but would not include any sort of propositioning.
Why you gotta make it awkward? What's the point? Just to be a manipulative ass? I can't tell you how many hot hot makeout sessions I've had with one person or another calling it good and heading home. The evening has to end at some point, and ending it after a hot makeout session sounds better than ending it without a hot makeout session. Making it awkward for no reason sounds more like manipulation or sabotaging a potentially good thing, to me. One of my favorite lovers ever, on our first date we made out and it was INSANELY HOT, but we were both tired and it was time for me to go. He could have made sure I never went out with him again by making things awkward, but he's a grownup so he didn't feel the need to do that. The next time I saw him, we had fantastic monkey sex.
Quote
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 06:50:23 PM
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?
I don't. I deal with it long before it reaches the point in your example.
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
Quote
Quote
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.
The key is that, by the time there is resistance to sex, I leave it alone. It's done. I anticipate the potential hangups and handle them before they become an issue. A few examples in a club setting would be; I barely know you, I can't leave my friends, I have a boyfriend, we don't have a place, i have work in the morning, i'm a conservative christian, etc.
Reading body language, facial expressions, and mood is critical. If i have one skill it is certainly the ability to read these things. Not even joking, i have saved my own life and the lives of others reading body language.
:wank:
Quote
Quote
3. Have you ever actually had sex with a woman?
Yes. Do you find that doubtful?
Yes, I do. I suppose if your MO is taking home inebriated club girls it's less improbable than it sounds.
I AM kind of wondering what the argument is about.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 08:55:47 PM
I AM kind of wondering what the argument is about.
It's about how Blackfoot said PUA has positive applications, only he says he didn't, but he did.
I think at this point it degenerates into how much poon he says he gets, and where he says he gets it, which is probably quite different from what actually happens, or probably, doesn't happen.
RIP, productive thread. Hello, &PUA&PUA&PUA.
Oh, wow. You really are DOUR. :lulz:
So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
QuoteA few examples in a club setting would be; I barely know you, I can't leave my friends, I have a boyfriend, we don't have a place, i have work in the morning, i'm a conservative christian, etc.
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:05:00 PM
So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
QuoteA few examples in a club setting would be; I barely know you, I can't leave my friends, I have a boyfriend, we don't have a place, i have work in the morning, i'm a conservative christian, etc.
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.
I missed that, I tend to skim-read his blather...he considers those HANGUPS? Possibly requiring
counseling? WTF???
(Excuse me a second, Nigel, I have to translate these.)
"I barely know you" = "FUCK OFF".
"I can't leave my friends" = "FUCK OFF".
"I have a boyfriend = "FUCK OFF".
"We don't have a place" = "FUCK OFF".
"I have to work in the morning" = "FUCK OFF".
"I'm a conservative christian" = "FUCK OFF"
"etc." = "FUCK OFF"
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.
In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:15:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:05:00 PM
So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
QuoteA few examples in a club setting would be; I barely know you, I can't leave my friends, I have a boyfriend, we don't have a place, i have work in the morning, i'm a conservative christian, etc.
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.
I missed that, I tend to skim-read his blather...he considers those HANGUPS? Possibly requiring counseling? WTF???
(Excuse me a second, Nigel, I have to translate these.)
"I barely know you" = "FUCK OFF".
"I can't leave my friends" = "FUCK OFF".
"I have a boyfriend = "FUCK OFF".
"We don't have a place" = "FUCK OFF".
"I have to work in the morning" = "FUCK OFF".
"I'm a conservative christian" = "FUCK OFF"
"etc." = "FUCK OFF"
I think that pretty much nails it.
EVERY time I've encountered some douche who thinks he can talk me out of whatever polite excuse I've given him instead of "FUCK OFF", he's turned out to be the kind of insufferable chodebag who follows me around pathetically trying to kiss me or grab my ass until I tell him to fuck off.
NEWSFLASH: WE SAY THESE THINGS INSTEAD OF "FUCK OFF" IN AN ATTEMPT TO BE NICE. "I have a boyfriend" does not mean, "I totally want to fuck you and I would if only I didn't have a boyfriend getting in the way". It means "I'm trying to get rid of you using politer words than FUCK OFF".
If wheedling and conning them past their "hangups" gets you one night stands with drunk and emotionally damaged club girls who don't know what they want or how to stand up for themselves, um, I guess all I have to say is, gross, I hope you grow up someday.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.
In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.
I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things. Whether or not he knows it.
Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things. And, in this case, people.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.
In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.
Yeah, he's evasive as fuck and keeps changing the goalposts. I'm seeing 100% purebred crapweasel.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:05:00 PM
So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.
Why do you think that a woman would have to be inebriated to have sex with me? That's not nice or true. Are you a mean person? Are you only mean to people you find contemptible?
As for dialogue, why don't you imagine what you would say? What could a guy tell you that would make you feel okay with splitting up with your friends before you brought it up in conversation? How well do you have to know people before you have sex with them? Does it depend on your mood? Do you have a threshold or a rule or do you play it by ear?
Don't answer. Just ponder these ideas and scenarios. Can you overcome any of the objections i listed here or previously without compromising your values? Some? None? All?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:23:33 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.
In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.
I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things. Whether or not he knows it.
Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things. And, in this case, people.
Yeah, well. Maybe he could get upright and just say he's changed his mind, instead of pretending it's not what he said in the first place.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:23:12 PM
EVERY time I've encountered some douche who thinks he can talk me out of whatever polite excuse I've given him instead of "FUCK OFF", he's turned out to be the kind of insufferable chodebag who follows me around pathetically trying to kiss me or grab my ass until I tell him to fuck off.
Society now views "polite" as "ambiguity". That's why people are such arses about politics, for example. I can't speak for Blackfoot, but it's entirely possible that he's still laboring under the misconceptions The Spider brings along.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:05:00 PM
So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.
Why do you think that a woman would have to be inebriated to have sex with me? That's not nice or true. Are you a mean person? Are you only mean to people you find contemptible?
As for dialogue, why don't you imagine what you would say? What could a guy tell you that would make you feel okay with splitting up with your friends before you brought it up in conversation? How well do you have to know people before you have sex with them? Does it depend on your mood? Do you have a threshold or a rule or do you play it by ear?
Don't answer. Just ponder these ideas and scenarios. Can you overcome any of the objections i listed here or previously without compromising your values? Some? None? All?
You were the one who talked about "hangups" you might encounter in a club, which pretty much means inebriated club girls. Too close to home? You're pretty evasive, and I have no reason to think any better of you. Answer the fucking questions I ask you, directly and honestly, and stop weaseling.
I'm not 19. I have no use for any of your juvenile games. I have no desire to overcome anyone's objections, and I expect from them the basic courtesy of not trying to overcome mine, nor to try to predict and circumvent them. Your contempt for women's ability to think for themselves is palpable, and yes, contemptible.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:23:33 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.
In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.
I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things. Whether or not he knows it.
Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things. And, in this case, people.
Yeah, well. Maybe he could get upright and just say he's changed his mind, instead of pretending it's not what he said in the first place.
I don't expect that from too many people, Nigel. I'd LIKE to see it, but the fact is, people like you and ECH and LMNO aren't very common, because it takes YEARS OF WORK to get to the point where you can say "Oh, I was wrong." Hell, I have to get all wrapped around the axle half the time I realize I'm wrong about something. Consider: When a "fact" I know is disproven, I say "oh, okay". When one of my BELIEFS is proven wrong, I spazz the fuck out for a solid day before I get to the same point.
What we have here is a guy who just picked up a shiny new label, and - just as he was about to paste it onto his forehead - it was demonstrated to be a big pile of shit. That's kind of embarrassing.
And while I expect certain people to deal with embarrassment with poise, I figure that most people will react with baboonery, and either show their enflamed red ass, or continually move the goalposts so they don't "lose" the debate...Because society tells you that there is nothing more ignominous than losing at
anything.
So the original subject gets buried in poo, and everyone puts their foot into it to see if it's really shit.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Note that I originally used the word "boundaries" and you argued with that. Now you're claiming that you weren't talking about "boundaries", you were talking about "objections" or "resistance".
Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.
I am coming to the conclusion that you are a piece of crap, and also pretty stupid.
On a tangent, it occurs to me that I still have a few labels of my own.
For example:
"Human, 1 each, slightly soiled."
"Walking PTSD bag."
"Angry Preacherman"
"DUMBASS"
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:23:33 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.
In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.
I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things. Whether or not he knows it.
Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things. And, in this case, people.
Yeah, well. Maybe he could get upright and just say he's changed his mind, instead of pretending it's not what he said in the first place.
I don't expect that from too many people, Nigel. I'd LIKE to see it, but the fact is, people like you and ECH and LMNO aren't very common, because it takes YEARS OF WORK to get to the point where you can say "Oh, I was wrong." Hell, I have to get all wrapped around the axle half the time I realize I'm wrong about something. Consider: When a "fact" I know is disproven, I say "oh, okay". When one of my BELIEFS is proven wrong, I spazz the fuck out for a solid day before I get to the same point.
What we have here is a guy who just picked up a shiny new label, and - just as he was about to paste it onto his forehead - it was demonstrated to be a big pile of shit. That's kind of embarrassing.
And while I expect certain people to deal with embarrassment with poise, I figure that most people will react with baboonery, and either show their enflamed red ass, or continually move the goalposts so they don't "lose" the debate...Because society tells you that there is nothing more ignominous than losing at anything.
So the original subject gets buried in poo, and everyone puts their foot into it to see if it's really shit.
This one's a lost cause. It does nothing but weasel and make excuses for itself, and it's too stupid to learn.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
QuoteQuote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:05:00 PM
So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.
Why do you think that a woman would have to be inebriated to have sex with me? That's not nice or true. Are you a mean person? Are you only mean to people you find contemptible?
As for dialogue, why don't you imagine what you would say? What could a guy tell you that would make you feel okay with splitting up with your friends before you brought it up in conversation? How well do you have to know people before you have sex with them? Does it depend on your mood? Do you have a threshold or a rule or do you play it by ear?
Don't answer. Just ponder these ideas and scenarios. Can you overcome any of the objections i listed here or previously without compromising your values? Some? None? All?
There is NOTHING "a guy could tell us", NO rule "how long we have to know people", NO mood that has to pass for you to try again, NO threshold or rule period and NO "playing it by ear". It's ATTRACTION AND CHEMISTRY. It's THERE, or it's NOT.
Holy fuck. :x
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:36:09 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:23:33 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?
To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.
In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.
I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things. Whether or not he knows it.
Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things. And, in this case, people.
Yeah, well. Maybe he could get upright and just say he's changed his mind, instead of pretending it's not what he said in the first place.
I don't expect that from too many people, Nigel. I'd LIKE to see it, but the fact is, people like you and ECH and LMNO aren't very common, because it takes YEARS OF WORK to get to the point where you can say "Oh, I was wrong." Hell, I have to get all wrapped around the axle half the time I realize I'm wrong about something. Consider: When a "fact" I know is disproven, I say "oh, okay". When one of my BELIEFS is proven wrong, I spazz the fuck out for a solid day before I get to the same point.
What we have here is a guy who just picked up a shiny new label, and - just as he was about to paste it onto his forehead - it was demonstrated to be a big pile of shit. That's kind of embarrassing.
And while I expect certain people to deal with embarrassment with poise, I figure that most people will react with baboonery, and either show their enflamed red ass, or continually move the goalposts so they don't "lose" the debate...Because society tells you that there is nothing more ignominous than losing at anything.
So the original subject gets buried in poo, and everyone puts their foot into it to see if it's really shit.
This one's a lost cause. It does nothing but weasel and make excuses for itself, and it's too stupid to learn.
I'm not sure. It took me 25 years to learn how to think, and I'm still not really there yet.
I don't expect the guy to fly the day he hatches.
That being said...
BLACKFOOT: Ask yourself at this point if you are arguing to "not lose" instead of arguing to advance an idea.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
On a tangent, it occurs to me that I still have a few labels of my own.
For example:
"Human, 1 each, slightly soiled."
"Walking PTSD bag."
"Angry Preacherman"
"DUMBASS"
I like to think of myself as
"Compact Rage Vessel"
or
"Gristly Bone Meat of Hate"
Quote from: Alty on August 04, 2012, 09:39:05 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
On a tangent, it occurs to me that I still have a few labels of my own.
For example:
"Human, 1 each, slightly soiled."
"Walking PTSD bag."
"Angry Preacherman"
"DUMBASS"
I like to think of myself as
"Compact Rage Vessel"
or
"Gristly Bone Meat of Hate"
Yeah, you ARE one angry little bastard. You do EVERYTHING in an angry way.
Which is, of course, why you have a perpetual open invitation to return.
I do my best. :)
As for Blackfoot, I gathered from the thread in OKM that he doesn't have a point and is just fucking around, but I could be wrong.
Quote from: Alty on August 04, 2012, 09:46:55 PM
I do my best. :)
As for Blackfoot, I gathered from the thread in OKM that he doesn't have a point and is just fucking around, but I could be wrong.
I disagree. I just don't think he's able to make his point, because he himself isn't sure what that point is.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
But remember, everyone starts out that way.
You get done with high school and college or the military or an early marriage, and you're basically a factory blank full of pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all conditioning. The critical difference is whether or not you can swallow your pride or cover up your enflamed baboon ass long enough to become a functional biped.
And Discordianism, of course, is by no means the sole route to that state.
It IS, however, the most interesting one.
And by "interesting", I mean, "Full of bourbon".
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
But remember, everyone starts out that way.
You get done with high school and college or the military or an early marriage, and you're basically a factory blank full of pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all conditioning. The critical difference is whether or not you can swallow your pride or cover up your enflamed baboon ass long enough to become a functional biped.
And Discordianism, of course, is by no means the sole route to that state.
It IS, however, the most interesting one.
And by "interesting", I mean, "Full of bourbon".
:crankey:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
But remember, everyone starts out that way.
You get done with high school and college or the military or an early marriage, and you're basically a factory blank full of pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all conditioning. The critical difference is whether or not you can swallow your pride or cover up your enflamed baboon ass long enough to become a functional biped.
And Discordianism, of course, is by no means the sole route to that state.
It IS, however, the most interesting one.
And by "interesting", I mean, "Full of bourbon".
:crankey:
Don't blame me. I'M not a quitter.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
But remember, everyone starts out that way.
You get done with high school and college or the military or an early marriage, and you're basically a factory blank full of pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all conditioning. The critical difference is whether or not you can swallow your pride or cover up your enflamed baboon ass long enough to become a functional biped.
And Discordianism, of course, is by no means the sole route to that state.
It IS, however, the most interesting one.
And by "interesting", I mean, "Full of bourbon".
:crankey:
Don't blame me. I'M not a quitter.
It's FOR MY HEALTH! I had to quit, I DIED!
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
But remember, everyone starts out that way.
You get done with high school and college or the military or an early marriage, and you're basically a factory blank full of pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all conditioning. The critical difference is whether or not you can swallow your pride or cover up your enflamed baboon ass long enough to become a functional biped.
And Discordianism, of course, is by no means the sole route to that state.
It IS, however, the most interesting one.
And by "interesting", I mean, "Full of bourbon".
:crankey:
Don't blame me. I'M not a quitter.
It's FOR MY HEALTH! I had to quit, I DIED!
You QUIT, then you DIED.
Let's work on that connection for a moment, shall we?
Besides, I'm just taking a break. Until I come back to life and my liver regenerates.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:02:49 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
But remember, everyone starts out that way.
You get done with high school and college or the military or an early marriage, and you're basically a factory blank full of pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all conditioning. The critical difference is whether or not you can swallow your pride or cover up your enflamed baboon ass long enough to become a functional biped.
And Discordianism, of course, is by no means the sole route to that state.
It IS, however, the most interesting one.
And by "interesting", I mean, "Full of bourbon".
:crankey:
Don't blame me. I'M not a quitter.
It's FOR MY HEALTH! I had to quit, I DIED!
You QUIT, then you DIED.
Let's work on that connection for a moment, shall we?
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
Nobody told me.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:03:25 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:02:49 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
But remember, everyone starts out that way.
You get done with high school and college or the military or an early marriage, and you're basically a factory blank full of pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all conditioning. The critical difference is whether or not you can swallow your pride or cover up your enflamed baboon ass long enough to become a functional biped.
And Discordianism, of course, is by no means the sole route to that state.
It IS, however, the most interesting one.
And by "interesting", I mean, "Full of bourbon".
:crankey:
Don't blame me. I'M not a quitter.
It's FOR MY HEALTH! I had to quit, I DIED!
You QUIT, then you DIED.
Let's work on that connection for a moment, shall we?
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
Nobody told me.
Did you read the instruction manual, or just throw it away?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:03:25 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:02:49 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 04, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 04, 2012, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?
What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.
When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".
He can't explain it any more than he can explain anything else, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he's talking about. As far as I'm concerned he's disposable; a non-person.
But remember, everyone starts out that way.
You get done with high school and college or the military or an early marriage, and you're basically a factory blank full of pre-packaged, one-size-fits-all conditioning. The critical difference is whether or not you can swallow your pride or cover up your enflamed baboon ass long enough to become a functional biped.
And Discordianism, of course, is by no means the sole route to that state.
It IS, however, the most interesting one.
And by "interesting", I mean, "Full of bourbon".
:crankey:
Don't blame me. I'M not a quitter.
It's FOR MY HEALTH! I had to quit, I DIED!
You QUIT, then you DIED.
Let's work on that connection for a moment, shall we?
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
Nobody told me.
Did you read the instruction manual, or just throw it away?
Wait... that was a manual? :aww:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 02:51:28 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
No kidding, Rat.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 04, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.
So if you say no and resist, but don't scream or struggle because you're afraid of getting hurt, it's not rape?
No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know if a guy being pushy is rape. If he implies violence in any way, that's rape. If he doesn't he may just be really horny and not have respect or understanding for boundaries. If the woman Cleary says NO and pushes him away and he continues... That close enough to rape for my thinking. If she just kinda whines that she's tired but continues making out... I dunno. Maybe it just depends on how the woman feels afterward, if its rape in her mind I wouldn't disagree.
If he keeps pushing, the question for her becomes, "what will he do if I keep saying no?" He doesn't need to be overt in implying violence.
This.
One thing that I think a lot of guys don't think about, and probably don't want to think about, is that we are afraid of you. Categorically, not personally. We are afraid, and with good reason. This is not an irrational fear; this is a simple reality of survival and self-preservation. PUA techniques train men to exploit that fear by pushing boundaries, rather than engaging in courtship, a process which builds trust.
The reason the absence of yes means no is because of this fear. If you just met a woman and don't yet know her enough for her to have built up the level of trust to trust that you WON'T hurt her if she struggles, if you have sex with her despite what you are choosing to perceive as ambivalence, yes, it could very well be rape. The odds of her letting you kiss her at the end of the evening just to be polite are higher than you might guess, and the odds of her not knowing how to put up a fight or being afraid to seem rude, skyrocket if she's ever been previously raped or abused. It's simple self-preservation; "this one seems pushy, better to just let him do it than get the shit beat out of me again".
Pushing the blame for this onto the woman is bullshit, simply because the reason this happens in the first place is because of the power imbalance. If men were, categorically speaking, afraid that women would physically hurt them, reluctant men might more often succumb to sex with a pushy woman, and that, too, would be rape.
The bottom line; if she's not on board, back off. You can court her until she is on board, but pushing her boundaries and ignoring her protests is not unlikely to result in rape, whether you think it is or not.
The amazing thing is how many of these guys don't understand why a woman they had sex with, or made out with, won't return their phone calls. They just don't hear "no".
I feel the need to post a link to an article called Schrodinger's Rapist, to back up Nigel's personal assertions here.
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
When a guy is pushy or playing up being a playa or something, I get MASSIVE alarm bells. I don't like it when people don't respect my personal space if I don't know them very well, and it triggers a state of hypervigilance in me. Ideally someone would be at an arms length distance from me in a courtship/ testing the waters of my receptiveness to intimate physical contact situation, or I'll get hella uncomfortable. The other week I was in London with my best mate, staying with Baggage's (Baggage is what I call my best friend.) friend Viv and Viv's BF, it's the wee small hours and I'm having a beer and a chat, and some guys come over after their night out to see Viv's BF Tony.
One of them is incredibly full on and zones in on me and is as subtle as a half brick to the face. This is on a night where I've already growled at a drunk for touching my ass, and I'm finally where I'm going to crash and am relaxed. I was until this guy sits next to me and takes up as much space as he can, so much so I get my legs drawn up to my chest and am displaying very guarded body language. I am unsure as to whether I should tell the guy, "dude, personal space, yo, please recognise!" as this is a new place, with only one person I know really well, for fear of being told I'm overreacting or coming across as a bitch. (gender roles and social conditioning, anyone?) His friends look uncomfortable with the situation yet he totally doesn't notice. His friends want to leave soon after this, and he asks me for a hug. I say no, as a way of seeing if he will respect my boundaries, and he protests a little, but ultimately backs off. He asks the same of Baggage, and she says "ok" but then he asks for a kiss and by this point, she's looking uncomfortable and pushes past/ is oblivious to her resistance when she doesn't say no. If I was single, this guy wouldn't even get my phone number, or in a bar type situation I wouldn't accept a drink from him. The guy was no PUA, there was no negging or stuff, just too damned pushy. Pushy makes my vulva want to retreat up into my vagina and into my uterus and post a large "NO ENTRY" sign on the outside of my underwear. All it takes for me to be hyper vigilant around a person is one display of not recognising or disregarding boundaries.
ALSO GUYS, HOLY SHITCOCKING CHRIST! I WENT FOR FOOD, CAME BACK AND FINISHED THIS ONE POST AND 26 NEW POSTS!
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.
I think this is the core of the matter.
If a person has a dogma and a belief that is unchangeable I respect it as a solid boundary. I deal with them accordingly, in most cases this means not at all. e.g. a religious person and i respect their choice. I leave it be. This applies to all people i interact with.
On the other hand, I regard people's boundaries the same way i regard ideas. They can be challenged and criticized.
I feel that if i can show a person that their belief is wrong or unfounded, maybe they can do the thing that Roger gives you so much credit for: Admitting they are wrong. They don't have to admit it to me, only to themselves, if they are capable. I
don't force people to see. When talking to women I give them hints and suggestions to indicate that their idea is wrong, and i respect them enough to let them come to their own conclusion. In other words, i plant the seed of doubt. I plant the seed of doubt in them regarding their boundaries and/or objections. If they come to realize that their boundaries aren't necessary OR aren't necessary with me, great. Otherwise, I move on.
I'm still trying to communicate here. I think this paints a pretty good general picture.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.
I think this is the core of the matter.
If a person has a dogma and a belief that is unchangeable I respect it as a solid boundary. I deal with them accordingly, in most cases this means not at all. e.g. a religious person and i respect their choice. I leave it be. This applies to all people i interact with.
On the other hand, I regard people's boundaries the same way i regard ideas. They can be challenged and criticized.
I feel that if i can show a person that their belief is wrong or unfounded, maybe they can do the thing that Roger gives you so much credit for: Admitting they are wrong. They don't have to admit it to me, only to themselves, if they are capable. I don't force people to see. When talking to women I give them hints and suggestions to indicate that their idea is wrong, and i respect them enough to let them come to their own conclusion. In other words, i plant the seed of doubt. I plant the seed of doubt in them regarding their boundaries and/or objections. If they come to realize that their boundaries aren't necessary OR aren't necessary with me, great. Otherwise, I move on.
I'm still trying to communicate here. I think this paints a pretty good general picture.
Your way of talking about boundaries creeps me out, dude. Culturally and generally speaking, the way women are conditioned to behave, (being nice, polite, people pleasing and non-confrontational) means that we have a massive minefield to negotiate in certain social situations, especially if we are trying to recognise where we have failed to implement them in the past to our personal detriment. A lot of guys I have met are totally unaware of this, and sadly, you seem to be one of them.
Fuck you, BF. Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them. Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
Quite frankly, I'm concerned for the safety of any female and/or woman in your vicinity.
Quote from: Pixie on August 04, 2012, 10:28:17 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.
I think this is the core of the matter.
If a person has a dogma and a belief that is unchangeable I respect it as a solid boundary. I deal with them accordingly, in most cases this means not at all. e.g. a religious person and i respect their choice. I leave it be. This applies to all people i interact with.
On the other hand, I regard people's boundaries the same way i regard ideas. They can be challenged and criticized.
I feel that if i can show a person that their belief is wrong or unfounded, maybe they can do the thing that Roger gives you so much credit for: Admitting they are wrong. They don't have to admit it to me, only to themselves, if they are capable. I don't force people to see. When talking to women I give them hints and suggestions to indicate that their idea is wrong, and i respect them enough to let them come to their own conclusion. In other words, i plant the seed of doubt. I plant the seed of doubt in them regarding their boundaries and/or objections. If they come to realize that their boundaries aren't necessary OR aren't necessary with me, great. Otherwise, I move on.
I'm still trying to communicate here. I think this paints a pretty good general picture.
Your way of talking about boundaries creeps me out, dude. Culturally and generally speaking, the way women are conditioned to behave, (being nice, polite, people pleasing and non-confrontational) means that we have a massive minefield to negotiate in certain social situations, especially if we are trying to recognise where we have failed to implement them in the past to our personal detriment. A lot of guys I have met are totally unaware of this, and sadly, you seem to be one of them.
I understand how it can make people uncomfortable, but not exactly how it is creepy.
Regarding social pressure, I am acutely aware of this. I do sometimes highlight the system as backwards and stupid to preempt this, if i have gathered that a person is feeling uncomfortable with a social situation or with social situations in general. If the pressure is already very real for them, i do not push whatsoever. I do not want to be someone's regret. I'd liken it to the business man who pushes an envelope forward on the table while remaining silent. The person considers it and makes their decision and I continue with whatever path is appropriate.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.
I think this is the core of the matter.
If a person has a dogma and a belief that is unchangeable I respect it as a solid boundary. I deal with them accordingly, in most cases this means not at all. e.g. a religious person and i respect their choice. I leave it be. This applies to all people i interact with.
On the other hand, I regard people's boundaries the same way i regard ideas. They can be challenged and criticized.
I feel that if i can show a person that their belief is wrong or unfounded, maybe they can do the thing that Roger gives you so much credit for: Admitting they are wrong. They don't have to admit it to me, only to themselves, if they are capable. I don't force people to see. When talking to women I give them hints and suggestions to indicate that their idea is wrong, and i respect them enough to let them come to their own conclusion. In other words, i plant the seed of doubt. I plant the seed of doubt in them regarding their boundaries and/or objections. If they come to realize that their boundaries aren't necessary OR aren't necessary with me, great. Otherwise, I move on.
I'm still trying to communicate here. I think this paints a pretty good general picture.
In other words, you are a manipulative scumbag who doesn't respect women at all.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
Fuck you, BF. Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them.
Do you need all the boundaries you have set up? How many of them come from an unjustified fear and you don't even realize it? Do you fear strangers or do you have a healthy respect for how dangerous human beings can be? There is a difference.
Quote
Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
Your boundaries are as sacred to me as your ideas. Some are firmly rooted in your knowledge and experience and can not/need not be challenged, others not as much. This is something you we will probably disagree on, but if you can explain it to me in another way i'm more than willing to listen.
Quote
Quite frankly, I'm concerned for the safety of any female and/or woman in your vicinity.
Quite frankly you should be concerned for the safety of all human beings in my vicinity especially my enemies, but it's pretty hard to make me an enemy of me. I found out THIS morning that a friend of mine has been GANG RAPED. What do you think i feel about this situation? Say some fucked up shit. Crack a fucking joke like you think i don't give a shit and you'll have not made yourself an enemy, but permanently written yourself off at the least. What did her boyfriend say? He said that she was ruined and no longer desirable. Imagine how you feel about that. The only person in this world who feels worse is the victim. A dear friend of mine.
Your description of women's boundaries being an "idea" and their "idea" being "wrong" is laughable, pathetic, and repulsive all at once.
If you have to convince someone they're wrong about you in order to get laid, you're starting square one as a retarded piece of shit. "I convinced her she was wrong, so she had sex with me"
Ooooh, now there's an ego-boosting encounter for you. :roll: Betcha feel pretty great about that. I know that whenever I convince someone they were wrong and that they should sleep with me after all, I feel really validated and desirable.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
Fuck you, BF. Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them. Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
Quite frankly, I'm concerned for the safety of any female and/or woman in your vicinity.
CRITICISING OR ATTEMPTING TO MAKE SOMEONE DOUBT THEMSELVES WHEN TRYING TO ENFORCE THEIR BOUNDARIES IS A DOUCHEBAG MOVE. end of fucking story. You could ask them why they are uncomfortable, sure, that's not douchey most of the time. Blackfoot may THINK that their fears are unfounded, BUT he's failing to get how rape culture is formed.
I have a feeling that the Schrodinger's Rapist link I posted further up in the thread got totally bypassed, and this pisses me off, as I think this would be a useful tool for Blackfoot.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:57:08 PM
In other words, you are a manipulative scumbag who doesn't respect women at all.
Yea. That's the best way for people learn things. When they come to realize it themselves. I respect
people enough to let them make their own decision about
me after i present
my case. I allow others the courtesy to present themselves and their ideas before i make a decision about them.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:00:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
Fuck you, BF. Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them.
Do you need all the boundaries you have set up? How many of them come from an unjustified fear and you don't even realize it? Do you fear strangers or do you have a healthy respect for how dangerous human beings can be? There is a difference.
Quote
Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
Your boundaries are as sacred to me as your ideas. Some are firmly rooted in your knowledge and experience and can not/need not be challenged, others not as much. This is something you we will probably disagree on, but if you can explain it to me in another way i'm more than willing to listen.
The thing that disturbs me is that you have no idea how paternalistic, condescending, disrespectful, and fucked-up you sound right now. Do you know who thinks they know better than women, about what women really want and what's good for them? Misogynists.
Boundaries change as people grow, but one thing that is NOT the route to growth is having them challenged by some horny asshole at a club. I am not convinced you even know what boundaries are, psychologically and behaviorally speaking.
Quote
Quote
Quite frankly, I'm concerned for the safety of any female and/or woman in your vicinity.
Quite frankly you should be concerned for the safety of all human beings in my vicinity especially my enemies, but it's pretty hard to make me an enemy of me. I found out THIS morning that a friend of mine has been GANG RAPED. What do you think i feel about this situation? Say some fucked up shit. Crack a fucking joke like you think i don't give a shit and you'll have not made yourself an enemy, but permanently written yourself off at the least. What did her boyfriend say? He said that she was ruined and no longer desirable. Imagine how you feel about that. The only person in this world who feels worse is the victim. A dear friend of mine.
Annnd a non-sequitur story that's both designed to show us what a tough guy he is, AND how he's a White Knight Hero of Women.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:04:47 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:57:08 PM
In other words, you are a manipulative scumbag who doesn't respect women at all.
Yea. That's the best way for people learn things. When they come to realize it themselves. I respect people enough to let them make their own decision about me after i present my case. I allow others the courtesy to present themselves and their ideas before i make a decision about them.
Quote from: Pixie on August 04, 2012, 11:02:27 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
Fuck you, BF. Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them. Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
Quite frankly, I'm concerned for the safety of any female and/or woman in your vicinity.
CRITICISING OR ATTEMPTING TO MAKE SOMEONE DOUBT THEMSELVES WHEN TRYING TO ENFORCE THEIR BOUNDARIES IS A DOUCHEBAG MOVE. end of fucking story. You could ask them why they are uncomfortable, sure, that's not douchey most of the time. Blackfoot may THINK that their fears are unfounded, BUT he's failing to get how rape culture is formed.
I have a feeling that the Schrodinger's Rapist link I posted further up in the thread got totally bypassed, and this pisses me off, as I think this would be a useful tool for Blackfoot.
Maybe I should post the link again, for yuks.
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:04:47 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 10:57:08 PM
In other words, you are a manipulative scumbag who doesn't respect women at all.
Yea. That's the best way for people learn things. When they come to realize it themselves. I respect people enough to let them make their own decision about me after i present my case. I allow others the courtesy to present themselves and their ideas before i make a decision about them.
If you are "presenting a case" for why a woman should sleep with you, you are pathetic. :lol:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:01:13 PM
Your description of women's boundaries being an "idea" and their "idea" being "wrong" is laughable, pathetic, and repulsive all at once.
People's boundaries. and why?
Quote
If you have to convince someone they're wrong about you in order to get laid, you're starting square one as a retarded piece of shit. "I convinced her she was wrong, so she had sex with me"
I put myself out there and people take it or leave it. It can only bother me so much when they don't.
Quote
Ooooh, now there's an ego-boosting encounter for you. :roll: Betcha feel pretty great about that. I know that whenever I convince someone they were wrong and that they should sleep with me after all, I feel really validated and desirable.
I think this was discussed in a previous post.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:13:00 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:01:13 PM
Your description of women's boundaries being an "idea" and their "idea" being "wrong" is laughable, pathetic, and repulsive all at once.
People's boundaries. and why?
Quote
If you have to convince someone they're wrong about you in order to get laid, you're starting square one as a retarded piece of shit. "I convinced her she was wrong, so she had sex with me"
I put myself out there and people take it or leave it. It can only bother me so much when they don't.
Quote
Ooooh, now there's an ego-boosting encounter for you. :roll: Betcha feel pretty great about that. I know that whenever I convince someone they were wrong and that they should sleep with me after all, I feel really validated and desirable.
I think this was discussed in a previous post.
Because apparently you are the Great and Wise Blackfoot, and you know better than other people what's good for them, and what they
really want. :lulz:
Drunk club girls, at least.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:09:36 PM
If you are "presenting a case" for why a woman should sleep with you, you are pathetic. :lol:
If you are conscious of how you behave around others then you also "present" yourself in a certain manner whether you like to believe that you "just be yourself" or not. People don't get a different me when they speak to me, they get my reaction to them in that environment. That's it.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
Because apparently you are the Great and Wise Blackfoot, and you know better than other people what's good for them, and what they really want. :lulz:
Drunk club girls, at least.
I know what i can offer better than they can and that's all i do, offer me and a good time.
Pixie, I almost copy-pasta'd part of that article for BF, specifically the fourth rule in the guide. So yeah, BF, go fucking read that article.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:00:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
Fuck you, BF. Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them.
Do you need all the boundaries you have set up? How many of them come from an unjustified fear and you don't even realize it? Do you fear strangers or do you have a healthy respect for how dangerous human beings can be? There is a difference.
Sure do, since most of my boundaries consist of what I will and will not tolerate from other human beings and it is NOT for you to determine what boundaries I need or why I have them. I'm appalled that you think you have the right to make me question my boundaries.
Strange women/females? No, I'm not afraid or wary of them automatically. But I am automatically wary of men until I get to know them because I
have to be. (and TBH, it would probably be wiser to be a little wary of even men I know until I know I can 100% trust them to respect my boundaries, since most victims know their attacker)
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:00:05 PM
Quote
Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
Your boundaries are as sacred to me as your ideas. Some are firmly rooted in your knowledge and experience and can not/need not be challenged, others not as much. This is something you we will probably disagree on, but if you can explain it to me in another way i'm more than willing to listen.
Boundaries are not at all like ideas. Boundaries are what you are comfortable with, what is and isn't okay to do to your person. Pushing boundaries will make people uncomfortable and afraid in ways that are not at all like the discomfort and fear people experience when their thoughts are challenged.
When you try to "plant a seed of doubt" in a person who has boundaries that are inconvenient for you, you are basically telling them they have no right to their person and to their feelings.
Which, fuck you, they do.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:00:05 PM
Quote
Quite frankly, I'm concerned for the safety of any female and/or woman in your vicinity.
Quite frankly you should be concerned for the safety of all human beings in my vicinity especially my enemies, but it's pretty hard to make me an enemy of me. I found out THIS morning that a friend of mine has been GANG RAPED. What do you think i feel about this situation? Say some fucked up shit. Crack a fucking joke like you think i don't give a shit and you'll have not made yourself an enemy, but permanently written yourself off at the least. What did her boyfriend say? He said that she was ruined and no longer desirable. Imagine how you feel about that. The only person in this world who feels worse is the victim. A dear friend of mine.
ALL ABOARD THE DERAIL.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:06:43 PM
Do you know who thinks they know better than women, about what women really want and what's good for them? Misogynists.
I know better than anyone about who I AM. All i do is show them that and that they have nothing to worry about. That's not misogynist.
Just to reiterate:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them. Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY.
Quote from: Pixie on August 04, 2012, 11:02:27 PM
CRITICISING OR ATTEMPTING TO MAKE SOMEONE DOUBT THEMSELVES WHEN TRYING TO ENFORCE THEIR BOUNDARIES IS A DOUCHEBAG MOVE.
Not only is it not OK, not only is it a douchebag move, but in psychology it's a classic red flag for identifying a person with a high likelihood of being emotionally or physically abusive. It particularly tends to show up in conjunction with certain personality disorders.
Blackfoot can rationalize it all he wants, but it is what it is, regardless of what he wishes he could call it.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:23:38 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:06:43 PM
Do you know who thinks they know better than women, about what women really want and what's good for them? Misogynists.
I know better than anyone about who I AM. All i do is show them that and that they have nothing to worry about. That's not misogynist.
Showing people who you are is different from pushing their boundaries or overcoming their objections. That's called "getting to know each other".
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:16:13 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:09:36 PM
If you are "presenting a case" for why a woman should sleep with you, you are pathetic. :lol:
If you are conscious of how you behave around others then you also "present" yourself in a certain manner whether you like to believe that you "just be yourself" or not. People don't get a different me when they speak to me, they get my reaction to them in that environment. That's it.
You're backpedaling again. What does this have to do with pushing people's boundaries or overcoming their objections? Can you stay on task?
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:18:42 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
Because apparently you are the Great and Wise Blackfoot, and you know better than other people what's good for them, and what they really want. :lulz:
Drunk club girls, at least.
I know what i can offer better than they can and that's all i do, offer me and a good time.
What does this have to do with pushing boundaries and overcoming objections? Can you stay on task?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 11:23:24 PM
Strange women/females? No, I'm not afraid or wary of them automatically. But I am automatically wary of men until I get to know them because I have to be. (and TBH, it would probably be wiser to be a little wary of even men I know until I know I can 100% trust them to respect my boundaries, since most victims know their attacker)
That's smart.
Quote
Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
I am very interested in learning why people believe the things we do.
Quote
Boundaries are not at all like ideas. Boundaries are what you are comfortable with, what is and isn't okay to do to your person. Pushing boundaries will make people uncomfortable and afraid in ways that are not at all like the discomfort and fear people experience when their thoughts are challenged.
I disagree. Boundaries are created BY the ideas you hold. Take for instance other cultures and the beliefs that form the "boundaries" of what they find to be decent or indecent and what they find themselves
comfortable with, like in the middle east a lot of men aren't comfortable with women having certain rights or freedoms. These are informed by the ideas they have about various subjects. That doesn't mean that the ideas themselves aren't fundamentally shitty ideas, like... Muslims ideas(reasons) about why women should live the way they do over there.
Quote
When you try to "plant a seed of doubt" in a person who has boundaries that are inconvenient for you, you are basically telling them they have no right to their person and to their feelings.
Which, fuck you, they do.
The ideas
happen to be inconvenient for me. I also disagree with them. For example, I will not hurt you unless i am defending myself. This is completely counter to your idea that I'm dangerous to you.
Quote
Sure do, since most of my boundaries consist of what I will and will not tolerate from other human beings and it is NOT for you to determine what boundaries I need or why I have them. I'm appalled that you think you have the right to make me question my boundaries.
You are essentially appalled that i disagree with your ideas at this point and the fact that a person has challenged
what forms your ideas.
BLACKFOOT, READ THE FUCKING LINK ALREADY!
Fuck.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:38:37 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 11:23:24 PM
Strange women/females? No, I'm not afraid or wary of them automatically. But I am automatically wary of men until I get to know them because I have to be. (and TBH, it would probably be wiser to be a little wary of even men I know until I know I can 100% trust them to respect my boundaries, since most victims know their attacker)
That's smart.
Quote
Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
I am very interested in learning why people believe the things we do.
Quote
Boundaries are not at all like ideas. Boundaries are what you are comfortable with, what is and isn't okay to do to your person. Pushing boundaries will make people uncomfortable and afraid in ways that are not at all like the discomfort and fear people experience when their thoughts are challenged.
I disagree. Boundaries are created BY the ideas you hold. Take for instance other cultures and the beliefs that form the "boundaries" of what they find to be decent or indecent and what they find themselves comfortable with, like in the middle east a lot of men aren't comfortable with women having certain rights or freedoms. These are informed by the ideas they have about various subjects. That doesn't mean that the ideas themselves aren't fundamentally shitty ideas, like... Muslims ideas(reasons) about why women should live the way they do over there.
You don't have any idea what boundaries actually are. Personal boundaries are about what you are comfortable having done to yourself, not what you are comfortable with other people doing when it doesn't involve you personally. Those are totally different things.
Quote
Quote
When you try to "plant a seed of doubt" in a person who has boundaries that are inconvenient for you, you are basically telling them they have no right to their person and to their feelings.
Which, fuck you, they do.
The ideas happen to be inconvenient for me. I also disagree with them. For example, I will not hurt you unless i am defending myself. This is completely counter to your idea that I'm dangerous to you.
You seem to be completely missing the point that it doesn't matter.
You don't fucking matter in the slightest, nor does your convenience, when it comes to what I do and do not want to do with my body. You are irrelevant.
Quote
Quote
Sure do, since most of my boundaries consist of what I will and will not tolerate from other human beings and it is NOT for you to determine what boundaries I need or why I have them. I'm appalled that you think you have the right to make me question my boundaries.
You are essentially appalled that i disagree with your ideas at this point and the fact that a person has challenged what forms your ideas.
I'm pretty sure we have a sociopath here.
(http://i1169.photobucket.com/albums/r512/shutterbird13/Facepalm/photo-2438.gif)
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:38:37 PM
I disagree. Boundaries are created BY the ideas you hold. Take for instance other cultures and the beliefs that form the "boundaries" of what they find to be decent or indecent and what they find themselves comfortable with, like in the middle east a lot of men aren't comfortable with women having certain rights or freedoms. These are informed by the ideas they have about various subjects. That doesn't mean that the ideas themselves aren't fundamentally shitty ideas, like... Muslims ideas(reasons) about why women should live the way they do over there.
(http://i1169.photobucket.com/albums/r512/shutterbird13/Facepalm/photo-2438.gif)
No. No. No. Boundaries have to do with feeling safe, you utter fucking retard.
QuoteQuote
When you try to "plant a seed of doubt" in a person who has boundaries that are inconvenient for you, you are basically telling them they have no right to their person and to their feelings.
Which, fuck you, they do.
The ideas happen to be inconvenient for me. I also disagree with them. For example, I will not hurt you unless i am defending myself. This is completely counter to your idea that I'm dangerous to you.
(http://i1169.photobucket.com/albums/r512/shutterbird13/Facepalm/photo-2438.gif)
You would question and try to undermine my boundaries for your own convenience. That does, in fact, make you dangerous to me and to others. Danger does not have to be explicitly violent.
Quote
Quote
Sure do, since most of my boundaries consist of what I will and will not tolerate from other human beings and it is NOT for you to determine what boundaries I need or why I have them. I'm appalled that you think you have the right to make me question my boundaries.
You are essentially appalled that i disagree with your ideas at this point and the fact that a person has challenged what forms your ideas.
(http://i1169.photobucket.com/albums/r512/shutterbird13/Facepalm/photo-2438.gif)
No. You think you have the right to determine what another person's boundaries are, which is what I find appalling.
Quote from: Pixie on August 04, 2012, 11:42:56 PM
BLACKFOOT, READ THE FUCKING LINK ALREADY!
Fuck.
This. I'm done responding to you until you demonstrate that you have, in fact, read the article.
Sociopath, or possibly NPD.
He believes he has the right to challenge or undermine women's personal boundaries in the case that their not wanting to sleep with him is inconvenient. :vom:
I'm glad I don't know this asshat IRL. I'd go to desperate lengths to get him out of my social circle if I did, after this conversation.
And of course, Garbo, don't forget that the only reason you're appalled is because "a person has challenged what forms your ideas". :lol:
Not because undermining and challenging people's personal boundaries is red-flag antisocial behavior. Particularly when a man does it to women in the context of trying to wheedle them into sex.
Of course! How could I forget? I'm just a silly female who should question what does and does not make me feel unsafe when it suits men!
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32930.msg1196040.html#msg1196040
I'm not sure if Blackfoot read this, so I'm posting the link to to the part of the thread.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 12:07:31 AM
Of course! How could I forget? I'm just a silly female who should question what does and does not make me feel unsafe when it suits men!
Your feeling that strange men hitting on you in clubs might be dangerous is
inconvenient for him, Garbo! So clearly, he ought to try to make you question it, because your silly idea is wrong and he's right, and that way you can grow and learn.
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 12:10:19 AM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32930.msg1196040.html#msg1196040
I'm not sure if Blackfoot read this, so I'm posting the link to to the part of the thread.
He's not going to read it, Pixie. He's not open to information that might conflict with the behavior and techniques he has already concluded are acceptable.
Oh thank you, Wise Blackfoot! Your guidance is key to my personal growth! Without your help, I'm sure I'd feel safe in the company of men most of the time because I can trust what I feel and enforce accordingly! We can't have that, amirite? Much better for me to be an android without boundaries for masculine pleasure than a person!
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 12:13:36 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 12:10:19 AM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32930.msg1196040.html#msg1196040
I'm not sure if Blackfoot read this, so I'm posting the link to to the part of the thread.
He's not going to read it, Pixie. He's not open to information that might conflict with the behavior and techniques he has already concluded are acceptable.
^^ This. The best that can be hoped for is skimming if you paste the text here. :/
That article plus the last few pages of what Nigel, pixie, Garbo, etc all have said ought to be required reading for everybody.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.
I think this is the core of the matter.
If a person has a dogma and a belief that is unchangeable I respect it as a solid boundary. I deal with them accordingly, in most cases this means not at all. e.g. a religious person and i respect their choice. I leave it be. This applies to all people i interact with.
On the other hand, I regard people's boundaries the same way i regard ideas. They can be challenged and criticized.
I feel that if i can show a person that their belief is wrong or unfounded, maybe they can do the thing that Roger gives you so much credit for: Admitting they are wrong. They don't have to admit it to me, only to themselves, if they are capable. I don't force people to see. When talking to women I give them hints and suggestions to indicate that their idea is wrong, and i respect them enough to let them come to their own conclusion. In other words, i plant the seed of doubt. I plant the seed of doubt in them regarding their boundaries and/or objections. If they come to realize that their boundaries aren't necessary OR aren't necessary with me, great. Otherwise, I move on.
I'm still trying to communicate here. I think this paints a pretty good general picture.
Challenge my boundaries and see what happens.
Usually involves my dogs, flying chairs, or the cops. Whatever's handy.
I'd just like to remind everyone one more time that this conversation is being held with a person who formerly called themselves "Pope Lecherous".
:lulz: I missed that the first time around. Oh man.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:00:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
Fuck you, BF. Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them.
Do you need all the boundaries you have set up? How many of them come from an unjustified fear and you don't even realize it? Do you fear strangers or do you have a healthy respect for how dangerous human beings can be? There is a difference.
LOOK, DICKWEED.
Nobody here is SCARED of you and your ilk. The point is that WE DON'T LIKE YOU. WOMEN ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO THIS GARBAGE. WE DON'T WANT YOU AND ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO WASTE PERFECTLY GOOD MINUTES OUT OF OUR LIVES LETTING YOU CLIMB ALL OVER US POKING YOUR LITTLE PEEPEE.
"BOUNDARY" = "I DON'T WANT YOU. FUCK OFF."
QuoteQuote
Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY. You may think they're unnecessary, but you're a man and a stranger; you don't know why they exist and have demonstrated zero interest in learning why.
So fuck off.
Your boundaries are as sacred to me as your ideas. Some are firmly rooted in your knowledge and experience and can not/need not be challenged, others not as much. This is something you we will probably disagree on, but if you can explain it to me in another way i'm more than willing to listen.
Quote
Quite frankly, I'm concerned for the safety of any female and/or woman in your vicinity.
Quite frankly you should be concerned for the safety of all human beings in my vicinity especially my enemies, but it's pretty hard to make me an enemy of me. I found out THIS morning that a friend of mine has been GANG RAPED. What do you think i feel about this situation? Say some fucked up shit. Crack a fucking joke like you think i don't give a shit and you'll have not made yourself an enemy, but permanently written yourself off at the least. What did her boyfriend say? He said that she was ruined and no longer desirable. Imagine how you feel about that. The only person in this world who feels worse is the victim. A dear friend of mine.
"One of my best friends is (black/gay/a victim of gang rape)" :x :x :x
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 12:30:17 AM
That article plus the last few pages of what Nigel, pixie, Garbo, etc all have said ought to be required reading for everybody.
Thanks, Freeky!
It's kind of infuriating, as Thursday before I left for the day out I had Friday, the thread was shaping up quite well, and the PUA part and how that ties into sexist behaviours and attitudes as well as rape culture was pretty well handled by the participants. Then Blackfoot started kneejerking and equivocating like a motherfucker, redefining terms and generally being a bit of a weaselly little scrote.
Garbo underlined what she, me and Nigel were using as boundaries and what we look for in a red flag for potential abusive behaviour, and he moved the meaning round so many times it became infuriating.
So, I'm going to lay it out there, one time only. If a guy we go home with commits a sexual assault on us, it's going to be a difficult. We may be accused of lying, leading someone on, and a myriad blanket of other slut-shaming or victim blaming bullshit. WE MAY EVEN SECOND GUESS OURSELVES to the point our boundaries have become so completely blurred and shot that it's impossible to know which way is up, leading to more personal head fuckery later down the line.
If we are concious, and aware of our boundaries and what constitutes a red flag, and someone pushes past them, however small, and we decide that we no longer want to interact with them, we may be missing out on interacting with someone who is awkward or clueless socially but ultimately harmless, or it could go in the opposite direction and the guy could equally be signalling that he's an asshole that doesn't give a flying crap about our safety or our well being.
To avoid the latter, we also push away the former, because the world at large will blame US if we get assaulted, not the perp.
The fact that Blackfoot has identified as a feminist makes me angry, as he doesn't seem to have done any of the
basic required reading that I have done, and I've only been identifying as a feminist for about 5 months. The fact I am out of work and have a hell of a lot of time on my hands to do research may have accelerated my progress some, but seriously, dude, seriously, off to Feminism 101 for you.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:26:56 PM
Just to reiterate:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 04, 2012, 10:40:59 PM
Boundaries exist because, as humans, we need them. Challenging/criticizing/trying to make me or any other female doubt our boundaries is NOT OKAY.
Quote from: Pixie on August 04, 2012, 11:02:27 PM
CRITICISING OR ATTEMPTING TO MAKE SOMEONE DOUBT THEMSELVES WHEN TRYING TO ENFORCE THEIR BOUNDARIES IS A DOUCHEBAG MOVE.
Not only is it not OK, not only is it a douchebag move, but in psychology it's a classic red flag for identifying a person with a high likelihood of being emotionally or physically abusive. It particularly tends to show up in conjunction with certain personality disorders.
/
Blackfoot can rationalize it all he wants, but it is what it is, regardless of what he wishes he could call it.
Not wanting to fuck somebody doesn't mean I won't hang out and talk. I mean, I would hope that sex isn't the only way people can be entertained by me.
Once ANY kind of boundary-pushing takes place, though, I'm DONE. Because, as you say, it's the prime indicator of an abuser, control freak, and/or narcissist. No more conversation, I'm warning all the other women I know, and don't come knocking on my door or I'll get the cops.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 12:13:36 AM
He's not going to read it, Pixie. He's not open to information that might conflict with the behavior and techniques he has already concluded are acceptable.
I have read the article. I keep all of this in mind when i approach people. Part of getting to know people is determining how safe they are.
Quote
When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%
^^Obviously true statement. What does this mean to me? It means that i get to know people and make them feel comfortable with me. This is where the discussion about boundaries comes into play. When you meet someone you set up impromptu barriers or have a set of barriers already in place for strangers. Obviously you have different boundaries for strangers than you do close acquaintances or lovers. People sometimes need time to feel safe on their own, you can also show them. This is the equivalent being wary of petting some random dog you've never encountered. A dog standing there, or a dog nuzzling your leg... if you choose to pet the latter and he bites you. I guess you made a poor judgement and you will have paid for it. Showing you are not scary is person or dangerous is easy. It doesn't happen when you act like the guys the author cited. This is THE primary barrier between living creatures. There's nothing wrong with defeating this by demonstrating you are not a threat. I always afford the person the opportunity to see that i am not a danger and likewise
I don't want to be bit by someone who feels like they have been backed into a corner.
Quote
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you're sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone.
A distinction has to be made here. Do you speak to someone who's on the phone or "otherwise" occupied? I don't. Do you engage people socially in a social situation such as a party, club, or dinner party? The typical expectation in this environment is that someone may attempt to engage you socially, unlike her subway example where the environment causes people to become vigilant or hyper-vigilant AND there is no reasonable expectation to be engaged socially. In a lonely subway car I
may let someone know that they've dropped something, but otherwise I wouldn't try to "pick someone up" in an environment like this. It's nonsensical to assume somebody would unless they have no grasp at all of others' feelings and their environment. Besides, in a subway i'm too focused on potential threats to be trying to bed someone. In a club my mindset is different as would be a female's, but danger is ever present and i'm aware of this. A girl (or man) can run off screaming if you try to approach them in a club, but i think even you guys can admit that's not a normal reaction.
Quote
If you pursue a conversation when she's tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone.
^^This is the very next sentence following the previous quote. It is at
this point her statement becomes 100% true, at least for me.
The rest of the article is gold. No man could be successful with any PERSON much less a woman if he were unable to realize this unless, you know... he's a rapist. The author has already conceded that i'm not. I wish you'd afford me this same courtesy, but i do realize that all men are, after all Schrödinger's Rapist.
During my last OKC hopefulness, I exchanged numbers with this guy. It was also during the time I was taking sleeping pills that made me sleep text.
One night, he texted me after I had taken those pills, and I talked fir a while, but explained I had to stop talking because my meds made me sleep text, and normally I would talk anyway but I had to take an obscene amount just to get to sleep, and I would end up coming off like a psycho douche bitch, and his response was "it's your call your the one who overmedicated :)".
I stopped replying after that, ever.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 12:32:27 AM
Challenge my boundaries and see what happens.
Usually involves my dogs, flying chairs, or the cops. Whatever's handy.
I wouldn't go
directly for your boundaries. I'd get a great idea of what they are just by talking to you. I'd probably challenge those ideas to get a better map of what ideas you believe AND what values you hold/prize. By this point if i haven't disqualified you as a friend, i'd see if you hold the kind of values that would make an ideal sexual partner. If you haven't disqualified yourself thus far AND i think you're attractive AND the mood's right i just might make a move on you. Or maybe not.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:02:57 AM
This is the equivalent being wary of petting some random dog you've never encountered.
What was that Nigel said earlier in the thread about PUA books getting their info from dog training manuals? :horrormirth:
HEH HEH...AH'M JES' PETTIN YEW ON THE ARM...YEW DON'T MIND, DO YEW? HEH HEH
/
:redneck2:
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:12:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 12:32:27 AM
Challenge my boundaries and see what happens.
Usually involves my dogs, flying chairs, or the cops. Whatever's handy.
I wouldn't go directly for your boundaries. I'd get a great idea of what they are just by talking to you. I'd probably challenge those ideas to get a better map of what ideas you believe AND what values you hold/prize. By this point if i haven't disqualified you as a friend, i'd see if you hold the kind of values that would make an ideal sexual partner. If you haven't disqualified yourself thus far AND i think you're attractive AND the mood's right i just might make a move on you. Or maybe not.
:troll:
I just wanted to thank you ladies for this thread. Reading it has validated the feeling I've had about a certain event during my teen years.
It's also nice to know that I'm not really all that odd because I take some time before I feel comfortable with people. Seems my intuition might actually work after all.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 01:11:56 AM
"it's your call your the one who overmedicated :)".
I stopped replying after that, ever.
This guy sounds like he was acknowledging that it's best to defer to your judgment and/or preference in the form of a joke. Did he have a pissy tone when he said that? Did he actually put a smiley face there? Kind of sounds like a joke to me. Of course you would know better than i do and even if it was a joke and made you feel uncomfortable it's your prerogative to terminate the conversation.
Did he have a reason to believe that the idea of "just talking" to someone overly medicated is something that triggers something unpleasant in you? Something you maybe confided to him prior? Or was the tone of his texts already sexual and the combination (not unreasonably) freaked you out?
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 01:16:15 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:12:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 12:32:27 AM
Challenge my boundaries and see what happens.
Usually involves my dogs, flying chairs, or the cops. Whatever's handy.
I wouldn't go directly for your boundaries. I'd get a great idea of what they are just by talking to you. I'd probably challenge those ideas to get a better map of what ideas you believe AND what values you hold/prize. By this point if i haven't disqualified you as a friend, i'd see if you hold the kind of values that would make an ideal sexual partner. If you haven't disqualified yourself thus far AND i think you're attractive AND the mood's right i just might make a move on you. Or maybe not.
:troll:
:troll: or
(http://www.benettonplay.com/toys/flipbookdeluxe/flipbooks_gif/2009/09/17/237864.gif)
That's a beautiful gif, Texas. :lulz:
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:02:57 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 12:13:36 AM
He's not going to read it, Pixie. He's not open to information that might conflict with the behavior and techniques he has already concluded are acceptable.
I have read the article. I keep all of this in mind when i approach people. Part of getting to know people is determining how safe they are.
Quote
When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%
^^Obviously true statement. What does this mean to me? It means that i get to know people and make them feel comfortable with me. This is where the discussion about boundaries comes into play. When you meet someone you set up impromptu barriers or have a set of barriers already in place for strangers. Obviously you have different boundaries for strangers than you do close acquaintances or lovers. People sometimes need time to feel safe on their own, you can also show them. This is the equivalent being wary of petting some random dog you've never encountered. A dog standing there, or a dog nuzzling your leg... if you choose to pet the latter and he bites you. I guess you made a poor judgement and you will have paid for it. Showing you are not scary is person or dangerous is easy. It doesn't happen when you act like the guys the author cited. This is THE primary barrier between living creatures. There's nothing wrong with defeating this by demonstrating you are not a threat. I always afford the person the opportunity to see that i am not a danger and likewise I don't want to be bit by someone who feels like they have been backed into a corner.
Quote
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone.
A distinction has to be made here. Do you speak to someone who's on the phone or "otherwise" occupied? I don't. Do you engage people socially in a social situation such as a party, club, or dinner party? The typical expectation in this environment is that someone may attempt to engage you socially, unlike her subway example where the environment causes people to become vigilant or hyper-vigilant AND there is no reasonable expectation to be engaged socially. In a lonely subway car I may let someone know that they've dropped something, but otherwise I wouldn't try to "pick someone up" in an environment like this. It's nonsensical to assume somebody would unless they have no grasp at all of others' feelings and their environment. Besides, in a subway i'm too focused on potential threats to be trying to bed someone. In a club my mindset is different as would be a female's, but danger is ever present and i'm aware of this. A girl (or man) can run off screaming if you try to approach them in a club, but i think even you guys can admit that's not a normal reaction.
Quote
If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone.
^^This is the very next sentence following the previous quote. It is at this point her statement becomes 100% true, at least for me.
The rest of the article is gold. No man could be successful with any PERSON much less a woman if he were unable to realize this unless, you know... he's a rapist. The author has already conceded that i'm not. I wish you'd afford me this same courtesy, but i do realize that all men are, after all Schrödinger’s Rapist.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m35vreVAJ41r6sf7v.gif)
The author didn't take into account the sort of men who would undermine another person's boundaries when they felt it convenient.
Quote from: Sita on August 05, 2012, 01:20:53 AM
I just wanted to thank you ladies for this thread. Reading it has validated the feeling I've had about a certain event during my teen years.
It's also nice to know that I'm not really all that odd because I take some time before I feel comfortable with people. Seems my intuition might actually work after all.
You're very welcome! :)
(edited for coding fail)
50 pages by next week, or I'll eat my mooncup.
Ok, well, maybe not that, that thing is expensive.... :lulz:
Quote from: Sita on August 05, 2012, 01:20:53 AM
I just wanted to thank you ladies for this thread. Reading it has validated the feeling I've had about a certain event during my teen years.
It's also nice to know that I'm not really all that odd because I take some time before I feel comfortable with people. Seems my intuition might actually work after all.
THIS is why I didn't want a thread split on here. That and it's the longest thread with me as the OP ;)
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:53:48 PM
You don't have any idea what boundaries actually are. Personal boundaries are about what you are comfortable having done to yourself, not what you are comfortable with other people doing when it doesn't involve you personally. Those are totally different things.
You can replace that example with the difference in what the Asian culture views as personal space and what level of contact is acceptable and compare it to the American version. A person moving from one culture to another can transition by adopting the ideas of the other culture and thus the same personal boundaries.
Regardless of BF's 8 or so pages of refusing to understand why he's coming off as a creep, I think this thread has been hugely informative. Even for people like me who already view people as people and don't alter the respect accorded them based on what genitals they happen to have, there's always more to learn especially if you're on the privileged side of the gender divide. It's incredibly easy to overlook things because you're in a position of privilege even when you're aware that you're in that position.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:29:21 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:53:48 PM
You don't have any idea what boundaries actually are. Personal boundaries are about what you are comfortable having done to yourself, not what you are comfortable with other people doing when it doesn't involve you personally. Those are totally different things.
You can replace that example with the difference in what the Asian culture views as personal space and what level of contact is acceptable and compare it to the American version. A person moving from one culture to another can transition to adopt the ideas of the other culture and thus the same personal boundaries.
And Greeks and Italians are a "touchier" culture and you can accomodate that WHEN YOU REALIZE IT'S NONSEXUAL AND MEANINGLESS AND THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO FUCK WITH YOUR BOUNDARIES.
Not the same thing as "boundaries", dipshit.
Quote from: Sita on August 05, 2012, 01:20:53 AM
I just wanted to thank you ladies for this thread. Reading it has validated the feeling I've had about a certain event during my teen years.
It's also nice to know that I'm not really all that odd because I take some time before I feel comfortable with people. Seems my intuition might actually work after all.
Hey sita!
This thread is pretty awesome. I've always felt like there was something wrong with me that am always afraid of most men, strangers or not. It is good to know I'm not just crazy.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Regardless of BF's 8 or so pages of refusing to understand why he's coming off as a creep, I think this thread has been hugely informative. Even for people like me who already view people as people and don't alter the respect accorded them based on what genitals they happen to have, there's always more to learn especially if you're on the privileged side of the gender divide. It's incredibly easy to overlook things because you're in a position of privilege even when you're aware that you're in that position.
This surprises me. You always had "non-creepy" down pat. :)
I guess that challenging someone's personal boundaries and then respecting whatever decision they make is behavior that is fucked up and makes me a sociopath. Of course some of you seem to believe it's not possible that i'm less afraid to connect with others than the average person, and some of you also think that i would FORCE someone to do this. What holds me back is morality. I firmly believe it's wrong to force people to do things, but influencing them is not wrong.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Regardless of BF's 8 or so pages of refusing to understand why he's coming off as a creep, I think this thread has been hugely informative. Even for people like me who already view people as people and don't alter the respect accorded them based on what genitals they happen to have, there's always more to learn especially if you're on the privileged side of the gender divide. It's incredibly easy to overlook things because you're in a position of privilege even when you're aware that you're in that position.
It's a good, informative thread for everyone, except bf, because for me at least, I A) realize that I'm not alone in this, and B) these things are justified by C) knowing the why of it all.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:29:21 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:53:48 PM
You don't have any idea what boundaries actually are. Personal boundaries are about what you are comfortable having done to yourself, not what you are comfortable with other people doing when it doesn't involve you personally. Those are totally different things.
You can replace that example with the difference in what the Asian culture views as personal space and what level of contact is acceptable and compare it to the American version. A person moving from one culture to another can transition to adopt the ideas of the other culture and thus the same personal boundaries.
Thing is,
we are specifically looking at western culture, and personal boundaries within that. If you want to discuss other regional social mores I'd suggest you start a new thread, because in this case, it's falling into massive derail territory.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Regardless of BF's 8 or so pages of refusing to understand why he's coming off as a creep, I think this thread has been hugely informative. Even for people like me who already view people as people and don't alter the respect accorded them based on what genitals they happen to have, there's always more to learn especially if you're on the privileged side of the gender divide. It's incredibly easy to overlook things because you're in a position of privilege even when you're aware that you're in that position.
:D Cool! The thing is about being someone who has privilege, is that oftentimes people without it know more about how it works to be that person than the people who have it do about those without.
I'm also glad that I'm no longer a one liner and emoticons poster these days. HEY IT ONLY TOOK 3 YEARS!
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 01:34:44 AM
Quote from: Sita on August 05, 2012, 01:20:53 AM
I just wanted to thank you ladies for this thread. Reading it has validated the feeling I've had about a certain event during my teen years.
It's also nice to know that I'm not really all that odd because I take some time before I feel comfortable with people. Seems my intuition might actually work after all.
Hey sita!
This thread is pretty awesome. I've always felt like there was something wrong with me that am always afraid of most men, strangers or not. It is good to know I'm not just crazy.
Nobody's "odd" or "has something wrong" because they realize that there's a faction of men out there who view them as prey.
TF
Likes guys. But is not a cottontail, dammit
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 01:39:31 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:29:21 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:53:48 PM
You don't have any idea what boundaries actually are. Personal boundaries are about what you are comfortable having done to yourself, not what you are comfortable with other people doing when it doesn't involve you personally. Those are totally different things.
You can replace that example with the difference in what the Asian culture views as personal space and what level of contact is acceptable and compare it to the American version. A person moving from one culture to another can transition to adopt the ideas of the other culture and thus the same personal boundaries.
Thing is, we are specifically looking at western culture, and personal boundaries within that. If you want to discuss other regional social mores I'd suggest you start a new thread, because in this case, it's falling into massive derail territory.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Regardless of BF's 8 or so pages of refusing to understand why he's coming off as a creep, I think this thread has been hugely informative. Even for people like me who already view people as people and don't alter the respect accorded them based on what genitals they happen to have, there's always more to learn especially if you're on the privileged side of the gender divide. It's incredibly easy to overlook things because you're in a position of privilege even when you're aware that you're in that position.
:D Cool! The thing is about being someone who has privilege, is that oftentimes people without it know more about how it works to be that person than the people who have it do about those without.
I'm also glad that I'm no longer a one liner and emoticons poster these days. HEY IT ONLY TOOK 3 YEARS!
No doubt. I try very hard to be conscious of when I'm in a position of privilege, especially when it's going to alter the interpersonal dynamic between myself and someone else, but it's never going to be a thing that I'm FORCED to think about ALL THE TIME because I was lucky enough to be born as someone who, to appearances, utterly won the genetic lottery (white, male, American, not dirt-poor). It's a luxury for me to understand this sort of stuff (though I still think it's very important), not a necessity for survival.
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 01:39:31 AM
Thing is, we are specifically looking at western culture, and personal boundaries within that. If you want to discuss other regional social mores I'd suggest you start a new thread, because in this case, it's falling into massive derail territory.
The thing is IT IS extremely relevant to the current discussion because it demonstrates that people's personal boundaries are in part formed by their culture, social expectations, and the ideas an individual has about these things and related subjects.
Quote
I guess that challenging someone's personal boundaries and then respecting whatever decision they make is behavior that is fucked up and makes me a sociopath. Of course some of you seem to believe it's not possible that i'm less afraid to connect with others than the average person, and some of you also think that i would FORCE someone to do this. What holds me back is morality. I firmly believe it's wrong to force people to do things, but influencing them is not wrong.
I would like your thoughts on the above quote Pixie. Whether you believe the above is true or not, i don't know... I insist that it is. If i am a psychopath/sociopath that
does suck for those around me and ultimately myself because i CAN destroy the lives of those around me and myself.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:37:49 AM
I guess that challenging someone's personal boundaries and then respecting whatever decision they make is behavior that is fucked up and makes me a sociopath. Of course some of you seem to believe it's not possible that i'm less afraid to connect with others than the average person, and some of you also think that i would FORCE someone to do this. What holds me back is morality. I firmly believe it's wrong to force people to do things, but influencing them is not wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, it's because your coming across as potentially aggressive and manipulative (TRYING TO INFLUENCE OTHERS IS DIFFERENT FROM ASKING THEM WHY THEY REACT THE WAY THEY DO.). This may be down to a shitty choice of language and an inability to fully articulate what you're getting at, or it's because you are a douchebag. I don't know you personally, or even very well from this forum, so I've no idea what it actually is.
PROTIP: When dealing with someone who in the scale of privilege (see Kyriarchy) has less than you do, the best thing you can do is FUCKING WELL LISTEN and not get defensive about it. If a black lady told me I'd fucked up somehow in a conversation about race and feminism, I'd apologise and damned well listen to what she had to say.
The creepy part is because by challenging why someone has reacted or asserted boundaries to to you, it's an aggressive action.
Whereas realising that you have made someone uncomfortable and asking why they reacted in the way they did in a way that doesn't seem like you are making out that it is an overreaction , and LISTENING TO THEM to prevent a repeat of the action that caused the response is an empathy led approach, and it's what makes a biped a biped. If they don't want to explain why, well that's their choice, and forcing the issue is what makes it a dick move.
Is that clear enough for you?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 01:40:18 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 01:34:44 AM
Quote from: Sita on August 05, 2012, 01:20:53 AM
I just wanted to thank you ladies for this thread. Reading it has validated the feeling I've had about a certain event during my teen years.
It's also nice to know that I'm not really all that odd because I take some time before I feel comfortable with people. Seems my intuition might actually work after all.
Hey sita!
This thread is pretty awesome. I've always felt like there was something wrong with me that am always afraid of most men, strangers or not. It is good to know I'm not just crazy.
Nobody's "odd" or "has something wrong" because they realize that there's a faction of men out there who view them as prey.
TF
Likes guys. But is not a cottontail, dammit
For all that we're gaslit otherwise, this!
Also, "cottontail"? I'd never heard the word used for that. I like it.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:29:21 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:53:48 PM
You don't have any idea what boundaries actually are. Personal boundaries are about what you are comfortable having done to yourself, not what you are comfortable with other people doing when it doesn't involve you personally. Those are totally different things.
You can replace that example with the difference in what the Asian culture views as personal space and what level of contact is acceptable and compare it to the American version. A person moving from one culture to another can transition by adopting the ideas of the other culture and thus the same personal boundaries.
(http://i1169.photobucket.com/albums/r512/shutterbird13/Facepalm/photo-2438.gif)
Boundaries are about FEELING SAFE and COMFORTABLE with other people. Of course culture plays into that. I'm an American; we have big space bubbles. Keep following me when I move to accommodate my space bubble after I've told you to knock it off, and I'll make you suffer for making me feel unsafe, either during or after the fact.
(oh, wait, that's enforcing my boundaries and that's
bad!)
Let me emphasize this: boundaries are what you feel safe allowing to be done to your person. They are affected by culture, yes; they change as you grow older, yes; but it is not your body, it is not your safety and another person's boundaries are not any fucking thing you have a right to mess with. You do not get to determine what feels safe for another person because you are not that other person.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:37:49 AM
I guess that challenging someone's personal boundaries and then respecting whatever decision they make is behavior that is fucked up and makes me a sociopath. Of course some of you seem to believe it's not possible that i'm less afraid to connect with others than the average person, and some of you also think that i would FORCE someone to do this. What holds me back is morality. I firmly believe it's wrong to force people to do things, but influencing them is not wrong.
Here's the deal, Lech. When you plant - or try to plant - that seed of doubt in a female/woman's mind, you are feeding what we are already taught from birth: that our opinions and our feelings are not important and that yours, and men's in general, are more important. Enforcing our boundaries is an act that goes counter to our cultural conditioning - we're supposed to be meek and polite and
don't worry your pretty little head, honey, and let the men do the talking. Even when we know we have every right to do so, it can be hard because we have conditioning to navigate to do so (Pixie talked about it upthread, Nigel's mentioned it (with the guy next to her at the bar who got handsy), and I've had this problem, too, on occasion, where I know I have the right to tell a guy to buzz off but end up gritting my teeth and tolerating it because I don't know how to do it in that situation while satisfying my conditioning).
By challenging a female/woman's boundaries (which is making them feel unsafe! this cannot be emphasized enough!), you are telling them that their feelings about their safety are invalid and that you, as a man, have a greater claim to their body than they do. Not everyone has beaten their conditioning enough to tell you to fuck off in every situation as it is; they sure as fuck don't need to be told they have no right to their feelings.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:37:49 AM
I guess that challenging someone's personal boundaries and then respecting whatever decision they make is behavior that is fucked up and makes me a sociopath. Of course some of you seem to believe it's not possible that i'm less afraid to connect with others than the average person, and some of you also think that i would FORCE someone to do this. What holds me back is morality. I firmly believe it's wrong to force people to do things, but influencing them is not wrong.
Either you honestly don't understand what we mean when we say "boundaries" and are too hung up on being "right" to recognize it, or you have some kind of psychological/personality disorder that prevents you from understanding the nature of other people's personal boundaries, because you CAN'T simultaneously challenge someone's boundaries AND respect their decision. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The act of challenging someone's boundaries is INHERENTLY DISRESPECTFUL. Interestingly, a primary marker for Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a failure to recognize other people's boundaries as being real or valid, particularly if they are "inconvenient".
You may call it "being less afraid to connect with others", but I suspect a psychologist would call it "poor personal boundaries", because you don't seem to have a very good sense of what's appropriate and what's not in terms of interpersonal interactions. Trying to influence someone's personal boundaries IS wrong.
You may wish to read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 01:52:31 AM
Maybe, just maybe, it's because your coming across as potentially aggressive and manipulative (TRYING TO INFLUENCE OTHERS IS DIFFERENT FROM ASKING THEM WHY THEY REACT THE WAY THEY DO.).
I asked freeky why she reacted the way she did in that situation with the guy but she never got back to me. I don't know if she missed it or doesn't want to talk about it. As far as asking why somebody reacts the way they do you can do this by creating a map of their values and use that hasty/simple model to anticipate their behavior or reactions. You don't have to ask directly why for very many things at all because the more a person (candidly) speaks the more they reveal about their values and how their mind works. I have one for everyone i ever speak to, ever.
As for influencing someone i'll be hard pressed to see it as bad so long as it's done in an ethical manner. Again the only thing preventing me from abusing others is a code of ethics and my personal ideas of what is right and wrong. Much like most people who participate in civilization.
Quote
This may be down to a shitty choice of language and an inability to fully articulate what you're getting at, or it's because you are a douchebag. I don't know you personally, or even very well from this forum, so I've no idea what it actually is.
It is the first option. No doubt. When ideas are articulated for the first time they often take on new meaning or new life. That's a lot of what you are seeing. My inability to convert points on a web of idea into human readable thought. Sorry to use you guys as sort of a mechanism to do this but it has been very educational.
Quote
PROTIP: When dealing with someone who in the scale of privilege (see Kyriarchy) has less than you do, the best thing you can do is FUCKING WELL LISTEN and not get defensive about it. If a black lady told me I'd fucked up somehow in a conversation about race and feminism, I'd apologise and damned well listen to what she had to say.
This is definitely a subject i will read more into. As far as this discussion goes, what is at the center is that influencing others is not wrong and it can be done ethically.
ETA: Let me catch up with your previous posts and consider them
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 02:12:15 AM
This is definitely a subject i will read more into. As far as this discussion goes, what is at the center is that influencing others is not wrong and it can be done ethically.
Stupid puppy thinks he's the center of the universe, so what he makes up in his head as the center of the discussion must be the center of discussion for everyone. :lulz:
Like I said, narcissistic personality disorder.
Puppy, you've got something badly wrong with you.
I think that it's worth stating, in the interest of maintaining fixed goalposts, that influencing the opinions and ideas of others can certainly be done ethically (we do it here all the time, after all), but challenging their personal boundaries cannot, particularly in a setting where a person with more power is trying to "influence" a person with less power. That's called "coercion" and in this context, coercion is a precursor to rape.
Motherfucker still hasn't got that attempting to influence women when they enforce boundaries heightens the anxiety around enforcing boundaries, and even if a negative impact doesn't come from him personally, it could likely come from some other dude, for fear of social repercussions that she feels is worse than having boundaries crossed. It's some exhausting shit.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:23:36 AM
I think that it's worth stating, in the interest of maintaining fixed goalposts, that influencing the opinions and ideas of others can certainly be done ethically (we do it here all the time, after all), but challenging their personal boundaries cannot, particularly in a setting where a person with more power is trying to "influence" a person with less power. That's called "coercion" and in this context, coercion is a precursor to rape.
Also, THIS.
Bf, I am at this point assuming you are a troll. That's why I didn't get back to you.
On the off chance you aren't, though, no, I was not afraid or uncomfortable when he said that. I was indignant and insensed (incensed?) At him trying to be pushy and shame (?) Me into continuing talking to him when, at that point, I had said several times I had to stop talking and get to sleep. It reminded me slightly of negging, only not quite.
However, I do feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea of being around him in person for reasons I can't put words to yet, only point at things such as "need to get to sleep" and "it's your choice" "NEED" vs. "CHOICE"
Girl, I know exactly what you're talking about and it sounds like you're riding the right motorcycle with that guy.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 02:45:11 AM
Girl, I know exactly what you're talking about and it sounds like you're riding the right motorcycle with that guy.
:D
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:07:58 AM
Either you honestly don't understand what we mean when we say "boundaries" and are too hung up on being "right" to recognize it, or you have some kind of psychological/personality disorder that prevents you from understanding the nature of other people's personal boundaries, because you CAN'T simultaneously challenge someone's boundaries AND respect their decision. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The act of challenging someone's boundaries is INHERENTLY DISRESPECTFUL.
Between you and Pixie, and now in the context of kyriarchy, i understand that regardless of whether bypassing someone's boundaries is right or wrong, the influence i
want to exert (having them realize it's okay to let me past certain barriers) may/probably/can always be tainted by the dynamic of social expectations and roles thrust upon women as Pixie has already described. I think this is progress.
Nigel, earlier i meant the idea was center to my point. Poor wording. my bad.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 02:34:55 AM
Bf, I am at this point assuming you are a troll. That's why I didn't get back to you.
No, i'm not trying to troll you or anyone else.
Quote
On the off chance you aren't, though, no, I was not afraid or uncomfortable when he said that. I was indignant and insensed (incensed?) At him trying to be pushy and shame (?) Me into continuing talking to him when, at that point, I had said several times I had to stop talking and get to sleep. It reminded me slightly of negging, only not quite.
It is incensed. Yes i understand. At first, i thought it may have been a bad joke but given this, yea. I agree. I have a feeling he wasn't trying to guilt you, but was desperate, was unable to properly read your mood and pushed at the wrong time in the wrong way... which led to his demise.
Quote
However, I do feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea of being around him in person for reasons I can't put words to yet, only point at things such as "need to get to sleep" and "it's your choice" "NEED" vs. "CHOICE"
Didn't you post a rant about needs and people undermining what they thought were not "actual needs?"
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Regardless of BF's 8 or so pages of refusing to understand why he's coming off as a creep, I think this thread has been hugely informative. Even for people like me who already view people as people and don't alter the respect accorded them based on what genitals they happen to have, there's always more to learn especially if you're on the privileged side of the gender divide. It's incredibly easy to overlook things because you're in a position of privilege even when you're aware that you're in that position.
This is probably one of the easiest traps to fall in.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 02:52:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:07:58 AM
Either you honestly don't understand what we mean when we say "boundaries" and are too hung up on being "right" to recognize it, or you have some kind of psychological/personality disorder that prevents you from understanding the nature of other people's personal boundaries, because you CAN'T simultaneously challenge someone's boundaries AND respect their decision. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The act of challenging someone's boundaries is INHERENTLY DISRESPECTFUL.
Between you and Pixie, and now in the context of kyriarchy, i understand that regardless of whether bypassing someone's boundaries is right or wrong, the influence i want to exert (having them realize it's okay to let me past certain barriers) may/probably/can always be tainted by the dynamic of social expectations and roles thrust upon women as Pixie has already described. I think this is progress.
Nigel, earlier i meant the idea was center to my point. Poor wording. my bad.
Blackfoot, the point everyone is trying to make is that
boundaries are by definition the limits people have that they're not OK with you crossing/bypassing. That means that it's really not OK to cross somebodies boundaries.
YES people's boundaries will evolve as you get to know them. But that's something that happens organically. The first time you meet a girl, she might not be down with having sex with you. But if you go out again, she might change her mind. Thing is, this isn't pushing or bypassing boundaries, it's respecting her right to make choices, even if those choices suck for you to deal with.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 02:52:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:07:58 AM
Either you honestly don't understand what we mean when we say "boundaries" and are too hung up on being "right" to recognize it, or you have some kind of psychological/personality disorder that prevents you from understanding the nature of other people's personal boundaries, because you CAN'T simultaneously challenge someone's boundaries AND respect their decision. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The act of challenging someone's boundaries is INHERENTLY DISRESPECTFUL.
Between you and Pixie, and now in the context of kyriarchy, i understand that regardless of whether bypassing someone's boundaries is right or wrong, the influence i want to exert (having them realize it's okay to let me past certain barriers) may/probably/can always be tainted by the dynamic of social expectations and roles thrust upon women as Pixie has already described. I think this is progress.
Nigel, earlier i meant the idea was center to my point. Poor wording. my bad.
It's not a matter of being "tainted" by anything.
What in the BLUE FUCK do you mean by "having them realize it's okay to let me past certain barriers"? She DOESN'T WANT YOU means SHE DOESN'T WANT YOU. She's not ATTRACTED to you. She finds you SEXUALLY REPULSIVE. Not that you GIVE a fuck, since you want to "exert influence".
Think about it when you land in jail and Big Moe Jumbone wants to "exert his influence by having you realize it's OKAY to let him past certain barriers."
FFS. Nigel's right. NPD like a motherfucker.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 03:00:02 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 02:34:55 AM
Bf, I am at this point assuming you are a troll. That's why I didn't get back to you.
No, i'm not trying to troll you or anyone else.
Quote
On the off chance you aren't, though, no, I was not afraid or uncomfortable when he said that. I was indignant and insensed (incensed?) At him trying to be pushy and shame (?) Me into continuing talking to him when, at that point, I had said several times I had to stop talking and get to sleep. It reminded me slightly of negging, only not quite.
It is incensed. Yes i understand. At first, i thought it may have been a bad joke but given this, yea. I agree. I have a feeling he wasn't trying to guilt you, but was desperate, was unable to properly read your mood and pushed at the wrong time in the wrong way... which led to his demise.
Quote
However, I do feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea of being around him in person for reasons I can't put words to yet, only point at things such as "need to get to sleep" and "it's your choice" "NEED" vs. "CHOICE"
Didn't you post a rant about needs and people undermining what they thought were not "actual needs?"
I did. I'm kind of taken aback that anyone remembered it, let alone remembered I wrote it.
The point it appears you're hung up on, BF, is that if a woman says no either nonverbally or verbally and you continue to pressure her in any way, including asking why, you're most likely making her feel harassed and threatened in a cultural environment that inhibits women from healthy assertion of their boundaries.
The problem I have with a great number of PUA "techniques" is that they seem to be targeted on women with the most psychological issues, rather than forming a mutual bond. Also, the elements of PUA that aren't offensive are usually just uncredited Communication 101 material and didn't originate in the minds of PUA culture, so the defining qualities of the whole school of thought are the coercive elements.
It's like adding rancid milk-sludge to potato leek soup.
I also have to admire how succinctly Nigel put this:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:23:36 AM
I think that it's worth stating, in the interest of maintaining fixed goalposts, that influencing the opinions and ideas of others can certainly be done ethically (we do it here all the time, after all), but challenging their personal boundaries cannot, particularly in a setting where a person with more power is trying to "influence" a person with less power. That's called "coercion" and in this context, coercion is a precursor to rape.
Part of the problem that I believe exacerbates this is the Fundamental Attribution Error.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 02:05:25 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 01:40:18 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 01:34:44 AM
Quote from: Sita on August 05, 2012, 01:20:53 AM
I just wanted to thank you ladies for this thread. Reading it has validated the feeling I've had about a certain event during my teen years.
It's also nice to know that I'm not really all that odd because I take some time before I feel comfortable with people. Seems my intuition might actually work after all.
Hey sita!
This thread is pretty awesome. I've always felt like there was something wrong with me that am always afraid of most men, strangers or not. It is good to know I'm not just crazy.
Nobody's "odd" or "has something wrong" because they realize that there's a faction of men out there who view them as prey.
TF
Likes guys. But is not a cottontail, dammit
For all that we're gaslit otherwise, this!
Also, "cottontail"? I'd never heard the word used for that. I like it.
Thank you! :)
Quote
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:29:21 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:53:48 PM
You don't have any idea what boundaries actually are. Personal boundaries are about what you are comfortable having done to yourself, not what you are comfortable with other people doing when it doesn't involve you personally. Those are totally different things.
You can replace that example with the difference in what the Asian culture views as personal space and what level of contact is acceptable and compare it to the American version. A person moving from one culture to another can transition by adopting the ideas of the other culture and thus the same personal boundaries.
(http://i1169.photobucket.com/albums/r512/shutterbird13/Facepalm/photo-2438.gif)
Boundaries are about FEELING SAFE and COMFORTABLE with other people. Of course culture plays into that. I'm an American; we have big space bubbles. Keep following me when I move to accommodate my space bubble after I've told you to knock it off, and I'll make you suffer for making me feel unsafe, either during or after the fact.
(oh, wait, that's enforcing my boundaries and that's bad!)
Let me emphasize this: boundaries are what you feel safe allowing to be done to your person. They are affected by culture, yes; they change as you grow older, yes; but it is not your body, it is not your safety and another person's boundaries are not any fucking thing you have a right to mess with. You do not get to determine what feels safe for another person because you are not that other person.
Maybe we need to amend the safety thing, since he seems hung on the idea that if he can just CONVINCE a woman that he's not an axe murderer, they can go fuck and all the boundary pushing was ok. :x
I think it would probably be safe to invite Jehovah's Witnesses into my home. I don't think they would punch, slap, or kick me, they wouldn't shoot or stab me, they probably wouldn't even steal anything. I don't FEAR Jehovah's Witnesses. But I never invite them in, because I don't enjoy their company. I PREFER not to be around them. I think of this as a boundary.
Same thing if a woman would rather be with someone else, or go home alone.
Quote
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:37:49 AM
I guess that challenging someone's personal boundaries and then respecting whatever decision they make is behavior that is fucked up and makes me a sociopath. Of course some of you seem to believe it's not possible that i'm less afraid to connect with others than the average person, and some of you also think that i would FORCE someone to do this. What holds me back is morality. I firmly believe it's wrong to force people to do things, but influencing them is not wrong.
Here's the deal, Lech. When you plant - or try to plant - that seed of doubt in a female/woman's mind, you are feeding what we are already taught from birth: that our opinions and our feelings are not important and that yours, and men's in general, are more important. Enforcing our boundaries is an act that goes counter to our cultural conditioning - we're supposed to be meek and polite and don't worry your pretty little head, honey, and let the men do the talking. Even when we know we have every right to do so, it can be hard because we have conditioning to navigate to do so (Pixie talked about it upthread, Nigel's mentioned it (with the guy next to her at the bar who got handsy), and I've had this problem, too, on occasion, where I know I have the right to tell a guy to buzz off but end up gritting my teeth and tolerating it because I don't know how to do it in that situation while satisfying my conditioning).
By challenging a female/woman's boundaries (which is making them feel unsafe! this cannot be emphasized enough!), you are telling them that their feelings about their safety are invalid and that you, as a man, have a greater claim to their body than they do. Not everyone has beaten their conditioning enough to tell you to fuck off in every situation as it is; they sure as fuck don't need to be told they have no right to their feelings.
Totally agree. Tell the handsy ones "don't put your hands on me" and watch the other women stare in amazement, like you fought off a pack of wolverines. Women have
horrible conditioning.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 05, 2012, 03:09:55 AM
Blackfoot, the point everyone is trying to make is that boundaries are by definition the limits people have that they're not OK with you crossing/bypassing. That means that it's really not OK to cross somebodies boundaries.
YES people's boundaries will evolve as you get to know them. But that's something that happens organically.
These sentences are key to understanding what i mean to do. I provide the data that allows the person, male or female and in other situations as well, to make the choice I want them to make, in accordance with the type of influence I find to be ethical. i.e. the data i provide is true.
Now in regard to the question i'm mainly considering in light of Pixie's and Nigel's posts, as well as in the context of Kyriarchy, i have a lot of things to think about.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 03:20:51 AM
I did. I'm kind of taken aback that anyone remembered it, let alone remembered I wrote it.
I told you that subject is important to me. I don't know if you saw my comment or remember, but it is relevant and somewhat relevant to this thread.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 05, 2012, 03:09:55 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 02:52:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:07:58 AM
Either you honestly don't understand what we mean when we say "boundaries" and are too hung up on being "right" to recognize it, or you have some kind of psychological/personality disorder that prevents you from understanding the nature of other people's personal boundaries, because you CAN'T simultaneously challenge someone's boundaries AND respect their decision. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The act of challenging someone's boundaries is INHERENTLY DISRESPECTFUL.
Between you and Pixie, and now in the context of kyriarchy, i understand that regardless of whether bypassing someone's boundaries is right or wrong, the influence i want to exert (having them realize it's okay to let me past certain barriers) may/probably/can always be tainted by the dynamic of social expectations and roles thrust upon women as Pixie has already described. I think this is progress.
Nigel, earlier i meant the idea was center to my point. Poor wording. my bad.
Blackfoot, the point everyone is trying to make is that boundaries are by definition the limits people have that they're not OK with you crossing/bypassing. That means that it's really not OK to cross somebodies boundaries.
YES people's boundaries will evolve as you get to know them. But that's something that happens organically. The first time you meet a girl, she might not be down with having sex with you. But if you go out again, she might change her mind. Thing is, this isn't pushing or bypassing boundaries, it's respecting her right to make choices, even if those choices suck for you to deal with.
Dingo has a good point ref the bolded part. I'd also like to point out that even if you have been physically intimate with someone previously, they HAVE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL for a second, third, fourth to infinity visit to Crazy Monkey Sex Island with that person.
The bolded part irritated the fuck out of me. What Blackfoot WANTS is absolutely fucking irrelevant if it makes someone uncomfortable or second guess themselves, but there are only so many ways I can re-word or change emphasis on the same basic fucking concept without wanting to kill a motherfucker, and what he said made him look like a self centred douche. I'm not going to make a diagnosis of some kind of personality disorder over the internet, I just want the guy to check his goddamned privilege and stop trying to negotiate past people's boundaries, full fucking stop, and if he realises he has issues either recognising or respecting peoples boundaries to seek some professional help.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 03:30:40 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 05, 2012, 03:09:55 AM
Blackfoot, the point everyone is trying to make is that boundaries are by definition the limits people have that they're not OK with you crossing/bypassing. That means that it's really not OK to cross somebodies boundaries.
YES people's boundaries will evolve as you get to know them. But that's something that happens organically.
These sentences are key to understanding what i mean to do. I provide the data that allows the person, male or female and in other situations as well, to make the choice I want them to make, in accordance with the type of influence I find to be ethical. i.e. the data i provide is true.
Now in regard to the question i'm mainly considering in light of Pixie's and Nigel's posts, as well as in the context of Kyriarchy, i have a lot of things to think about.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 03:20:51 AM
I did. I'm kind of taken aback that anyone remembered it, let alone remembered I wrote it.
I told you that subject is important to me. I don't know if you saw my comment or remember, but it is relevant and somewhat relevant to this thread.
This sick fuck is going to end up trying to make zombies like Dahmer did, isn't he? :x
Quote from: Net on August 05, 2012, 03:21:48 AM
The point it appears you're hung up on, BF, is that if a woman says no either nonverbally or verbally and you continue to pressure her in any way, including asking why, you're most likely making her feel harassed and threatened in a cultural environment that inhibits women from healthy assertion of their boundaries.
I think the point everyone is hung up on is that they think i press once boundaries have been established, asserted, or implied. I don't. I preempt them. I eliminate it before it becomes a factor. I establish rapport by demonstration of values. This leads to what Placid Dingo says is an "evolution of barriers/boundaries" a person has in relation to a specific person. Is it synthetic as opposed to organic because i do it intentionally? No. Because i invoke the quality of synthetic that is
artificial... meaning false. It's something that is a matter of pride as well as ideology, that i do not influence ANYONE under false pretenses or to harm them.
Quote
The problem I have with a great number of PUA "techniques" is that they seem to be targeted on women with the most psychological issues, rather than forming a mutual bond. Also, the elements of PUA that aren't offensive are usually just uncredited Communication 101 material and didn't originate in the minds of PUA culture, so the defining qualities of the whole school of thought are the coercive elements.
It's like adding rancid milk-sludge to potato leek soup.
Honestly, i don't want to discuss PUA or their techniques because we all universally see them as morally distasteful. It's a dead horse, no offense to you of course, Net.
Quote
I also have to admire how succinctly Nigel put this:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:23:36 AM
I think that it's worth stating, in the interest of maintaining fixed goalposts, that influencing the opinions and ideas of others can certainly be done ethically (we do it here all the time, after all), but challenging their personal boundaries cannot, particularly in a setting where a person with more power is trying to "influence" a person with less power. That's called "coercion" and in this context, coercion is a precursor to rape.
Part of the problem that I believe exacerbates this is the Fundamental Attribution Error.
I also find this to be very powerful, especially in the context of Kyriarchy. This is something that i will research and contemplate deeply.
You, yourself, said that you try to plant a seed of doubt in/challenge/criticize a person's boundaries, even if you do not physically press for more.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 03:47:10 AM
You, yourself, said that you try to plant a seed of doubt in/challenge/criticize a person's boundaries, even if you do not physically press for more.
Please see the post one above yours
That doesn't answer my post at all.
Preempting boundaries, or trying to do so, is equally bad as being pushy.
What you don't seem to get is that you need yo be looking at this from the chuck's point of view. A MALE wants to get into your pants. Given that this is a man, and one you don't know, and he is trying to get into your pants, you are at threat alert yellow. This guy, and let me emphasize that even the word "man" can be threatening to some people, is addressing verbally things you look out for as danger signs, assuring you he wont do any of them. You have only his word to go on. You know that if you believe him and he's lying, the blame will be put on you for getting hurt. You are alarmed that he is trying to put you at ease solely for the reason of getting in your pants.
What would you think? Are you feeling more safe? Hell no.
Yeah, dude trying to address all my alerts is gonna set off, like, a million klaxon bells in my head. It's creepy and like you're trying to cut off all my escape routes. Which is upsetting and would make me anxious.
Heh. TYhe conversation with Blackfoot is becoming increasingly circular, and he JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO GET IT YET. I have to remain hopeful that he does get it eventually, but I'm done trying to explain.
Ok, I'm going to attempt to shift the conversation.
Ladies of PeeDee, what kinds of things do you do to minimise the chances of being subject to sexual assault or street harassment?
Myself, - I don't have sex when I'm drunk. slightly tipsy, maybe, but drunk, never. Partially cause the sloshing round of booze in the belly with the motions of the oceans makes me nauseous, and drunk sex in my experience is not the best, but the main reason is obvious, and it's something I often bring up in conversation, because the nausea with each thrust part is funny, and entertaining. I've even gone home with a guy when drunk and on the way home stated "I'm far to pished for any kind of action, I can't even walk straight!", and totally withdrew consent before we'd even got through the door, after a drunken snog.
When a guy buys me a drink, I go to the bar with him. I do not accept half finished beers from strange people, when I have no friends with me to keep an eye on my stuff when I go for a ciggie, I've been known to leave my drink behind the bar and collect it later.
I'm very conservative when it comes to necklines and hemlines, (which I know is utterly stupid), wear low heels if I wear heels at all, but again, I'm not much of a heeled shoe kinda gal and I cant walk in the really high ones for any extended period of time, but this always stemmed from a old thought pattern of "if I cant run away in a pair of shoes, I'm not wearing them".
I will often present myself fashion wise in a slightly goofy or eccentric fashion. It never works to discourage unwanted attention, mind, because of the curiosity/uniqueness factor.
I'll get a cab if I can't walk back with someone I trust after a night out.
I avoid low traffic areas at night if I'm walking alone and haven't got company.
I wear massive headphones during the day or in high traffic areas, to avoid street harassment, and am known to sing loudly when walking, because I enjoy it, and most people think you are crazy if you do so, and people give crazy a wide berth.
In a situation where I have a crush on someone, I prefer to make the first move.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 05, 2012, 04:07:34 AM
Preempting boundaries, or trying to do so, is equally bad as being pushy.
How do you know if your boundaries are being preempted? In this case you say wait is this a problem? Then you find that, "no i have already established a sufficient level of trust for this to not be a problem" Otherwise, you find that no, we aren't cool like that and i am forced to back off.
Quote
What you don't seem to get is that you need yo be looking at this from the chuck's point of view. A MALE wants to get into your pants. Given that this is a man, and one you don't know, and he is trying to get into your pants, you are at threat alert yellow. This guy, and let me emphasize that even the word "man" can be threatening to some people, is addressing verbally things you look out for as danger signs, assuring you he wont do any of them. You have only his word to go on. You know that if you believe him and he's lying, the blame will be put on you for getting hurt. You are alarmed that he is trying to put you at ease solely for the reason of getting in your pants.
I don't understand the picture you have of my tactics. I've been trying to clarify the strategy and the thought process behind it. I'm not in the habit of making promises to anyone or verbally persuading women to trust me or like me. If this is done/verbalized directly it is a complete turn off and reeks of desperation. I instead, demonstrate my values/provide (true)data i hold and a woman uses that to make an informed decision. If she's not diggin it or me, the end.
Give an example BF. nobody knows what your 'tactics' are because you're making general points but not explaining what they look like in real terms. We're filling in your gaps with our own assumptions because you're not giving examples.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 05, 2012, 04:40:51 AM
Give an example BF. nobody knows what your 'tactics' are because you're making general points but not explaining what they look like in real terms. We're filling in your gaps with our own assumptions because you're not giving examples.
I...
-have and show that i have many interests. It's the easiest way to "be interesting." Having many interests provides for many opportunities to connect with people.
-make an effort to bring a positive mood to the group or the interaction and i remain positive while not taking shit from dickheads and people that want to start conflicts or have something to prove.
-maintain my health and hygiene. Sounds obvious, but some people don't get it.
-try to discover what people want, like and admire and why. During this process values are revealed. It helps to identify if you share similar values and provides in combination with number 1, almost endless conversation.
-observe the effect of everything that happens to and around the people i'm with, as much as humanly possible
-have a stance on a lot of issues. It may put me in disagreement with people, but if you're tactful you end up being respected for your position. Shit doesn't have to get this serious when you first meet someone but if a touchy subject comes up I'm not afraid to take a stance.
-have standards. I stick to them. These aren't only about appearance but also the kind of vibe a person has. I understand cynicism, but there's a time and a place.
-live and have goals. I have a life and hobbies. No individual is the center of my universe. I strive to improve myself to pursue my interests.
-appreciate what is subtle. The small things, the inside jokes, a smile or wink, an understanding, sharing one mind if only for a moment
-keep it real. I'm honest about what i want and my expectations.
I can probably come up with other stuff but this is what's in the back of my mind when i approach a woman or group. Get experience and the rest of it takes care of itself.
I NEVER go out to bars and such alone and prefer to go with at least one other female if I can help it.
I watch my drinks at all times and only accept them from a friend or a bar tender.
-- If I need to leave briefly and I don't have someone I trust to watch my drink, I'll dump it and buy another if necessary
I keep my receipts and stash them in pockets rather than a purse so that if something does happen, they have a starting place.
I park as close as possible to the place I'm going to.
The names and numbers of everyone I go out with regularly are written on a sheet of paper and kept on my desk (even though I sorely resent that I have to tell people where I'm going all the time and who with)
When selecting clothing for the evening, my thoughts run along the lines of: "what if something bad happens?" This is not solely "can I run in these jeans?" but also "will I be blamed if I wear that shirt?" (although not in so many words)
When going to my car from a bar, etc., I either call someone or pretend to, if it's too late at night. If there was someone who creeped me out that night, I will make a male friend walk me to my car in return for a ride back or to his car, if we're leaving at the same time.
I'm investing in a CS gas keychain when I have the money.
I check my car for stow-aways before sliding in (I was really excited that my phone came with a flashlight app), no matter where I am - my house, a friend's house, a bar, it doesn't matter.
Even when I had a beeper for the car, I chose to use the key to unlock my door because the beeper unlocked all the car doors.
I have mastered the art of locking the car door as I close it after me and, at this point, it's an ingrained habit.
For whatever reason, I rarely have to deal with street harassment (I can think of like, three instances in the last five years), but I go on as if I hadn't actually heard what was said to me on the blue moon someone cat calls me. I haven't had anyone confront me over being ignored or chase after me to make sure I heard the comment, and I don't know what I'll do if it happens (which, gentlemen, it does; I've just been lucky apparently).
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 02:52:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:07:58 AM
Either you honestly don't understand what we mean when we say "boundaries" and are too hung up on being "right" to recognize it, or you have some kind of psychological/personality disorder that prevents you from understanding the nature of other people's personal boundaries, because you CAN'T simultaneously challenge someone's boundaries AND respect their decision. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The act of challenging someone's boundaries is INHERENTLY DISRESPECTFUL.
Between you and Pixie, and now in the context of kyriarchy, i understand that regardless of whether bypassing someone's boundaries is right or wrong, the influence i want to exert (having them realize it's okay to let me past certain barriers) may/probably/can always be tainted by the dynamic of social expectations and roles thrust upon women as Pixie has already described. I think this is progress.
Nigel, earlier i meant the idea was center to my point. Poor wording. my bad.
OK, I feel like that's progress.
I want to point out that a sexual interaction shouldn't really ever involve you "getting past barriers" other than the general, normal, layers of intimacy we pass through as we get to know people. You seem oddly convinced that women need to have their natural objections soothed and barriers coaxed down. It's bullshit. Sure, we want to make sure that a guy is trustworthy and safe and probably not AIDS-ridden or a methhead before we fuck him, but all of that PUA bullshit about "convincing"... it's bullshit. It's dehumanizing. We're out there, hoping we meet an attractive guy we can enjoy a sexual relationship with. You shouldn't have to address anyone objections, push anyone's boundaries, or in any other way talk around someone's NOT wanting to get laid.
You just need to get to know someone, without a bunch of contrived bullshit.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 05, 2012, 03:09:55 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 02:52:51 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:07:58 AM
Either you honestly don't understand what we mean when we say "boundaries" and are too hung up on being "right" to recognize it, or you have some kind of psychological/personality disorder that prevents you from understanding the nature of other people's personal boundaries, because you CAN'T simultaneously challenge someone's boundaries AND respect their decision. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The act of challenging someone's boundaries is INHERENTLY DISRESPECTFUL.
Between you and Pixie, and now in the context of kyriarchy, i understand that regardless of whether bypassing someone's boundaries is right or wrong, the influence i want to exert (having them realize it's okay to let me past certain barriers) may/probably/can always be tainted by the dynamic of social expectations and roles thrust upon women as Pixie has already described. I think this is progress.
Nigel, earlier i meant the idea was center to my point. Poor wording. my bad.
Blackfoot, the point everyone is trying to make is that boundaries are by definition the limits people have that they're not OK with you crossing/bypassing. That means that it's really not OK to cross somebodies boundaries.
YES people's boundaries will evolve as you get to know them. But that's something that happens organically. The first time you meet a girl, she might not be down with having sex with you. But if you go out again, she might change her mind. Thing is, this isn't pushing or bypassing boundaries, it's respecting her right to make choices, even if those choices suck for you to deal with.
THISSSSSSSSS
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 01:47:47 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 01:39:31 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:29:21 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:53:48 PM
You don't have any idea what boundaries actually are. Personal boundaries are about what you are comfortable having done to yourself, not what you are comfortable with other people doing when it doesn't involve you personally. Those are totally different things.
You can replace that example with the difference in what the Asian culture views as personal space and what level of contact is acceptable and compare it to the American version. A person moving from one culture to another can transition to adopt the ideas of the other culture and thus the same personal boundaries.
Thing is, we are specifically looking at western culture, and personal boundaries within that. If you want to discuss other regional social mores I'd suggest you start a new thread, because in this case, it's falling into massive derail territory.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 01:32:23 AM
Regardless of BF's 8 or so pages of refusing to understand why he's coming off as a creep, I think this thread has been hugely informative. Even for people like me who already view people as people and don't alter the respect accorded them based on what genitals they happen to have, there's always more to learn especially if you're on the privileged side of the gender divide. It's incredibly easy to overlook things because you're in a position of privilege even when you're aware that you're in that position.
:D Cool! The thing is about being someone who has privilege, is that oftentimes people without it know more about how it works to be that person than the people who have it do about those without.
I'm also glad that I'm no longer a one liner and emoticons poster these days. HEY IT ONLY TOOK 3 YEARS!
No doubt. I try very hard to be conscious of when I'm in a position of privilege, especially when it's going to alter the interpersonal dynamic between myself and someone else, but it's never going to be a thing that I'm FORCED to think about ALL THE TIME because I was lucky enough to be born as someone who, to appearances, utterly won the genetic lottery (white, male, American, not dirt-poor). It's a luxury for me to understand this sort of stuff (though I still think it's very important), not a necessity for survival.
Also THIS.
!
I think ECH has a somewhat unique handle on this perspective due to his background, as does Roger, but fuck yes.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 02:45:11 AM
Girl, I know exactly what you're talking about and it sounds like you're riding the right motorcycle with that guy.
Totally.
I know, because I have heard it from a lot of guys, that they don't think it's "fair" if you don't "give them a chance". What they don't even START to recognize is that even just that language implies that they have some kind of RIGHT to you, as if they MATTER in your life. It reminds me of the guy who, after one one-hour lunch date that ended in a handshake, spazzed out and was all "I FEEL LIKE WHAT I WANT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER" when I declined a second date.
Yeah... that's because it doesn't. Any more than what *I* wanted mattered in my last breakup. If one person isn't interested, for any reason or no reason at all, that's it. The end. There is no "fair" when it comes to access to another person's body. It's not a matter for democracy, or juries. We aren't broadcast air time, required to give equal measure to opposing candidates. We can be as fickle and arbitrary as we want to be.
"YOU SHOULD HAVE SEX WITH ME BECAUSE
I WANT YOU TO HAVE SEX WITH ME!" is like some kind of pathetic regression to age three. It's toddler behavior; the behavior of a person who doesn't yet understand that other people are separate, unique, distinct, with their own sets of desires and motivations. It's as sad as a tenth-grader wetting the bed, and calls for as much therapy.
Quote from: Net on August 05, 2012, 03:21:48 AM
The point it appears you're hung up on, BF, is that if a woman says no either nonverbally or verbally and you continue to pressure her in any way, including asking why, you're most likely making her feel harassed and threatened in a cultural environment that inhibits women from healthy assertion of their boundaries.
The problem I have with a great number of PUA "techniques" is that they seem to be targeted on women with the most psychological issues, rather than forming a mutual bond. Also, the elements of PUA that aren't offensive are usually just uncredited Communication 101 material and didn't originate in the minds of PUA culture, so the defining qualities of the whole school of thought are the coercive elements.
It's like adding rancid milk-sludge to potato leek soup.
I also have to admire how succinctly Nigel put this:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:23:36 AM
I think that it's worth stating, in the interest of maintaining fixed goalposts, that influencing the opinions and ideas of others can certainly be done ethically (we do it here all the time, after all), but challenging their personal boundaries cannot, particularly in a setting where a person with more power is trying to "influence" a person with less power. That's called "coercion" and in this context, coercion is a precursor to rape.
Part of the problem that I believe exacerbates this is the Fundamental Attribution Error.
Also, what Net said here.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 03:44:31 AM
Quote from: Net on August 05, 2012, 03:21:48 AM
The point it appears you're hung up on, BF, is that if a woman says no either nonverbally or verbally and you continue to pressure her in any way, including asking why, you're most likely making her feel harassed and threatened in a cultural environment that inhibits women from healthy assertion of their boundaries.
I think the point everyone is hung up on is that they think i press once boundaries have been established, asserted, or implied. I don't. I preempt them. I eliminate it before it becomes a factor. I establish rapport by demonstration of values. This leads to what Placid Dingo says is an "evolution of barriers/boundaries" a person has in relation to a specific person. Is it synthetic as opposed to organic because i do it intentionally? No. Because i invoke the quality of synthetic that is artificial... meaning false. It's something that is a matter of pride as well as ideology, that i do not influence ANYONE under false pretenses or to harm them.
Quote
The problem I have with a great number of PUA "techniques" is that they seem to be targeted on women with the most psychological issues, rather than forming a mutual bond. Also, the elements of PUA that aren't offensive are usually just uncredited Communication 101 material and didn't originate in the minds of PUA culture, so the defining qualities of the whole school of thought are the coercive elements.
It's like adding rancid milk-sludge to potato leek soup.
Honestly, i don't want to discuss PUA or their techniques because we all universally see them as morally distasteful. It's a dead horse, no offense to you of course, Net.
Quote
I also have to admire how succinctly Nigel put this:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 02:23:36 AM
I think that it's worth stating, in the interest of maintaining fixed goalposts, that influencing the opinions and ideas of others can certainly be done ethically (we do it here all the time, after all), but challenging their personal boundaries cannot, particularly in a setting where a person with more power is trying to "influence" a person with less power. That's called "coercion" and in this context, coercion is a precursor to rape.
Part of the problem that I believe exacerbates this is the Fundamental Attribution Error.
I also find this to be very powerful, especially in the context of Kyriarchy. This is something that i will research and contemplate deeply.
So, are you saying that you've changed your mind with regards to your earlier stance on pushing people's boundaries? Because you seem to be saying that.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 05:15:39 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 05, 2012, 04:40:51 AM
Give an example BF. nobody knows what your 'tactics' are because you're making general points but not explaining what they look like in real terms. We're filling in your gaps with our own assumptions because you're not giving examples.
I...
-have and show that i have many interests. It's the easiest way to "be interesting." Having many interests provides for many opportunities to connect with people.
-make an effort to bring a positive mood to the group or the interaction and i remain positive while not taking shit from dickheads and people that want to start conflicts or have something to prove.
-maintain my health and hygiene. Sounds obvious, but some people don't get it.
-try to discover what people want, like and admire and why. During this process values are revealed. It helps to identify if you share similar values and provides in combination with number 1, almost endless conversation.
-observe the effect of everything that happens to and around the people i'm with, as much as humanly possible
-have a stance on a lot of issues. It may put me in disagreement with people, but if you're tactful you end up being respected for your position. Shit doesn't have to get this serious when you first meet someone but if a touchy subject comes up I'm not afraid to take a stance.
-have standards. I stick to them. These aren't only about appearance but also the kind of vibe a person has. I understand cynicism, but there's a time and a place.
-live and have goals. I have a life and hobbies. No individual is the center of my universe. I strive to improve myself to pursue my interests.
-appreciate what is subtle. The small things, the inside jokes, a smile or wink, an understanding, sharing one mind if only for a moment
-keep it real. I'm honest about what i want and my expectations.
I can probably come up with other stuff but this is what's in the back of my mind when i approach a woman or group. Get experience and the rest of it takes care of itself.
Man, I must have asked you six times by now and you've NEVER answered, but... what does any of this have to do with pushing someone else's boundaries?
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 05:41:06 AM
OK, I feel like that's progress.
This happened kind of a while back so i don't know if you've seen the following things before you responded or what.
Quote
I want to point out that a sexual interaction shouldn't really ever involve you "getting past barriers" other than the general, normal, layers of intimacy we pass through as we get to know people.
These are the very same barriers/boundaries i have been talking about all along.
Quote
You seem oddly convinced that women need to have their natural objections soothed and barriers coaxed down. It's bullshit. Sure, we want to make sure that a guy is trustworthy and safe and probably not AIDS-ridden or a methhead before we fuck him, but all of that PUA bullshit about "convincing"... it's bullshit. It's dehumanizing.
I am not employing PUA techniques and i understand why you think they are dehumanizing, i agree. That's why i don't use them. You keep firing shots at what you think i'm doing everytime PUA and their techniques are brought up, then time and energy is wasted when i have to explain that in i don't fit in the mold of what you have a problem with.
Quote
We're out there, hoping we meet an attractive guy we can enjoy a sexual relationship with. You shouldn't have to address anyone objections, push anyone's boundaries, or in any other way talk around someone's NOT wanting to get laid.
These questions ultimately DO have to be addressed at some point. If you read something on wikipedia and have to conduct your own study to determine whether it's true or not, that's your prerogative. I never suggested it wasn't. If I present you with what you need to make an informed decision and you decide not in my favor, it's all good. I prefer to frame it as being IN your favor anyways.
Quote
You just need to get to know someone, without a bunch of contrived bullshit.
You can see my reply to placid dingo about tactics the other page ago. If you can believe that, then you may rid yourself of the belief that i use PUA techniques or canned material or lie to people about who i am and what i do. We might even be able to forward. I know that i have to re-examine my interactions with people in yet another dimension (kyriarchy).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 05:18:05 AM
I NEVER go out to bars and such alone and prefer to go with at least one other female if I can help it.
I watch my drinks at all times and only accept them from a friend or a bar tender.
-- If I need to leave briefly and I don't have someone I trust to watch my drink, I'll dump it and buy another if necessary
I keep my receipts and stash them in pockets rather than a purse so that if something does happen, they have a starting place.
I park as close as possible to the place I'm going to.
The names and numbers of everyone I go out with regularly are written on a sheet of paper and kept on my desk (even though I sorely resent that I have to tell people where I'm going all the time and who with)
When selecting clothing for the evening, my thoughts run along the lines of: "what if something bad happens?" This is not solely "can I run in these jeans?" but also "will I be blamed if I wear that shirt?" (although not in so many words)
When going to my car from a bar, etc., I either call someone or pretend to, if it's too late at night. If there was someone who creeped me out that night, I will make a male friend walk me to my car in return for a ride back or to his car, if we're leaving at the same time.
I'm investing in a CS gas keychain when I have the money.
I check my car for stow-aways before sliding in (I was really excited that my phone came with a flashlight app), no matter where I am - my house, a friend's house, a bar, it doesn't matter.
Even when I had a beeper for the car, I chose to use the key to unlock my door because the beeper unlocked all the car doors.
I have mastered the art of locking the car door as I close it after me and, at this point, it's an ingrained habit.
For whatever reason, I rarely have to deal with street harassment (I can think of like, three instances in the last five years), but I go on as if I hadn't actually heard what was said to me on the blue moon someone cat calls me. I haven't had anyone confront me over being ignored or chase after me to make sure I heard the comment, and I don't know what I'll do if it happens (which, gentlemen, it does; I've just been lucky apparently).
I'm NIGEL. Plus, I'm dead; it's amazing how much less guys hit on dead girls.
But seriously, after the brush-with-rape I had a couple years ago, I am ruder, more aggressive, and less likely to leave a bar alone. I will have a friend walk me to my car, and I don't walk or ride my bike home alone as I used to. I will tell guys to fuck off, and I will aggressively fuck with them and creep them out if they bother me.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 06:16:26 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 05:41:06 AM
OK, I feel like that's progress.
This happened kind of a while back so i don't know if you've seen the following things before you responded or what.
Quote
I want to point out that a sexual interaction shouldn't really ever involve you "getting past barriers" other than the general, normal, layers of intimacy we pass through as we get to know people.
These are the very same barriers/boundaries i have been talking about all along.
Quote
You seem oddly convinced that women need to have their natural objections soothed and barriers coaxed down. It's bullshit. Sure, we want to make sure that a guy is trustworthy and safe and probably not AIDS-ridden or a methhead before we fuck him, but all of that PUA bullshit about "convincing"... it's bullshit. It's dehumanizing.
I am not employing PUA techniques and i understand why you think they are dehumanizing, i agree. That's why i don't use them. You keep firing shots at what you think i'm doing everytime PUA and their techniques are brought up, then time and energy is wasted when i have to explain that in i don't fit in the mold of what you have a problem with.
Quote
We're out there, hoping we meet an attractive guy we can enjoy a sexual relationship with. You shouldn't have to address anyone objections, push anyone's boundaries, or in any other way talk around someone's NOT wanting to get laid.
These questions ultimately DO have to be addressed at some point. If you read something on wikipedia and have to conduct your own study to determine whether it's true or not, that's your prerogative. I never suggested it wasn't. If I present you with what you need to make an informed decision and you decide not in my favor, it's all good. I prefer to frame it as being IN your favor anyways.
Quote
You just need to get to know someone, without a bunch of contrived bullshit.
You can see my reply to placid dingo about tactics the other page ago. If you can believe that, then you may rid yourself of the belief that i use PUA techniques or canned material or lie to people about who i am and what i do. We might even be able to forward. I know that i have to re-examine my interactions with people in yet another dimension (kyriarchy).
Ah, fucking hell. Just when I thought you were capable of learning, you have to dig in your heels some more and screech about how you were really right all along. :roll:
What you are referring to as "boundaries", BTW, aren't WHAT ANYONE ELSE REFERS TO AS BOUNDARIES. The progression of intimacy is NOT "BOUNDARY PUSHING".
So SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU FUCKING ASPIE TWIT.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:19:11 AM
I'm NIGEL. Plus, I'm dead; it's amazing how much less guys hit on dead girls.
Statistically, dead girls are almost 90% less likely to go to the police in the case of a crime.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 06:22:33 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:19:11 AM
I'm NIGEL. Plus, I'm dead; it's amazing how much less guys hit on dead girls.
Statistically, dead girls are almost 90% less likely to go to the police in the case of a crime.
This is true, but we're also 900% creepier than living girls, and I think that really turns off the would-be suitors, including 85% of rapists.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:22:28 AM
Ah, fucking hell. Just when I thought you were capable of learning, you have to dig in your heels some more and screech about how you were really right all along. :roll:
I am still trying to clarify my meaning here. I'm not worried about being right. I simply want you to understand wtf i'm talking about. Sorry that i'm doing a poor job. I have already stated that i think you are more focused on destroying what i'm saying instead of attempting to understand what i mean. Again, sorry that i'm not making it easy for you to do that.
Quote
What you are referring to as "boundaries", BTW, aren't WHAT ANYONE ELSE REFERS TO AS BOUNDARIES. The progression of intimacy is NOT "BOUNDARY PUSHING".
Fine. Instead of overcoming or addressing boundaries we can call it the progression of intimacy. I'm fine with that, it's much more accurate. This could have a happened a long time ago. This inability to communicate through writing kind of highlights that i'm not in the business of making connections for people. There's a lot more context IRL for a person to draw from and make the connections that i want them to.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 06:31:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:22:28 AM
Ah, fucking hell. Just when I thought you were capable of learning, you have to dig in your heels some more and screech about how you were really right all along. :roll:
I am still trying to clarify my meaning here. I'm not worried about being right. I simply want you to understand wtf i'm talking about. Sorry that i'm doing a poor job. I have already stated that i think you are more focused on destroying what i'm saying instead of attempting to understand what i mean. Again, sorry that i'm not making it easy for you to do that.
Quote
What you are referring to as "boundaries", BTW, aren't WHAT ANYONE ELSE REFERS TO AS BOUNDARIES. The progression of intimacy is NOT "BOUNDARY PUSHING".
Fine. Instead of overcoming or addressing boundaries we can call it the progression of intimacy. I'm fine with that, it's much more accurate. This could have a happened a long time ago. This inability to speak write kind of highlights that i'm not in the business of making connections for people. There's a lot more context IRL for a person to draw from and make the connections that i want them to.
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people, and this conversation, if you recall, started with you objecting to my statement that a man pushing a woman's boundaries to try to get her to sleep with him is a red flag.
Do you still object to that statement?
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:23:53 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 06:22:33 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:19:11 AM
I'm NIGEL. Plus, I'm dead; it's amazing how much less guys hit on dead girls.
Statistically, dead girls are almost 90% less likely to go to the police in the case of a crime.
This is true, but we're also 900% creepier than living girls, and I think that really turns off the would-be suitors, including 85% of rapists.
We should leave lifelike corpse dolls lying around gutters with all their orifices lined with some kind of transdermal cyanide lotion, just to catch that last 15%.
PS regarding the actual topic of this thread:
Whenever a conversation about having sex reaches a point where a guy feels like he has to argue the point, what kind of scumbag doesn't have the bell ding in his head, and realize that's the perfect time to
move on? What line of reasoning goes from "Let's have sex" to "But here's why you should change your mind and say yes" without meandering through douchebag territory?
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 06:34:59 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:23:53 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 06:22:33 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:19:11 AM
I'm NIGEL. Plus, I'm dead; it's amazing how much less guys hit on dead girls.
Statistically, dead girls are almost 90% less likely to go to the police in the case of a crime.
This is true, but we're also 900% creepier than living girls, and I think that really turns off the would-be suitors, including 85% of rapists.
We should leave lifelike corpse dolls lying around gutters with all their orifices lined with some kind of transdermal cyanide lotion, just to catch that last 15%.
PS regarding the actual topic of this thread:
Whenever a conversation about having sex reaches a point where a guy feels like he has to argue the point, what kind of scumbag doesn't have the bell ding in his head, and realize that's the perfect time to move on? What line of reasoning goes from "Let's have sex" to "But here's why you should change your mind and say yes" without meandering through douchebag territory?
I kinda wonder the same.
But then again, I can be... kinda aggressive... when it comes to trying to get laid, with someone I am already sleeping with on the regular. On the other hand, I'm five foot three and not exactly physically threatening.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:34:13 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
, and this conversation, if you recall, started with you objecting to my statement that a man pushing a woman's boundaries to try to get her to sleep with him is a red flag.
Do you still object to that statement?
No.
At the time i poorly tried to interject what i thought was the difference between an objection and a personal boundary and what you do when you meet resistance from either one. For personal boundaries, one simply goes through the process that allows for them to be opened for you. Of course, i wanted to emphasize that the person being evaluated for trust can assist the process. For objections of a situational or logistical nature, one can be prepared so that they are not a factor, for the most part.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 06:57:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:34:13 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
, and this conversation, if you recall, started with you objecting to my statement that a man pushing a woman's boundaries to try to get her to sleep with him is a red flag.
Do you still object to that statement?
No.
At the time i poorly tried to interject what i thought was the difference between an objection and a personal boundary and what you do when you meet resistance from either one. For personal boundaries, one simply goes through the process that allows for them to be opened for you. Of course, i wanted to emphasize that the person being evaluated for trust can assist the process. For objections of a situational or logistical nature, one can be prepared so that they are not a factor, for the most part.
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 06:57:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:34:13 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
, and this conversation, if you recall, started with you objecting to my statement that a man pushing a woman's boundaries to try to get her to sleep with him is a red flag.
Do you still object to that statement?
No.
At the time i poorly tried to interject what i thought was the difference between an objection and a personal boundary and what you do when you meet resistance from either one. For personal boundaries, one simply goes through the process that allows for them to be opened for you. Of course, i wanted to emphasize that the person being evaluated for trust can assist the process. For objections of a situational or logistical nature, one can be prepared so that they are not a factor, for the most part.
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me." Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 06:57:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:34:13 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
, and this conversation, if you recall, started with you objecting to my statement that a man pushing a woman's boundaries to try to get her to sleep with him is a red flag.
Do you still object to that statement?
No.
At the time i poorly tried to interject what i thought was the difference between an objection and a personal boundary and what you do when you meet resistance from either one. For personal boundaries, one simply goes through the process that allows for them to be opened for you. Of course, i wanted to emphasize that the person being evaluated for trust can assist the process. For objections of a situational or logistical nature, one can be prepared so that they are not a factor, for the most part.
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me." Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
Sounds like you're doin' it right, since people aren't a puzzle box to solve or a game to play, but people to get to know and connect with.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:10:18 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 06:57:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:34:13 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
, and this conversation, if you recall, started with you objecting to my statement that a man pushing a woman's boundaries to try to get her to sleep with him is a red flag.
Do you still object to that statement?
No.
At the time i poorly tried to interject what i thought was the difference between an objection and a personal boundary and what you do when you meet resistance from either one. For personal boundaries, one simply goes through the process that allows for them to be opened for you. Of course, i wanted to emphasize that the person being evaluated for trust can assist the process. For objections of a situational or logistical nature, one can be prepared so that they are not a factor, for the most part.
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me." Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
Sounds like you're doin' it right, since people aren't a puzzle box to solve or a game to play, but people to get to know and connect with.
Excellent news. If they
were puzzle boxes, getting laid could result in Pinhead.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:12:39 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:10:18 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 06:57:49 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:34:13 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
, and this conversation, if you recall, started with you objecting to my statement that a man pushing a woman's boundaries to try to get her to sleep with him is a red flag.
Do you still object to that statement?
No.
At the time i poorly tried to interject what i thought was the difference between an objection and a personal boundary and what you do when you meet resistance from either one. For personal boundaries, one simply goes through the process that allows for them to be opened for you. Of course, i wanted to emphasize that the person being evaluated for trust can assist the process. For objections of a situational or logistical nature, one can be prepared so that they are not a factor, for the most part.
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me." Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
Sounds like you're doin' it right, since people aren't a puzzle box to solve or a game to play, but people to get to know and connect with.
Excellent news. If they were puzzle boxes, getting laid could result in Pinhead.
:lulz: Perfect analogy.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
QuoteQuote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
Getting to know someone is not a process for getting laid. It's getting to know someone. I know it's counterintuitive and everything but, believe it or not, sometimes that can be its own reward.
That's what makes the sex, you know,
extra special.
My previous post was edited besides the tags.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:19:11 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 05:18:05 AM
I NEVER go out to bars and such alone and prefer to go with at least one other female if I can help it.
I watch my drinks at all times and only accept them from a friend or a bar tender.
-- If I need to leave briefly and I don't have someone I trust to watch my drink, I'll dump it and buy another if necessary
I keep my receipts and stash them in pockets rather than a purse so that if something does happen, they have a starting place.
I park as close as possible to the place I'm going to.
The names and numbers of everyone I go out with regularly are written on a sheet of paper and kept on my desk (even though I sorely resent that I have to tell people where I'm going all the time and who with)
When selecting clothing for the evening, my thoughts run along the lines of: "what if something bad happens?" This is not solely "can I run in these jeans?" but also "will I be blamed if I wear that shirt?" (although not in so many words)
When going to my car from a bar, etc., I either call someone or pretend to, if it's too late at night. If there was someone who creeped me out that night, I will make a male friend walk me to my car in return for a ride back or to his car, if we're leaving at the same time.
I'm investing in a CS gas keychain when I have the money.
I check my car for stow-aways before sliding in (I was really excited that my phone came with a flashlight app), no matter where I am - my house, a friend's house, a bar, it doesn't matter.
Even when I had a beeper for the car, I chose to use the key to unlock my door because the beeper unlocked all the car doors.
I have mastered the art of locking the car door as I close it after me and, at this point, it's an ingrained habit.
For whatever reason, I rarely have to deal with street harassment (I can think of like, three instances in the last five years), but I go on as if I hadn't actually heard what was said to me on the blue moon someone cat calls me. I haven't had anyone confront me over being ignored or chase after me to make sure I heard the comment, and I don't know what I'll do if it happens (which, gentlemen, it does; I've just been lucky apparently).
I'm NIGEL. Plus, I'm dead; it's amazing how much less guys hit on dead girls.
But seriously, after the brush-with-rape I had a couple years ago, I am ruder, more aggressive, and less likely to leave a bar alone. I will have a friend walk me to my car, and I don't walk or ride my bike home alone as I used to. I will tell guys to fuck off, and I will aggressively fuck with them and creep them out if they bother me.
THIS. They want the ones they can intimidate, somebody who's scared to be loud and rude.
You have to be ready to say/yell it loud enough to draw attention:
"DON'T PUT YOUR HANDS ON ME/GET YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF OF ME."
also:
"I'M NOT A FUCKING HOOKER" (to the ones that drive alongside you real slow while you're walking - it's fun to watch them speed away, they're always married :lol: )
If I go somewhere other than the corner store or the library, somebody always knows where I went and when I intend to come home. That way if I don't come back, they KNOW something's wrong.
I keep dogs. Loud, mean, protective dogs. There's a dog in my room at night. If I'm sitting on the porch, there's a dog with me. There's dogs behind the house where people might otherwise be tempted to creep around.
I stay on lit streets and away from isolated areas.
I usually carry something that can be used as a weapon if it comes down to that. Even if it's just a pocketknife (much prefer CS gas). Be ready with it but don't let them see it, the element of surprise is what you need. If for any reason I don't have anything, I'm in the habit of spotting things that can be used in a pinch. Bottles are good, you can break them on people and then stick them. Metal folding chairs are great.
Cell phone at all times.
Creepy people are cut off. I just don't have anything to do with them at all once they say or do something creepy.
If a man comes by for a card reading, I do it on the front porch. No exceptions.
I walk like I know where I'm going and have a definite place I'm headed, even if I don't. I don't hurry (makes you look scared) but don't shuffle aimlessly either. I don't allow people to engage me. If somebody's "not right", I make eye contact - not in a challenging way, but enough not to look submissive and to let them know I'm watching them.
I don't wear gold or diamonds or anything that would make me worth grabbing for financial reasons. All of my jewelry is silver and wouldn't fetch five dollars in a pawnshop.
None of this is foolproof, but it's worked for me a long time, knock wood.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
The idea that you can "make mental connections between ideas and concepts" FOR another person is unbelievably egotistical and condescending. :lulz:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:33:14 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
The idea that you can "make mental connections between ideas and concepts" FOR another person is unbelievably egotistical and condescending. :lulz:
I think it's trying to IMPRESS you, Nigel. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:33:14 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
The idea that you can "make mental connections between ideas and concepts" FOR another person is unbelievably egotistical and condescending. :lulz:
...That's what we do when we explain things to others...? Some people are not as swift as others, as evidenced in this thread. If someone has ever told you something that made you say,"I never thought of it that way before" someone has made a connection for you.
ETA: Analogies, similies, metaphors
There. a connection was made for you
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:39:02 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:33:14 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
The idea that you can "make mental connections between ideas and concepts" FOR another person is unbelievably egotistical and condescending. :lulz:
...That's what we do when we explain things to others...? Some people are not as swift as others, as evidenced in this thread. If someone has ever told you something that made you say,"I never thought of it that way before" someone has made a connection for you.
ETA: Analogies, similies, metaphors
There. a connection was made for you
3, 2, 1... :nuke: :fuckoff:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 07:42:21 AM
3, 2, 1... :nuke: :fuckoff:
Hey, it's not exclusively a result of stupidity or being slow. Sometimes ideas have similarities that have never occurred to us before
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:45:16 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 07:42:21 AM
3, 2, 1... :nuke: :fuckoff:
Hey, it's not exclusively a result of stupidity or being slow. Sometimes ideas have similarities that have never occurred to us before
/
:treefucker:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 07:31:27 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:19:11 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 05:18:05 AM
I NEVER go out to bars and such alone and prefer to go with at least one other female if I can help it.
I watch my drinks at all times and only accept them from a friend or a bar tender.
-- If I need to leave briefly and I don't have someone I trust to watch my drink, I'll dump it and buy another if necessary
I keep my receipts and stash them in pockets rather than a purse so that if something does happen, they have a starting place.
I park as close as possible to the place I'm going to.
The names and numbers of everyone I go out with regularly are written on a sheet of paper and kept on my desk (even though I sorely resent that I have to tell people where I'm going all the time and who with)
When selecting clothing for the evening, my thoughts run along the lines of: "what if something bad happens?" This is not solely "can I run in these jeans?" but also "will I be blamed if I wear that shirt?" (although not in so many words)
When going to my car from a bar, etc., I either call someone or pretend to, if it's too late at night. If there was someone who creeped me out that night, I will make a male friend walk me to my car in return for a ride back or to his car, if we're leaving at the same time.
I'm investing in a CS gas keychain when I have the money.
I check my car for stow-aways before sliding in (I was really excited that my phone came with a flashlight app), no matter where I am - my house, a friend's house, a bar, it doesn't matter.
Even when I had a beeper for the car, I chose to use the key to unlock my door because the beeper unlocked all the car doors.
I have mastered the art of locking the car door as I close it after me and, at this point, it's an ingrained habit.
For whatever reason, I rarely have to deal with street harassment (I can think of like, three instances in the last five years), but I go on as if I hadn't actually heard what was said to me on the blue moon someone cat calls me. I haven't had anyone confront me over being ignored or chase after me to make sure I heard the comment, and I don't know what I'll do if it happens (which, gentlemen, it does; I've just been lucky apparently).
I'm NIGEL. Plus, I'm dead; it's amazing how much less guys hit on dead girls.
But seriously, after the brush-with-rape I had a couple years ago, I am ruder, more aggressive, and less likely to leave a bar alone. I will have a friend walk me to my car, and I don't walk or ride my bike home alone as I used to. I will tell guys to fuck off, and I will aggressively fuck with them and creep them out if they bother me.
THIS. They want the ones they can intimidate, somebody who's scared to be loud and rude.
You have to be ready to say/yell it loud enough to draw attention:
"DON'T PUT YOUR HANDS ON ME/GET YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF OF ME."
also:
"I'M NOT A FUCKING HOOKER" (to the ones that drive alongside you real slow while you're walking - it's fun to watch them speed away, they're always married :lol: )
If I go somewhere other than the corner store or the library, somebody always knows where I went and when I intend to come home. That way if I don't come back, they KNOW something's wrong.
I keep dogs. Loud, mean, protective dogs. There's a dog in my room at night. If I'm sitting on the porch, there's a dog with me. There's dogs behind the house where people might otherwise be tempted to creep around.
I stay on lit streets and away from isolated areas.
I usually carry something that can be used as a weapon if it comes down to that. Even if it's just a pocketknife (much prefer CS gas). Be ready with it but don't let them see it, the element of surprise is what you need. If for any reason I don't have anything, I'm in the habit of spotting things that can be used in a pinch. Bottles are good, you can break them on people and then stick them. Metal folding chairs are great.
Cell phone at all times.
Creepy people are cut off. I just don't have anything to do with them at all once they say or do something creepy.
If a man comes by for a card reading, I do it on the front porch. No exceptions.
I walk like I know where I'm going and have a definite place I'm headed, even if I don't. I don't hurry (makes you look scared) but don't shuffle aimlessly either. I don't allow people to engage me. If somebody's "not right", I make eye contact - not in a challenging way, but enough not to look submissive and to let them know I'm watching them.
I don't wear gold or diamonds or anything that would make me worth grabbing for financial reasons. All of my jewelry is silver and wouldn't fetch five dollars in a pawnshop.
None of this is foolproof, but it's worked for me a long time, knock wood.
Yep. ALL of this... and yes, it does suck that we have the need to live this way.
Dog is woman's best friend. I have never been without one, as long as I've been an adult, because when it comes down to it a good dog is a better deterrent than a gun. I also have a gun. Or four.
Being willing to be LOUD, make eye contact, and confidence are crucial. It's funny, because a lot of people think that black, Hispanic, and indian women are "just obnoxious". No, asshole, when you are brown and poor and live in a shitty part of town, being vocal is a HUGE survival tactic. White attackers, especially well-off ones, tend to see brown women as easy victims they won't be prosecuted for. If I am broadcasting to all and sundry that I will yell the fuck out, creepers and opportunists are more likely to leave me the fuck alone. Did you really think that it was just coincidence that poor women are loud and brash? It's just goddamn self-preservation.
Being aware of potential weapons is always critical. When I walk into a room I have already located the first three things at hand I could potentially kill someone with. That's just training; "boom, boom boom, when you walk into a room". Thank god my dad was a career killer, most women don't get that training.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 07:37:28 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:33:14 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
The idea that you can "make mental connections between ideas and concepts" FOR another person is unbelievably egotistical and condescending. :lulz:
I think it's trying to IMPRESS you, Nigel. :horrormirth:
I don't think so. I think he has simply not quite (and hopefully a "yet" will go in there) fully realized that other people's feelings, and their desires, motivations, and boundaries are equally important to his own. I am guessing/hoping that he is still quite young, and that his experiences are still limited enough to explain his limited understanding of other people as authentic autonomous beings.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:39:02 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:33:14 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
The idea that you can "make mental connections between ideas and concepts" FOR another person is unbelievably egotistical and condescending. :lulz:
...That's what we do when we explain things to others...? Some people are not as swift as others, as evidenced in this thread. If someone has ever told you something that made you say,"I never thought of it that way before" someone has made a connection for you.
ETA: Analogies, similies, metaphors
There. a connection was made for you
AHAHHHAHHHHAAAAAA
OK, never mind. It's a self-absorbed narcissistic retard.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:56:33 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 07:37:28 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:33:14 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
The idea that you can "make mental connections between ideas and concepts" FOR another person is unbelievably egotistical and condescending. :lulz:
I think it's trying to IMPRESS you, Nigel. :horrormirth:
I don't think so. I think he has simply not quite (and hopefully a "yet" will go in there) fully realized that other people's feelings, and their desires, motivations, and boundaries are equally important to his own. I am guessing/hoping that he is still quite young, and that his experiences are still limited enough to explain his limited understanding of other people as authentic autonomous beings.
Yeah. If he's fourteen, it's easier to overlook a lot of it.
I didn't know that about your dad. Holy fuck.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:45:16 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 07:42:21 AM
3, 2, 1... :nuke: :fuckoff:
Hey, it's not exclusively a result of stupidity or being slow. Sometimes ideas have similarities that have never occurred to us before
And sometimes, as in your case, someone is just actually so slow that they can't comprehend the elemental difference between the already-explained "facilitating" a connection for another person, and "making" a connection. Gotta write you off, kid; you're a hopeless case of swollen monkey-butt. Or maybe you're just drunk. Either way.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:56:33 AM
I don't think so. I think he has simply not quite (and hopefully a "yet" will go in there) fully realized that other people's feelings, and their desires, motivations, and boundaries are equally important to his own. I am guessing/hoping that he is still quite young, and that his experiences are still limited enough to explain his limited understanding of other people as authentic autonomous beings.
It was probably weird for me when I realized that girls are people. I don't remember exactly because I didn't think in words at the time.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 08:00:28 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:56:33 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 05, 2012, 07:37:28 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:33:14 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:07:34 AM
Funnily enough, I AM in the business of making connections with people
Not with. FOR
Quote
Well, that is good to hear.
Making connections "for" people? What does that mean? The closest thing I can think of is facilitating a connection between one person and another person... you can't make connections "for" another person.
If you are trying to make a connection with another person and you meet resistance, and you want to progress the level of intimacy so that you no longer meet resistance, the only ethical thing to do is work WITH their boundaries and develop intimacy until the boundary no longer applies to your relationship with them.
I'd like to point out that your incessant use of passive voice is really offputting.
read as "Mental connections between ideas and concepts." That should put the original quote in a whole new light for you.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've never thought of women as a puzzle box I'm supposed to fuck with until they become "opened for me."
That is the funnest and most rewarding part for me is the process of learning how and why a person thinks the way they do and in turn who they are, interesting people at least. Sex usually just happens after this and it's great. Even greater is that it never really ends. It's so difficult to understand the depths of a person that it can go and go until a married couple has 200 years between them.
Quote
Admittedly I'm terrible at playing the game, but I've always failed when I made my objective sex. I tend to have more success when my objective is making a connection with a person.
That's where the whole game concept comes in, as distasteful as it sounds. The process of courting, learning... whatever you want to call it.
The idea that you can "make mental connections between ideas and concepts" FOR another person is unbelievably egotistical and condescending. :lulz:
I think it's trying to IMPRESS you, Nigel. :horrormirth:
I don't think so. I think he has simply not quite (and hopefully a "yet" will go in there) fully realized that other people's feelings, and their desires, motivations, and boundaries are equally important to his own. I am guessing/hoping that he is still quite young, and that his experiences are still limited enough to explain his limited understanding of other people as authentic autonomous beings.
Yeah. If he's fourteen, it's easier to overlook a lot of it.
I didn't know that about your dad. Holy fuck.
Yeah, dad is quite the thing. He is a superb human being and a completely stellar father, but there have been some controversies that have come out as he ages that have tested my patience with him no end. That is another story. Or a few. I guess the one point of pride that I can access from right now is that I am the baby daughter who has always argued with him. He is such an asshole; from when I was maybe 18-19 he used to come over with the MOST BULLSHIT arguments that he KNEW would get my goat, and I would get up in his six-foot-two-ass and fucking argue him down.
I love the SHIT out of that argumentative old fuck! GODDAMN HIS ASS. :lulz:
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 08:13:13 AM
I love the SHIT out of that argumentative old fuck! GODDAMN HIS ASS. :lulz:
Your dad is Roger?
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 08:13:13 AM
I love the SHIT out of that argumentative old fuck! GODDAMN HIS ASS. :lulz:
Your dad is Roger?
BASICALLY. :crankey:
Which probably explains A LOT.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 08:05:53 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 07:56:33 AM
I don't think so. I think he has simply not quite (and hopefully a "yet" will go in there) fully realized that other people's feelings, and their desires, motivations, and boundaries are equally important to his own. I am guessing/hoping that he is still quite young, and that his experiences are still limited enough to explain his limited understanding of other people as authentic autonomous beings.
It was probably weird for me when I realized that girls are people. I don't remember exactly because I didn't think in words at the time.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
For what it's worth, I think bf just sucks at communicating.
And that IS YOUR problem that YOU need to work on, bf.
I don't really do anything at night. Occasionally I walk around the corner to the store, but there are no street lights until I get to the parking lot. I try to wear dark, shapeless clothing, the better to seem like some lurking psycho killer, and have people avoid me.
When I used to have night classes at the downtown campus (and I am just realizing I will have night classes again), which is in a really seedy and dangerous area of town, I would call someone, because even parking under a light close to the buildings area, the walk freaked me out. I carried a pen or my keys in such a way that if it became necessary I could stab an attacker in the eye.
I don't do bars generally, because I suck at making conversation and I don't like to drink, but when I do I never go very far from who I came with. Even the meetrack I don't feel particularly comfortable in by myself, and it's essentially a 40'x40' room with a 12'x14' patio. Parking = right out front or come back another day.
Oh I forgot something I used to do because I don't have them anymore, and I'd really like to find them again, but fashion is a fickle creature.
I used to wear those chopstick style things to put my hair up, and I only actually need one to keep my hair in place, so the other one was there as a potential weapon, my favourite ones were wicked sharp at the tips, and would often carry one in my hand when walking alone.
OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.
A few years ago, when I lived in a rough neighborhood, I carried a utility knife with me in case I needed to cut somebody. It was the closest thing I had to a weapon, and probably still is.
I wasn't specifically worried about sexual assault, though, just people wanting things from me aggressively, testing my boundaries to see what they can get from me, casually mentioning that they're in a gang, telling me "how we do things around here", that kind of thing.
Quote from: Emo Howard on August 05, 2012, 12:01:02 PM
A few years ago, when I lived in a rough neighborhood, I carried a utility knife with me in case I needed to cut somebody. It was the closest thing I had to a weapon, and probably still is.
I wasn't specifically worried about sexual assault, though, just people wanting things from me aggressively, testing my boundaries to see what they can get from me, casually mentioning that they're in a gang, telling me "how we do things around here", that kind of thing.
And that's why I was
specific about it being sexual assault and street sexual harassment. It was a thought experiment, basically to show that the women here have myriad ways of trying to prevent sexual assault, because guys don't actually think of that sort of thing.
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
Oh I forgot something I used to do because I don't have them anymore, and I'd really like to find them again, but fashion is a fickle creature.
I used to wear those chopstick style things to put my hair up, and I only actually need one to keep my hair in place, so the other one was there as a potential weapon, my favourite ones were wicked sharp at the tips, and would often carry one in my hand when walking alone.
OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.
I love those chopstick things! And yeah, those are AWESOME weapons.
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.
I did a lot of those things when I was younger, and yes I had been catcalled at etc. when I was younger.
Quote from: Guru Quixote on August 05, 2012, 01:42:59 PM
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.
I did a lot of those things when I was younger, and yes I had been catcalled at etc. when I was younger.
Ok, that does kind of change the premise of what I was trying to get at.
Can I ask what they were specifically? I only rarely hear about the perspective of a male on the receiving end of sexual harassment or a guy feeling like he has to be hyper vigilant in regard to sexual assault.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:45:07 AMI'm five foot three and not exactly physically threatening.
Save that line for people who've never met you. you're
absolutely terrifying.
About 10 or so years ago, when I lived in Belltown in Seattle, there was a serial rapist preying on men, usually late at night in some of the parks in and around the downtown area. Including the park that was my go-to "insomnia's here, gonna go smoke a bowl under some trees with a killer view of downtown and Elliot bay" park (Cal Andersen, for those familiar with Seattle). Now, I'm a big dude and have been told that the default look on my face is "potentially murderous" (probably an unconscious survival tactic since I'm actually a really nice person who hates having to ever resort to physical violence in spite of my facility with it), but I came to the conclusion that someone deranged enough to be serially raping men in parks probably didn't care about that kind of shit, and very possibly was bigger and better at the art of violence than I am. I let it keep me out of the parks at night for about 2 weeks, and even outside of the parks I became even more hyper-vigilant after dark, especially in alleys or places with no other people around.
Then I got REALLY REALLY angry about it, not just that it was impacting my ability to enjoy one of my cherished rituals but that it had put a damper on the entire (20-something carefree party boy) community. So I got an unregistered piece and spent a few tense nights trying to enjoy my time in the park but mostly waiting to have to shoot someone.
I never encountered the guy, and unless it happened after I moved away nobody was ever caught for the crimes, they just stopped eventually.
But the way I felt for those few weeks in a very specific circumstance? I can't fucking IMAGINE having to have that be my default mode through life.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:45:07 AMI'm five foot three and not exactly physically threatening.
Save that line for people who've never met you. you're absolutely terrifying.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 04:59:49 PM
About 10 or so years ago, when I lived in Belltown in Seattle, there was a serial rapist preying on men, usually late at night in some of the parks in and around the downtown area. Including the park that was my go-to "insomnia's here, gonna go smoke a bowl under some trees with a killer view of downtown and Elliot bay" park (Cal Andersen, for those familiar with Seattle). Now, I'm a big dude and have been told that the default look on my face is "potentially murderous" (probably an unconscious survival tactic since I'm actually a really nice person who hates having to ever resort to physical violence in spite of my facility with it), but I came to the conclusion that someone deranged enough to be serially raping men in parks probably didn't care about that kind of shit, and very possibly was bigger and better at the art of violence than I am. I let it keep me out of the parks at night for about 2 weeks, and even outside of the parks I became even more hyper-vigilant after dark, especially in alleys or places with no other people around.
Then I got REALLY REALLY angry about it, not just that it was impacting my ability to enjoy one of my cherished rituals but that it had put a damper on the entire (20-something carefree party boy) community. So I got an unregistered piece and spent a few tense nights trying to enjoy my time in the park but mostly waiting to have to shoot someone.
I never encountered the guy, and unless it happened after I moved away nobody was ever caught for the crimes, they just stopped eventually.
But the way I felt for those few weeks in a very specific circumstance? I can't fucking IMAGINE having to have that be my default mode through life.
It totally sucks.
Which is why when someone like PUA-boy here says something like "I try to get past her boundaries and show her that she can trust me, and if she can't or won't trust, it's because she has issues, so I move on" it pisses me off. That's PUA code for "If she turns out to have strong boundaries and isn't an easy mark I can quickly coerce into sex, I drop it and look for someone more vulnerable/damaged". Trust is something that is built over time; you can't just "show someone that their idea is wrong" with regards to allowing themselves to be vulnerable to a stranger.
Fucking coercive rapey bullshit, is what it is. Next time some guy tries to pull that shit on me, instead of laughing at him and telling him to fuck off I swear to god I'm going to shank him.
Oh and I'm just WAITING for grabby-hands to come back around. Of course, I guess I would have to go to the bar to encounter him and I haven't gone for weeks, but if I do his ass is getting a whoopin. I have a grudge.
Quote from: v3x on August 05, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 08:13:13 AM
I love the SHIT out of that argumentative old fuck! GODDAMN HIS ASS. :lulz:
Your dad is Roger?
:?
I am not argumentative. I am a Holy Man
TM which means that my view of reality is skewed to the point that even when you're right (ie, you agree with me), it LOOKS like you're wrong (we argue). This isn't MY doing.
Anyway, on with whatever.
Blackfoot, stop fucking arguing for a minute and listen. Just listen, and try to understand what I'm saying, instead of listening to formulate a response.
Ok, let's say you're this soldier, right? And you get sent to these stupid fucking wars overseas, and you see (and maybe do) all manner of fucked up shit. But that's okay, because even though it's awful and terrible, it's not "horror", because - being a soldier - it's all within your frame of reference.
And then one day, let's just assume there's an accident or something, a wound maybe, and you can't be a soldier anymore. You are booted out into the world naked (you may have clothes, but you don't have a uniform, so you may as well be bare-ass naked). Suddenly, all that awful shit that you saw IS horror, because you no longer have a frame of reference to place it in. Or worse, you DO, but you no longer have a frame of reference for the regular civilian world.
So, of course, the first thing you do is go looking for a uniform, so that you can at least once again have some method by which to judge or evaluate the world around you. So you go through a pile of different belief systems, like an adolescent's "phases" only on 8X fast forward, looking for the one you can let yourself submerge into.
Are you following me so far? If so, I'll continue.
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
Oh I forgot something I used to do because I don't have them anymore, and I'd really like to find them again, but fashion is a fickle creature.
I used to wear those chopstick style things to put my hair up, and I only actually need one to keep my hair in place, so the other one was there as a potential weapon, my favourite ones were wicked sharp at the tips, and would often carry one in my hand when walking alone.
OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.
Nothing at all.
I have, however, taught a class on self-defense specifically tailored towards women. Or, I tried to, while the main instructor (I was the assistant) undermined me by teaching "Jumping Around in Gym Clothes While Pretending to Learn Self-Defence".
Hi Cain. :)
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 05, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 06:45:07 AMI'm five foot three and not exactly physically threatening.
Save that line for people who've never met you. you're absolutely terrifying.
Formidable, certainly.
Hi.
That class really annoyed me, incidentally. It was specifically meant to deal with sexual assault, and so I spent hours researching rape, breaking down into distinct categories and types, collecting the statistics to help the students understand the risks and probabilities involved and to cover the whole subject from a more preventative perspective (if you're left to resorting to violence, then I consider that a bad place to start from, especially given on average a female is smaller, lighter and less aggressive than a male attacker. Ideally, you want to concentrate on all the other things which can help someone avoid such a situation first, then deal with the combat stuff).
So the instructor I was teaching with decided to be all "herp derp put your keys between your fingers and punch your attacker" with the thing. Nothing about prevention. No viable combat training, aside from basic punching or kicking, which, IMO, does not cut the mustard when you're dealing with someone looking to rape you. Especially since that rape can possibly be followed up by murder. Because of the physical differences between men and women, and the seriousness of the consequences, I personally advocated teaching the most dangerous techniques, designed to maim or kill an attacker. I was told these were "too dangerous", which I felt was kinda missing the point. We don't want to hurt the poor violent rapist badly enough to actually convince him to stop his assault?
That class did a gross disservice to everyone who attended, because it not only wasted their time and the school's money, it gave them a false sense of security where none existed. The only outcomes from using something from that class on a potential rapist would be a) injuring yourself, or b) pissing off the rapist enough to give you a brutal beating along with the sexual assault. Probably both.
I did lodge a formal complaint with the school that put on the class, but four years after I left, he was still teaching it there.
Sounds like that Guy was an idiot.
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2012, 07:32:39 PM
Hi.
That class really annoyed me, incidentally. It was specifically meant to deal with sexual assault, and so I spent hours researching rape, breaking down into distinct categories and types, collecting the statistics to help the students understand the risks and probabilities involved and to cover the whole subject from a more preventative perspective (if you're left to resorting to violence, then I consider that a bad place to start from, especially given on average a female is smaller, lighter and less aggressive than a male attacker. Ideally, you want to concentrate on all the other things which can help someone avoid such a situation first, then deal with the combat stuff).
So the instructor I was teaching with decided to be all "herp derp put your keys between your fingers and punch your attacker" with the thing. Nothing about prevention. No viable combat training, aside from basic punching or kicking, which, IMO, does not cut the mustard when you're dealing with someone looking to rape you. Especially since that rape can possibly be followed up by murder. Because of the physical differences between men and women, and the seriousness of the consequences, I personally advocated teaching the most dangerous techniques, designed to maim or kill an attacker. I was told these were "too dangerous", which I felt was kinda missing the point. We don't want to hurt the poor violent rapist badly enough to actually convince him to stop his assault?
That class did a gross disservice to everyone who attended, because it not only wasted their time and the school's money, it gave them a false sense of security where none existed. The only outcomes from using something from that class on a potential rapist would be a) injuring yourself, or b) pissing off the rapist enough to give you a brutal beating along with the sexual assault. Probably both.
I did lodge a formal complaint with the school that put on the class, but four years after I left, he was still teaching it there.
These are the idiots who have been doing the TV talk show circuit for years. Totally useless, I agree.
I wonder, with all the women in the military these days, how much combat training they're actually getting and if rape stats are going down any since they've been coming home? Or are they less likely to be attacked in the first place because of the way they carry themselves? My dad was a vet and he told me that you can pull a person's upper lip straight up and rip their face off, or drive bone into their brain by giving them a hard uppercut to the nose. This might take more physical strength than most women have. Still, hand-to-hand combat training is a fantastic idea.
My favorite foiled rape story is the lady who pretended to be into it, grabbed her attacker's dick and sack, and twisted them in opposite directions. She said she "wrung it out like a washrag". He punched her a couple of times but she didn't let go. She walked him down the stairs like this (it took awhile, he fainted a time or two) and made him call the police on himself. This didn't take a great deal of upper body strength - the lady was elderly. :lol:
Unfortunately, I suspect it's not having much of an effect, given how much rape is going on in the US military
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military
QuoteRape within the US military has become so widespread that it is estimated that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire. So great is the issue that a group of veterans are suing the Pentagon to force reform. The lawsuit, which includes three men and 25 women (the suit initially involved 17 plaintiffs but grew to 28) who claim to have been subjected to sexual assaults while serving in the armed forces, blames former defence secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates for a culture of punishment against the women and men who report sex crimes and a failure to prosecute the offenders.
QuoteLast year 3,158 sexual crimes were reported within the US military. Of those cases, only 529 reached a court room, and only 104 convictions were made, according to a 2010 report from SAPRO (sexual assault prevention and response office, a division of the department of defence). But these figures are only a fraction of the reality. Sexual assaults are notoriously under-reported. The same report estimated that there were a further 19,000 unreported cases of sexual assault last year. The department of veterans affairs, meanwhile, released an independent study estimating that one in three women had experience of military sexual trauma while on active service. That is double the rate for civilians, which is one in six, according to the US department of justice.
This is (one of the reason's) why I think the combat aspect of self-defence is overrated. You have to focus on the culture and context in which rape occurs. It doesn't really matter if you know how to put a guy down if, when you do so, you're going to be thrown into a military prison for "assaulting/murdering a superior officer". This is why I tend to place education, awareness and so on as more important, because there will be always be situations where standing up for yourself and fighting back will be considered illegal, regardless of how in the right you may actually be.
And there is little comfort in avoiding a rape, only to go to prison and be subject to a system where rape is "frequent and severe (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149077/Women-Alabama-prison-suffered-frequent-severe-sexual-violence-guards-PUNISHED-tried-report-crimes.html)".
Yeah, you need to counter rape culture just as much as women/females need to be taught how to defend themselves. Otherwise you're not really making a dent in the situation.
I almost forgot this tumblr, which tells you even more than we have about male privilege, if you're interested: http://aboutmaleprivilege.tumblr.com/
And if you need to have it condensed into two minutes of music, try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLg5POTvVzs).
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2012, 08:09:51 PM
Unfortunately, I suspect it's not having much of an effect, given how much rape is going on in the US military
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military
QuoteRape within the US military has become so widespread that it is estimated that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire. So great is the issue that a group of veterans are suing the Pentagon to force reform. The lawsuit, which includes three men and 25 women (the suit initially involved 17 plaintiffs but grew to 28) who claim to have been subjected to sexual assaults while serving in the armed forces, blames former defence secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates for a culture of punishment against the women and men who report sex crimes and a failure to prosecute the offenders.
QuoteLast year 3,158 sexual crimes were reported within the US military. Of those cases, only 529 reached a court room, and only 104 convictions were made, according to a 2010 report from SAPRO (sexual assault prevention and response office, a division of the department of defence). But these figures are only a fraction of the reality. Sexual assaults are notoriously under-reported. The same report estimated that there were a further 19,000 unreported cases of sexual assault last year. The department of veterans affairs, meanwhile, released an independent study estimating that one in three women had experience of military sexual trauma while on active service. That is double the rate for civilians, which is one in six, according to the US department of justice.
Yes, there's a lot of rape within the military. Besides the shitty prosecution rates, the women know that these guys have the same or better training and a lot more strength, as a rule. I was thinking more of some civilian trying to attack a woman with decent combat training...but agree, it's a last-ditch reseouce and a lot better if it never comes to that in the first place.
QuoteThis is (one of the reason's) why I think the combat aspect of self-defence is overrated. You have to focus on the culture and context in which rape occurs. It doesn't really matter if you know how to put a guy down if, when you do so, you're going to be thrown into a military prison for "assaulting/murdering a superior officer". This is why I tend to place education, awareness and so on as more important, because there will be always be situations where standing up for yourself and fighting back will be considered illegal, regardless of how in the right you may actually be.
And there is little comfort in avoiding a rape, only to go to prison and be subject to a system where rape is "frequent and severe (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149077/Women-Alabama-prison-suffered-frequent-severe-sexual-violence-guards-PUNISHED-tried-report-crimes.html)".
Of course. USA, tuff on crime, rah, rah. :x Male rape is just as common. I suspect the default for most guys in prison is the same as for a woman. :x
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2012, 07:32:39 PM
Hi.
That class really annoyed me, incidentally. It was specifically meant to deal with sexual assault, and so I spent hours researching rape, breaking down into distinct categories and types, collecting the statistics to help the students understand the risks and probabilities involved and to cover the whole subject from a more preventative perspective (if you're left to resorting to violence, then I consider that a bad place to start from, especially given on average a female is smaller, lighter and less aggressive than a male attacker. Ideally, you want to concentrate on all the other things which can help someone avoid such a situation first, then deal with the combat stuff).
So the instructor I was teaching with decided to be all "herp derp put your keys between your fingers and punch your attacker" with the thing. Nothing about prevention. No viable combat training, aside from basic punching or kicking, which, IMO, does not cut the mustard when you're dealing with someone looking to rape you. Especially since that rape can possibly be followed up by murder. Because of the physical differences between men and women, and the seriousness of the consequences, I personally advocated teaching the most dangerous techniques, designed to maim or kill an attacker. I was told these were "too dangerous", which I felt was kinda missing the point. We don't want to hurt the poor violent rapist badly enough to actually convince him to stop his assault?
That class did a gross disservice to everyone who attended, because it not only wasted their time and the school's money, it gave them a false sense of security where none existed. The only outcomes from using something from that class on a potential rapist would be a) injuring yourself, or b) pissing off the rapist enough to give you a brutal beating along with the sexual assault. Probably both.
I did lodge a formal complaint with the school that put on the class, but four years after I left, he was still teaching it there.
Fuck, that sucks. :( You're right about it being a gross disservice to those attending it. If you have to physically fight off an attacker, your best hope is that you will be able to incapacitate or kill him immediately. "Too dangerous", indeed.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on August 05, 2012, 08:59:42 PM
Yeah, you need to counter rape culture just as much as women/females need to be taught how to defend themselves. Otherwise you're not really making a dent in the situation.
I almost forgot this tumblr, which tells you even more than we have about male privilege, if you're interested: http://aboutmaleprivilege.tumblr.com/
More than. Not just as much. More than, by miles and miles.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 09:55:32 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 05, 2012, 07:32:39 PM
Hi.
That class really annoyed me, incidentally. It was specifically meant to deal with sexual assault, and so I spent hours researching rape, breaking down into distinct categories and types, collecting the statistics to help the students understand the risks and probabilities involved and to cover the whole subject from a more preventative perspective (if you're left to resorting to violence, then I consider that a bad place to start from, especially given on average a female is smaller, lighter and less aggressive than a male attacker. Ideally, you want to concentrate on all the other things which can help someone avoid such a situation first, then deal with the combat stuff).
So the instructor I was teaching with decided to be all "herp derp put your keys between your fingers and punch your attacker" with the thing. Nothing about prevention. No viable combat training, aside from basic punching or kicking, which, IMO, does not cut the mustard when you're dealing with someone looking to rape you. Especially since that rape can possibly be followed up by murder. Because of the physical differences between men and women, and the seriousness of the consequences, I personally advocated teaching the most dangerous techniques, designed to maim or kill an attacker. I was told these were "too dangerous", which I felt was kinda missing the point. We don't want to hurt the poor violent rapist badly enough to actually convince him to stop his assault?
That class did a gross disservice to everyone who attended, because it not only wasted their time and the school's money, it gave them a false sense of security where none existed. The only outcomes from using something from that class on a potential rapist would be a) injuring yourself, or b) pissing off the rapist enough to give you a brutal beating along with the sexual assault. Probably both.
I did lodge a formal complaint with the school that put on the class, but four years after I left, he was still teaching it there.
Fuck, that sucks. :( You're right about it being a gross disservice to those attending it. If you have to physically fight off an attacker, your best hope is that you will be able to incapacitate or kill him immediately. "Too dangerous", indeed.
This is why I want to learn Krav Maga, which is all about the maiming, incapacitating and maybe more.
Man, I'd love to turn the best bits of this thread into a blog at some point, especially ECH's last post.
I don't worry about being raped. I worry, or at least I used to worry, about being beaten, possibly to death for being too soft.
I'm smaller, weaker, and less aggressive than most male attackers would be. I worry about homophobes having a bad day and wanting to take out on the first person they identify as a faggot. I mention it ITT because, well, it largely stems from the same problem. Certain men see something they can gain power over and enforce it, usually when it departs from what is supposed to be male.
Alaska is a MANLY place.
I've been yelled at from people in big trucks frequently, I see small, nasty looks from people in bars and coffee shops, I've been to parties where I know to become invisible and leave as soon as possible. And almost universally I see the strong, hungry, furious looks in their eyes. Hell, some redneck, racist piece of shit once told me in High School that I was lucky my earring was on the correct side of my face or otherwise he'd have to drag me with his pickup truck.
Maybe rape is possible, but it's never something that I can taste in my panic. Though, this was much more of a concern when I was younger than it is now. Then again, I've been on guard more recently as DR. Fiancé has a shaved head. I think I've learned how to appear less soft, and so they don't pick me out as easily. I guess that's how I deal with it. I also always carry something sharp. Other than that standard self defense stuff like knowing your surroundings, listening, avoiding certain places, watching my state of drunkenness when I'm by myself and far from home.
Unless I hang out with other spags, in which case I fear nothing because, well, most of you will KILL A MOTHERFUCKER.
Quote from: Just Alty, Actually. on August 05, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
I don't worry about being raped. I worry, or at least I used to worry, about being beaten, possibly to death for being too soft.
I'm smaller, weaker, and less aggressive than most male attackers would be. I worry about homophobes having a bad day and wanting to take out on the first person they identify as a faggot. I mention it ITT because, well, it largely stems from the same problem. Certain men see something they can gain power over and enforce it, usually when it departs from what is supposed to be male.
Alaska is a MANLY place.
I've been yelled at from people in big trucks frequently, I see small, nasty looks from people in bars and coffee shops, I've been to parties where I know to become invisible and leave as soon as possible. And almost universally I see the strong, hungry, furious looks in their eyes. Hell, some redneck, racist piece of shit once told me in High School that I was lucky my earring was on the correct side of my face or otherwise he'd have to drag me with his pickup truck.
Maybe rape is possible, but it's never something that I can taste in my panic. Though, this was much more of a concern when I was younger than it is now. Then again, I've been on guard more recently as DR. Fiancé has a shaved head. I think I've learned how to appear less soft, and so they don't pick me out as easily. I guess that's how I deal with it. I also always carry something sharp. Other than that standard self defense stuff like knowing your surroundings, listening, avoiding certain places, watching my state of drunkenness when I'm by myself and far from home.
Unless I hang out with other spags, in which case I fear nothing because, well, most of you will KILL A MOTHERFUCKER.
This post made me feel like KILLING A MOTHERFUCKER. I hate guys like that.
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
Oh I forgot something I used to do because I don't have them anymore, and I'd really like to find them again, but fashion is a fickle creature.
I used to wear those chopstick style things to put my hair up, and I only actually need one to keep my hair in place, so the other one was there as a potential weapon, my favourite ones were wicked sharp at the tips, and would often carry one in my hand when walking alone.
OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.
Honestly? Not much, other than not tolerating anything having to do with it in my presence.
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:19:10 PM
Man, I'd love to turn the best bits of this thread into a blog at some point, especially ECH's last post.
If you do, feel free to use anything I've posted, with attribution. Given the subject matter, this would be something I'd prefer to have my real name attached to rather than the ECH moniker. I'd be both happy and proud to point anybody who needs a head-check in the right direction.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 06, 2012, 12:08:43 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:19:10 PM
Man, I'd love to turn the best bits of this thread into a blog at some point, especially ECH's last post.
If you do, feel free to use anything I've posted, with attribution. Given the subject matter, this would be something I'd prefer to have my real name attached to rather than the ECH moniker. I'd be both happy and proud to point anybody who needs a head-check in the right direction.
Cool.
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:32:58 AM
Oh I forgot something I used to do because I don't have them anymore, and I'd really like to find them again, but fashion is a fickle creature.
I used to wear those chopstick style things to put my hair up, and I only actually need one to keep my hair in place, so the other one was there as a potential weapon, my favourite ones were wicked sharp at the tips, and would often carry one in my hand when walking alone.
OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.
The only guys I know who take measures to prevent sexual assault spent time in prison. The measures they took were to join gangs and get tattoos that showed their gang affiliation so that potential rapists knew that revenge would be taken.
Quote from: Pixie on August 06, 2012, 12:12:58 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 06, 2012, 12:08:43 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:19:10 PM
Man, I'd love to turn the best bits of this thread into a blog at some point, especially ECH's last post.
If you do, feel free to use anything I've posted, with attribution. Given the subject matter, this would be something I'd prefer to have my real name attached to rather than the ECH moniker. I'd be both happy and proud to point anybody who needs a head-check in the right direction.
Cool.
If any of mine is usable, go for it.
ETA: real name. Thanks.
Ditto, should you want to (and also under my actual name, too)
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on August 06, 2012, 12:08:43 AM
Quote from: Pixie on August 05, 2012, 11:19:10 PM
Man, I'd love to turn the best bits of this thread into a blog at some point, especially ECH's last post.
If you do, feel free to use anything I've posted, with attribution. Given the subject matter, this would be something I'd prefer to have my real name attached to rather than the ECH moniker. I'd be both happy and proud to point anybody who needs a head-check in the right direction.
Likewise.
Anything I wrote is usable under Dirty Old Uncle Roger.
Also, I'm done with the PUA conversation. Blackfoot is not - at this time - able to listen to understand, rather than listening to respond.
There was a pretty good PUA thread on xkcd a while back, which helped me to more accurately think about why that particular sub-culture gives off some pretty bad vibes.
The whole issue of "testing boundaries" came up there as well, and someone posed a very good question: what happens if you're pushing the boundaries of a woman who has been raped? What if a woman is uncomfortable with being sexually approached because of that incident, and you're up in her face, testing her boundaries? Just how much of a dick does that make someone, for not taking "no" for an answer and going away?
Look, I'm going to explain something real simple here: you're not owed female attention. Attempting to interact with someone who does not want said interaction is not only ethically questionable, it can be considered harassment. Testing boundaries is all well and good when a) it's consensual, or b) the target really fucking deserves it. Since a) is out of the question here, as we're already assuming someone who has made clear a lack of interest, then we're left with b). Every woman in public is asking to be sexually approached and have their boundaries tested.
Don't know about you, but to me, the idea that women must make themselves available for the sexual advances of men, regardless of how open they are to such advances...well, that sounds pretty sexist to me. Sounds like the product of a mind who lumps all women together in a group, and who thinks about women as objects for their gratification. Hardly an enlightened POV.
Of a mind who thinks all women are property, public or private, too.
Quote from: Cain on August 06, 2012, 08:52:58 PM
There was a pretty good PUA thread on xkcd a while back, which helped me to more accurately think about why that particular sub-culture gives off some pretty bad vibes.
The whole issue of "testing boundaries" came up there as well, and someone posed a very good question: what happens if you're pushing the boundaries of a woman who has been raped? What if a woman is uncomfortable with being sexually approached because of that incident, and you're up in her face, testing her boundaries? Just how much of a dick does that make someone, for not taking "no" for an answer and going away?
Look, I'm going to explain something real simple here: you're not owed female attention. Attempting to interact with someone who does not want said interaction is not only ethically questionable, it can be considered harassment. Testing boundaries is all well and good when a) it's consensual, or b) the target really fucking deserves it. Since a) is out of the question here, as we're already assuming someone who has made clear a lack of interest, then we're left with b). Every woman in public is asking to be sexually approached and have their boundaries tested.
Don't know about you, but to me, the idea that women must make themselves available for the sexual advances of men, regardless of how open they are to such advances...well, that sounds pretty sexist to me. Sounds like the product of a mind who lumps all women together in a group, and who thinks about women as objects for their gratification. Hardly an enlightened POV.
Well said.
Also, there's the basic fact that HER boundaries are not YOUR boundaries to test in the first fucking place. You do not have the moral authority or any sort of right to make that sort of decision for anyone else. It's reminiscent of those magazines that used to "out" Gay people, because they felt that a person's right to privacy was not equal to "the cause" (or the bottom line), only MORE repulsive.
Anyone who justifies that sort of behavior based on "testing her boundaries" is a fucking sociopath. No exceptions.
Quote from: Cain on August 06, 2012, 08:52:58 PM
There was a pretty good PUA thread on xkcd a while back, which helped me to more accurately think about why that particular sub-culture gives off some pretty bad vibes.
The whole issue of "testing boundaries" came up there as well, and someone posed a very good question: what happens if you're pushing the boundaries of a woman who has been raped? What if a woman is uncomfortable with being sexually approached because of that incident, and you're up in her face, testing her boundaries? Just how much of a dick does that make someone, for not taking "no" for an answer and going away?
Look, I'm going to explain something real simple here: you're not owed female attention. Attempting to interact with someone who does not want said interaction is not only ethically questionable, it can be considered harassment. Testing boundaries is all well and good when a) it's consensual, or b) the target really fucking deserves it. Since a) is out of the question here, as we're already assuming someone who has made clear a lack of interest, then we're left with b). Every woman in public is asking to be sexually approached and have their boundaries tested.
Don't know about you, but to me, the idea that women must make themselves available for the sexual advances of men, regardless of how open they are to such advances...well, that sounds pretty sexist to me. Sounds like the product of a mind who lumps all women together in a group, and who thinks about women as objects for their gratification. Hardly an enlightened POV.
This reminds me of the Framingham 8. They'd all been convicted of killing their husbands or boyfriends, who had abused them. The courts had ruled that they weren't being abused at the time they killed these guys. But they were getting out because they had Battered Women's Syndrome, i.e., they'd picked up on subtle behaviors that they interpreted (rightly, I'm guessing) as a sign that they were about to get their asses stomped again. A woman who's been raped and suffers PTSD might be the same way, wouldn't she? Or does it take a whole clusterfuck of battering and repeated sexual abuse?
Quote from: Cain on August 06, 2012, 08:52:58 PM
There was a pretty good PUA thread on xkcd a while back, which helped me to more accurately think about why that particular sub-culture gives off some pretty bad vibes.
The whole issue of "testing boundaries" came up there as well, and someone posed a very good question: what happens if you're pushing the boundaries of a woman who has been raped? What if a woman is uncomfortable with being sexually approached because of that incident, and you're up in her face, testing her boundaries? Just how much of a dick does that make someone, for not taking "no" for an answer and going away?
Look, I'm going to explain something real simple here: you're not owed female attention. Attempting to interact with someone who does not want said interaction is not only ethically questionable, it can be considered harassment. Testing boundaries is all well and good when a) it's consensual, or b) the target really fucking deserves it. Since a) is out of the question here, as we're already assuming someone who has made clear a lack of interest, then we're left with b). Every woman in public is asking to be sexually approached and have their boundaries tested.
Don't know about you, but to me, the idea that women must make themselves available for the sexual advances of men, regardless of how open they are to such advances...well, that sounds pretty sexist to me. Sounds like the product of a mind who lumps all women together in a group, and who thinks about women as objects for their gratification. Hardly an enlightened POV.
Very well said. I think that really sums it up in a way that hasn't yet been approached in this thread.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 06:19:08 AM
And in case you're sitting there thinking "Oh yeah, another ball-buster who only likes meek men she can dominate", the opposite is true. I require a strong man who can absolutely hold his own with me and won't let me push him around, nor is intimidated by me. Someone with the character and confidence to be able to fully respect me and collaborate with me without ever letting himself get trampled. Men with that kind of strength are not the type who try to push boundaries or talk around them. At all. I cannot see Roger, Alty, LMNO, or ECH (to name but a few folks on the board) "pushing" a date's boundaries. Strong, secure people don't. Strong, secure people go "eh, he/she isn't into it at the moment... I'll see how it goes another time".
For the record, pushing/coaxing after I've put up resistance is the #1 disqualifier I find with guys. If I've decided to kiss them, fuck yeah I'm assessing them for a potential sex partner. If they're a decent kisser, there's a total possibility it'll go somewhere, if not that night then maybe the next time. If I put on the stops and they get pushy, there's no reason for me to waste any more of their time or mine. Luckily, most guys DON'T do that. The ones that do always come across to me as pathetic and laughable, and possibly mildly retarded.
I'm having trouble processing this post as it leans neither Princess nor Tomboy, decisively.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 07, 2012, 03:41:05 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 06:19:08 AM
And in case you're sitting there thinking "Oh yeah, another ball-buster who only likes meek men she can dominate", the opposite is true. I require a strong man who can absolutely hold his own with me and won't let me push him around, nor is intimidated by me. Someone with the character and confidence to be able to fully respect me and collaborate with me without ever letting himself get trampled. Men with that kind of strength are not the type who try to push boundaries or talk around them. At all. I cannot see Roger, Alty, LMNO, or ECH (to name but a few folks on the board) "pushing" a date's boundaries. Strong, secure people don't. Strong, secure people go "eh, he/she isn't into it at the moment... I'll see how it goes another time".
For the record, pushing/coaxing after I've put up resistance is the #1 disqualifier I find with guys. If I've decided to kiss them, fuck yeah I'm assessing them for a potential sex partner. If they're a decent kisser, there's a total possibility it'll go somewhere, if not that night then maybe the next time. If I put on the stops and they get pushy, there's no reason for me to waste any more of their time or mine. Luckily, most guys DON'T do that. The ones that do always come across to me as pathetic and laughable, and possibly mildly retarded.
I'm having trouble processing this post as it leans neither Princess nor Tomboy, decisively.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 06, 2012, 09:01:54 PM
Also, there's the basic fact that HER boundaries are not YOUR boundaries to test in the first fucking place. You do not have the moral authority or any sort of right to make that sort of decision for anyone else. It's reminiscent of those magazines that used to "out" Gay people, because they felt that a person's right to privacy was not equal to "the cause" (or the bottom line), only MORE repulsive.
Anyone who justifies that sort of behavior based on "testing her boundaries" is a fucking sociopath. No exceptions.
This, also, is well said.
This thread should be required reading for anyone thinking about getting interested in PUA. If only.
There should be a Discordian Guide to Responsibly Wooing Mates.
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
There should be a Discordian Guide to Responsibly Wooing Mates.
The keyboard is right in front of you.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
There should be a Discordian Guide to Responsibly Wooing Mates.
The keyboard is right in front of you.
HA. Like
I know anything about mating responsibly. I've
procreated, so I've already broken what would be the very first rule.
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 04:59:37 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 07, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
There should be a Discordian Guide to Responsibly Wooing Mates.
The keyboard is right in front of you.
HA. Like I know anything about mating responsibly. I've procreated, so I've already broken what would be the very first rule.
So have I. TWICE.
Fuck your rules, I do what I want!
:hammer:
Quote from: v3x on August 07, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
There should be a Discordian Guide to Responsibly Wooing Mates.
:lulz: I once wrote "Dating Don'ts for Men", based on my own dating horror stories, which I think could easily be expanded into "Dating Don'ts for Bipeds".
Dating and Sex for Bipeds would make an awesome title, IMHO.
Quote from: Pixie on August 08, 2012, 01:37:57 AM
Dating and Sex for Bipeds would make an awesome title, IMHO.
It would be the first dating and sex guide that WORKED RIGHT.
Quote from: Pixie on August 08, 2012, 01:37:57 AM
Dating and Sex for Bipeds would make an awesome title, IMHO.
I'll start a thread... I'll try to dig up my "dating don'ts" thread for inspiration.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 04:55:50 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on August 04, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.
Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome. I do not however, find the above statement to be always true. A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow). This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions. Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed. At this point i think your statement becomes true.
As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink. Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.
Note that I originally used the word "boundaries" and you argued with that. Now you're claiming that you weren't talking about "boundaries", you were talking about "objections" or "resistance".
Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.
I am coming to the conclusion that you are a piece of crap, and also pretty stupid.
An objection can be a sign of interest, though. It all depends on how the objection is stated. "I can't leave my friends," spoken in a polite but curt and matter-of-fact manner is unequivocally: "fuck off". "Oooh, I dunno...I really shouldn't leave my friends," spoken while maintaing eye contact, a coy smile, and an oozing "..." at the end is an unequivocal "sell me!"
I don't enjoy those sorts of games so I generally ignore the body language and act on the words alone, but I'd be lying if I said that hasn't been met with disappointment rather than relief on more than one occasion.
A silver tongue is a sought after trait by some people. I think there may be a danger here of generalizing both about individuals who seek that trait through those means, and about courtship in general.
If the "objection" is, "I was just wanting to hang out with my friends tonight" and the response is, "oh, okay...well guess I'll have to find something else to do with the 30 gallons of Lime Jello I've got chilling at my apartment right now," I think that's a wholly distinct level of class and respect from "oh well you're friends are stupid and if you weren't also, you'd be hanging out with me."
Thing is, P.U.A. as a self applied label is far more the latter than the former (and more than a little more emphasizing the PU over the A). Negging, etc, is not artistry, it's douchery. The ability to play along with coyness is it's own stimulation and very much less results oriented. The ability to distinguish between an invitation to dance and a mandate to fuck off is the hallmark of an engaged biped versus an obsessed monkey.
EDIT: The important part of above is this,
there needs to be an overt invitation to "talk me into it", otherwise you are disregarding someone's wishes. That's a dick move at best. Much, much worse at worst. Making a lifestyle and a pattern of behavior of this sort of thing, just sort of increases the chances you're going to find yourself wandering through the latter.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:18:42 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
Because apparently you are the Great and Wise Blackfoot, and you know better than other people what's good for them, and what they really want. :lulz:
Drunk club girls, at least.
I know what i can offer better than they can and that's all i do, offer me and a good time.
Thing is, even if you're prime-stud-stallion #1, if you cross a line between playful and manipulative you run a very real risk of talking a person into a situation which they will regret.
It's all well and good if you're engaging with another salesperson who expects, and indeed
demands that of you, but confirmation bias is a nasty bitch to invite to a game of "is it rapey"?
My advice, keep that shit off the dangerous ground of courtship ritual, and put it on a poker table where it's fun, profit, and you can be absolutely sure that everyone is a willing participant.
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:02:57 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 12:13:36 AM
He's not going to read it, Pixie. He's not open to information that might conflict with the behavior and techniques he has already concluded are acceptable.
I have read the article. I keep all of this in mind when i approach people. Part of getting to know people is determining how safe they are.
Quote
When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%
^^Obviously true statement. What does this mean to me? It means that i get to know people and make them feel comfortable with me. This is where the discussion about boundaries comes into play. When you meet someone you set up impromptu barriers or have a set of barriers already in place for strangers. Obviously you have different boundaries for strangers than you do close acquaintances or lovers. People sometimes need time to feel safe on their own, you can also show them. This is the equivalent being wary of petting some random dog you've never encountered. A dog standing there, or a dog nuzzling your leg... if you choose to pet the latter and he bites you. I guess you made a poor judgement and you will have paid for it. Showing you are not scary is person or dangerous is easy. It doesn't happen when you act like the guys the author cited. This is THE primary barrier between living creatures. There's nothing wrong with defeating this by demonstrating you are not a threat. I always afford the person the opportunity to see that i am not a danger and likewise I don't want to be bit by someone who feels like they have been backed into a corner.
Then you need to seriously change up your fucking nomenclature, dude.
Setting out to "defeat" someone's boundaries
makes you a fucking threat. Communication is only possible between equals, and if it's not on the fucking table that there is "boundary defeating" going on than there is no equal footing, no meaningful communication, only manipulation. There is no other word for it...and like it or not, manipulation smells very, very rapey.
NLDM, you appear to be transporting yourself on a proper two-wheeled vehicle.
The "talk me into it" is extremely tricky, however, and can very quickly turn to "no" if you don't hit the right notes, so don't push it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 08, 2012, 07:03:03 PM
NLDM, you appear to be transporting yourself on a proper two-wheeled vehicle.
The "talk me into it" is extremely tricky, however, and can very quickly turn to "no" if you don't hit the right notes, so don't push it.
"Okay, so tonight isn't good. Can I meet you at <insert local coffee shop> on Monday after work, instead?"
This will, in a non-threatening and/or douchebag way, establish exactly what is and is not going on in the situation.
And who knows? You might get to meet someone when you're both sober. Worse things have happened.
SO MANY MOTORCYCLES!
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/essex/content/images/2006/07/31/motorcycle_lineup_470_470x352.jpg)
I agree with all of this stuff... its really quite excellent. Perhaps its my advanced age or incredible innocence, but when I heard "Pick Up Artist" I had always envisioned someone like Don Juan... some guy that could make girls swoon and knew just the right buttons to engage them, interest them, get them all hot and bothered and the bed them. I had no idea it was "Be an annoying, perhaps slightly threatening douchebag and wear them down."
I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK? I mean, you could claim it was an ego thing... but where is the "I" in that "I am so pathetic and annoying, women will fuck me to get me to leave"? It seems more to me like the behavior of someone with some serious emotional problems, or a complete lack of respect for anyone, including themselves.
The 'boundary defeating' comment a few posts back was what made me decide to post this... what the hell? You don't need to defeat someone, they aren't the enemy. You just treat them like a human being and once they get to know you, they can decide if they want to go from red alert to yellow... or to red hot :D
Even when I experimented with the swinging crowd, it wasn't about wearing anyone down or making someone feel like the were expected to perform like a trained bare bear. It wasn't about making long term serious connections, but there was at least some kind of equal connection happening first.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:01:15 PM
I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?
Two things:
1. The PUA techniques do work on some women. The emotional manipulation bits, I mean. These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex).
2. PUA don't think like that. They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them. They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are. They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like. A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:01:15 PM
I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?
Two things:
1. The PUA techniques do work on some women. The emotional manipulation bits, I mean. These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex).
2. PUA don't think like that. They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them. They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are. They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like. A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.
I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.
Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 08, 2012, 06:36:49 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 05, 2012, 01:02:57 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 05, 2012, 12:13:36 AM
He's not going to read it, Pixie. He's not open to information that might conflict with the behavior and techniques he has already concluded are acceptable.
I have read the article. I keep all of this in mind when i approach people. Part of getting to know people is determining how safe they are.
Quote
When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%
^^Obviously true statement. What does this mean to me? It means that i get to know people and make them feel comfortable with me. This is where the discussion about boundaries comes into play. When you meet someone you set up impromptu barriers or have a set of barriers already in place for strangers. Obviously you have different boundaries for strangers than you do close acquaintances or lovers. People sometimes need time to feel safe on their own, you can also show them. This is the equivalent being wary of petting some random dog you've never encountered. A dog standing there, or a dog nuzzling your leg... if you choose to pet the latter and he bites you. I guess you made a poor judgement and you will have paid for it. Showing you are not scary is person or dangerous is easy. It doesn't happen when you act like the guys the author cited. This is THE primary barrier between living creatures. There's nothing wrong with defeating this by demonstrating you are not a threat. I always afford the person the opportunity to see that i am not a danger and likewise I don't want to be bit by someone who feels like they have been backed into a corner.
Then you need to seriously change up your fucking nomenclature, dude.
Setting out to "defeat" someone's boundaries makes you a fucking threat. Communication is only possible between equals, and if it's not on the fucking table that there is "boundary defeating" going on than there is no equal footing, no meaningful communication, only manipulation. There is no other word for it...and like it or not, manipulation smells very, very rapey.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:01:15 PM
I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?
Two things:
1. The PUA techniques do work on some women. The emotional manipulation bits, I mean. These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex).
2. PUA don't think like that. They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them. They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are. They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like. A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.
I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.
Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.
Must be a regional thing.
I'm not entirely sure that some PUA know or are capable of knowing what they do is shitty. I don't know if you remember when we trolled Manhood101, but the dude there, some guy with a variant of purple in his name, was totally sure that this is how men are supposed to treat women, and that it was 100% okay to do that shit.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on August 08, 2012, 06:05:26 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on August 04, 2012, 11:18:42 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 04, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
Because apparently you are the Great and Wise Blackfoot, and you know better than other people what's good for them, and what they really want. :lulz:
Drunk club girls, at least.
I know what i can offer better than they can and that's all i do, offer me and a good time.
Thing is, even if you're prime-stud-stallion #1, if you cross a line between playful and manipulative you run a very real risk of talking a person into a situation which they will regret.
It's all well and good if you're engaging with another salesperson who expects, and indeed demands that of you, but confirmation bias is a nasty bitch to invite to a game of "is it rapey"?
My advice, keep that shit off the dangerous ground of courtship ritual, and put it on a poker table where it's fun, profit, and you can be absolutely sure that everyone is a willing participant.
And
THIS.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 11:04:27 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:01:15 PM
I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?
Two things:
1. The PUA techniques do work on some women. The emotional manipulation bits, I mean. These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex).
2. PUA don't think like that. They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them. They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are. They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like. A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.
I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.
Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.
Must be a regional thing.
I'm not entirely sure that some PUA know or are capable of knowing what they do is shitty. I don't know if you remember when we trolled Manhood101, but the dude there, some guy with a variant of purple in his name, was totally sure that this is how men are supposed to treat women, and that it was 100% okay to do that shit.
Part of me would like to troll some MRA's and PUA forums but I'm pretty sure that they would both squick me out too hard to waste bandwidth on them.
Quote from: Pixie on August 09, 2012, 12:08:03 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 11:04:27 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:01:15 PM
I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?
Two things:
1. The PUA techniques do work on some women. The emotional manipulation bits, I mean. These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex).
2. PUA don't think like that. They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them. They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are. They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like. A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.
I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.
Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.
Must be a regional thing.
I'm not entirely sure that some PUA know or are capable of knowing what they do is shitty. I don't know if you remember when we trolled Manhood101, but the dude there, some guy with a variant of purple in his name, was totally sure that this is how men are supposed to treat women, and that it was 100% okay to do that shit.
Part of me would like to troll some MRA's and PUA forums but I'm pretty sure that they would both squick me out too hard to waste bandwidth on them.
Yeah, OKC was bad enough, I couldn't even hang there disguised as a stereotypical ditzy blond in the body of a McFries-chomping teabagger.
They were stalking THAT. :x
Quote from: Pixie on August 09, 2012, 12:08:03 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 11:04:27 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 08, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 08, 2012, 09:01:15 PM
I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?
Two things:
1. The PUA techniques do work on some women. The emotional manipulation bits, I mean. These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex).
2. PUA don't think like that. They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them. They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are. They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like. A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.
I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.
Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.
Must be a regional thing.
I'm not entirely sure that some PUA know or are capable of knowing what they do is shitty. I don't know if you remember when we trolled Manhood101, but the dude there, some guy with a variant of purple in his name, was totally sure that this is how men are supposed to treat women, and that it was 100% okay to do that shit.
Part of me would like to troll some MRA's and PUA forums but I'm pretty sure that they would both squick me out too hard to waste bandwidth on them.
It is even more squick than you imagine. There's guys who seem like they would be otherwise decent people, except they're hanging out on a PUA forum, who are fawning over these guys who instruct them in a very specific way, and it is always sexual assault or better ways to neg and stuff like that. Often, too, you have to pay to get into any of the PUA sites. This one had a free area, but you could pay $5k to go to boot camp, and a $50/year membership fee, so it's mostly inaccessible as well.
http://theattractivearts.com/2012/08/how_tolerating_rape_culture_keeps_you_frustrated/
written for men but everyone should read this it's fucking wonderful.
The opening paragraphs are probably not the best way to think about things ("misogynist bullshit won't get you laid, d00d") but it's a step in the right direction, I'll give it that much.
The rest of the article gets better though, and more into the kinds of things we bought up here. As I understand it, the "social dynamics" crowd are a PUA offshoot that deals more in self-improvement and actualization than just getting laid, and so tend to have less offensive and/or idiotic beliefs about women, feminism etc.
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 12:22:49 AM
The opening paragraphs are probably not the best way to think about things ("misogynist bullshit won't get you laid, d00d") but it's a step in the right direction, I'll give it that much.
The rest of the article gets better though, and more into the kinds of things we bought up here. As I understand it, the "social dynamics" crowd are a PUA offshoot that deals more in self-improvement and actualization than just getting laid, and so tend to have less offensive and/or idiotic beliefs about women, feminism etc.
Haven't heard about pua offshoots. To the internet!
Check out the follow up thread, too, for hilarious quotes from idiots.
http://theattractivearts.com/2012/08/backlash-of-the-titans/
Apparently, Rake upset a LOT of wannabe rapists.
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 01:07:15 AM
Check out the follow up thread, too, for hilarious quotes from idiots.
http://theattractivearts.com/2012/08/backlash-of-the-titans/
Apparently, Rake upset a LOT of wannabe rapists.
Jebus.
Good lord.
Ah Cain beat me to the follow up.
Yeah the tone was meant as parody I understand but was a little clumsy in delivery. Still, misogyny fucks up sexual culture for everyone is a legit point.
The unnamed site is Fetlife, btw.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 12:15:03 AM
http://theattractivearts.com/2012/08/how_tolerating_rape_culture_keeps_you_frustrated/
written for men but everyone should read this it's fucking wonderful.
Both that and the follow-up thread are absolutely great! They do a fantastic job of illustrating what rape culture actually means and is. It's arguing that "the guy didn't mean any harm and you were too hard on him" instead of "thanks for intervening, it was making me uncomfortable but I was too timid to step in". It's getting angry at the girl who points out that misogynistic culture is embedded in the language, because YOU don't mean it misogynistically, instead of recognizing that the language reflects the culture and wondering what you can do about it. It's listening to a girl complain about the creepy guy who won't stop hitting on her and saying "just ignore it" or "at least it's flattering" instead of saying "yeah, that's inappropriate; next time tell him to fuck off, and if that doesn't work let me know and I'll back you up".
Quote from: Placid Dingo on August 15, 2012, 01:44:42 AM
Ah Cain beat me to the follow up.
Yeah the tone was meant as parody I understand but was a little clumsy in delivery. Still, misogyny fucks up sexual culture for everyone is a legit point.
The unnamed site is Fetlife, btw.
That site is fucking CREEPTASTIC. I had a troll account there but I eventually just abandoned it because it's stomach-churning. Not because I have a problem with fetishes and etc. but because it's chock-full of nauseating creeps.
That blog in general actually looks like pretty solid and sensible advice when it comes to dating. For example:
QuoteFor example, let's say you've been chatting up a hottie, and something is about to interrupt, be it the hottie's friends, your friends, the closing of the venue, or simply a strategic move on your part. Here are a few ways you might phrase your closing invitation:
(High RRR) "Hey, I've really enjoyed this conversation. I'd love to continue it later on. What's the best way for that to happen?"
(Moderate RRR) "I've gotta run, but I'm going to [similar function/venue] at [time and place]. You should totally come, you would love it!"
(Low RRR) "I'm starving. Let's go grab [food] at [place]! My treat."
(Lowest RRR) *kiss* "You know you wanna come home with me." *playful smile*
Here, on the other hand, are some common pitfalls to avoid:
"Can I have your phone number?" or, even worse, "Can I call you sometime?" (Makes PIQ wonder, "Should I be giving my number to a stranger??" also, "Will there be some consequence if I say no?")
"I have to see you again." (Spoken like a true stalker.)
"Here's my card. Give me a buzz." (Never leave the ball irretrievably in the PIQ's court!)
Above all, if your PIQ is in any way hesitant, DON'T apply pressure ("Oh come on, live a little!"), proclaim your harmlessness ("I'm not gonna harrass you or anything."), bargain ("Well then how about your email?"), or, worst of all, attempt to emotionally manipulate/blackmail your PIQ ("I've spent all this time talking to you/buying you drinks/whatever, the least you can do is give me your digits!").
When in doubt, just be honest. Crazy concept, I know. But there's nothing wrong with saying, "I would love to see you again," and then waiting for a response. So long as you aren't asking for anything, it can only be taken as a compliment.
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 02:03:21 AM
That blog in general actually looks like pretty solid and sensible advice when it comes to dating. For example:
QuoteFor example, let's say you've been chatting up a hottie, and something is about to interrupt, be it the hottie's friends, your friends, the closing of the venue, or simply a strategic move on your part. Here are a few ways you might phrase your closing invitation:
(High RRR) "Hey, I've really enjoyed this conversation. I'd love to continue it later on. What's the best way for that to happen?"
(Moderate RRR) "I've gotta run, but I'm going to [similar function/venue] at [time and place]. You should totally come, you would love it!"
(Low RRR) "I'm starving. Let's go grab [food] at [place]! My treat."
(Lowest RRR) *kiss* "You know you wanna come home with me." *playful smile*
Here, on the other hand, are some common pitfalls to avoid:
"Can I have your phone number?" or, even worse, "Can I call you sometime?" (Makes PIQ wonder, "Should I be giving my number to a stranger??" also, "Will there be some consequence if I say no?")
"I have to see you again." (Spoken like a true stalker.)
"Here's my card. Give me a buzz." (Never leave the ball irretrievably in the PIQ's court!)
Above all, if your PIQ is in any way hesitant, DON'T apply pressure ("Oh come on, live a little!"), proclaim your harmlessness ("I'm not gonna harrass you or anything."), bargain ("Well then how about your email?"), or, worst of all, attempt to emotionally manipulate/blackmail your PIQ ("I've spent all this time talking to you/buying you drinks/whatever, the least you can do is give me your digits!").
When in doubt, just be honest. Crazy concept, I know. But there's nothing wrong with saying, "I would love to see you again," and then waiting for a response. So long as you aren't asking for anything, it can only be taken as a compliment.
That is fucking excellent advice! Also, when I've had a good conversation with someone, "I've really enjoyed talking to you, and would love to hang out again sometime!" is ALWAYS a winner.
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
That they also have female and non-straight writers also seems to be a good sign.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 02:59:35 AM
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
That they also have female and non-straight writers also seems to be a good sign.
Yeah, for sure!
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
:vom:
So unsurprising.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
Hail Eris, that's pretty fucking funny/horrible depending on how you look at it.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:17:04 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
Hail Eris, that's pretty fucking funny/horrible depending on how you look at it.
If you're Canada Bill Jones, I guess it's funny.
"It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:17:54 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:17:04 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
Hail Eris, that's pretty fucking funny/horrible depending on how you look at it.
If you're Canada Bill Jones, I guess it's funny.
"It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."
"Pay us to show you how to pick up Prostitutes!"
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:18:50 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:17:54 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:17:04 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
Hail Eris, that's pretty fucking funny/horrible depending on how you look at it.
If you're Canada Bill Jones, I guess it's funny.
"It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."
"Pay us to show you how to pick up Prostitutes!"
No, it's "PAY US TO SHOW YOU HOW TO PICK UP HOT WOMEN!"
Works pretty good when the woman is in on the scam. Not so good when the marks go home and try that shit.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:19:56 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:18:50 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:17:54 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:17:04 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
Hail Eris, that's pretty fucking funny/horrible depending on how you look at it.
If you're Canada Bill Jones, I guess it's funny.
"It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."
"Pay us to show you how to pick up Prostitutes!"
No, it's "PAY US TO SHOW YOU HOW TO PICK UP HOT WOMEN!"
Works pretty good when the woman is in on the scam. Not so good when the marks go home and try that shit.
Yeah, I understand that. I was stating what it really was, vs what they were advertising :)
This was linked to on the aforementioned blog, and is well worth reading
http://postmasculine.com/pickup-artist
QuoteHere's a dirty truth about being a PUA coach: many guys who take coaching don't actually want to change. They want to be validated. They want to feel cool and be around someone who they think is cool. They want to unload the responsibility for changing themselves onto someone else.
Rather than hiring a coach to help them progress, to them it's more of a "rent-a-cool-friend" service. Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of guys who ARE looking to improve, and there are a lot of guys who do have good attitudes and do get a lot out of coaching. I had many students accomplish amazing things with me. But unfortunately, the PUA market and community don't promote the proper attitudes... in fact, much of the marketing and hype only encourages this sort of pathetic behavior.
The market promotes fanboyism and idol worshiping. It's sickening. I started to realize this when some of my students turned out to be these brilliant, successful and amazing men. Men who were far more successful in life than I was, and they'd look at me as some sort of demigod. Why? Because I've slept with more women? Because when I walk into a club, people actually think I'm cool? It makes absolutely no sense. Looking for advice and guidance is one thing, but this was something else entirely.
A lot of these guys don't need a pick up instructor. They need a shrink and maybe some sort of anti-anxiety therapy. They need some confidence and a push to put themselves out there more and more. The technical aspect of picking up women really ISN'T that difficult. It really can be explained and taught within a few days. But it must be practiced for a long time, and to have that practice, a guy has to have healthy mindsets and an ability to overcome his fears.
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 04:25:37 AM
This was linked to on the aforementioned blog, and is well worth reading
http://postmasculine.com/pickup-artist
QuoteHere's a dirty truth about being a PUA coach: many guys who take coaching don't actually want to change. They want to be validated. They want to feel cool and be around someone who they think is cool. They want to unload the responsibility for changing themselves onto someone else.
Rather than hiring a coach to help them progress, to them it's more of a "rent-a-cool-friend" service. Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of guys who ARE looking to improve, and there are a lot of guys who do have good attitudes and do get a lot out of coaching. I had many students accomplish amazing things with me. But unfortunately, the PUA market and community don't promote the proper attitudes... in fact, much of the marketing and hype only encourages this sort of pathetic behavior.
The market promotes fanboyism and idol worshiping. It's sickening. I started to realize this when some of my students turned out to be these brilliant, successful and amazing men. Men who were far more successful in life than I was, and they'd look at me as some sort of demigod. Why? Because I've slept with more women? Because when I walk into a club, people actually think I'm cool? It makes absolutely no sense. Looking for advice and guidance is one thing, but this was something else entirely.
A lot of these guys don't need a pick up instructor. They need a shrink and maybe some sort of anti-anxiety therapy. They need some confidence and a push to put themselves out there more and more. The technical aspect of picking up women really ISN'T that difficult. It really can be explained and taught within a few days. But it must be practiced for a long time, and to have that practice, a guy has to have healthy mindsets and an ability to overcome his fears.
Not really a shock.
He also says this
QuoteWhen your social interactions are the yardstick that your success is measured on, it absolutely kills the joy of socializing, and depresses the hell out of you in the process. When your emotional intimacy becomes a business asset, it completely undermines your relationships. For a prolonged period of time, this effect can lead one to a very dark place. I met many coaches who had been working in the industry for years and years who were obviously miserable people. It's why my original business partner quit and got a day job. And it consistently tested my resilience for two years.
But both sides are to blame: the consumers for buying into such a false idol, and the instructors for being seduced by it. On the surface, it's a life of partying, girls and money. The three things a young guy loves most, right? But in actuality, you spend more time hanging out with other men — men who are awkward, insecure and desperately watching every move of yours and judging you. You're no longer free to just be yourself. You aren't allowed to have a night where you just want to drink and relax. You aren't allowed to pass up a girl because you don't feel like talking to her. You aren't allowed to be awkward or unsure of yourself or nervous about anything.
The line between "work" and "play" blurs until the two are completely indistinguishable. Your nights out being social are the same as meeting prospective clients and marketing opportunities. Your prospective clients and marketing opportunities, in turn, want to be your friend and go out with you socially. It's a psychological mess that drags your emotional stability down with it. Thank god I had a serious girlfriend by that time, otherwise I probably would have lost my sanity.
And here's the most screwed up part: the beliefs on which the community is founded lead to a constant state of mutual discontent. Since the success of one's sex and emotional life is the standard of success, thousands of men sit online arguing and comparing things that are 100% subjective. And what invariably happens, is everyone merely projects their own personal discontent onto the perceived failures and shortcomings of others. This guy's girls aren't hot enough. That guy only sleeps with 3 girls a month. This guy is only good at day game. That guy just gets by on looks. Everyone is deemed a "fraud" in their own way and for some reason, everyone has tacitly agreed to unrealistic expectations that can be met by none. What the community has become is a cesspool of frustrated children with keyboards.
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 04:25:37 AM
This was linked to on the aforementioned blog, and is well worth reading
http://postmasculine.com/pickup-artist
QuoteHere's a dirty truth about being a PUA coach: many guys who take coaching don't actually want to change. They want to be validated. They want to feel cool and be around someone who they think is cool. They want to unload the responsibility for changing themselves onto someone else.
Rather than hiring a coach to help them progress, to them it's more of a "rent-a-cool-friend" service. Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of guys who ARE looking to improve, and there are a lot of guys who do have good attitudes and do get a lot out of coaching. I had many students accomplish amazing things with me. But unfortunately, the PUA market and community don't promote the proper attitudes... in fact, much of the marketing and hype only encourages this sort of pathetic behavior.
The market promotes fanboyism and idol worshiping. It's sickening. I started to realize this when some of my students turned out to be these brilliant, successful and amazing men. Men who were far more successful in life than I was, and they'd look at me as some sort of demigod. Why? Because I've slept with more women? Because when I walk into a club, people actually think I'm cool? It makes absolutely no sense. Looking for advice and guidance is one thing, but this was something else entirely.
A lot of these guys don't need a pick up instructor. They need a shrink and maybe some sort of anti-anxiety therapy. They need some confidence and a push to put themselves out there more and more. The technical aspect of picking up women really ISN'T that difficult. It really can be explained and taught within a few days. But it must be practiced for a long time, and to have that practice, a guy has to have healthy mindsets and an ability to overcome his fears.
I found that post fascinating, and I think there's a whole lot of truth in it. I didn't even mind that he's selling a book; I kinda hope some of the guys being seduced by the PUA crap will buy that instead.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:19:56 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:18:50 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:17:54 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:17:04 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
Hail Eris, that's pretty fucking funny/horrible depending on how you look at it.
If you're Canada Bill Jones, I guess it's funny.
"It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."
"Pay us to show you how to pick up Prostitutes!"
No, it's "PAY US TO SHOW YOU HOW TO PICK UP HOT WOMEN!"
Works pretty good when the woman is in on the scam. Not so good when the marks go home and try that shit.
Wasn't there like, five minutes in this country when that would have been illegal? In 1963 or so? :horrormirth:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 07:11:03 PM
Wasn't there like, five minutes in this country when that would have been illegal? In 1963 or so? :horrormirth:
It's illegal now. It's fraud, for one thing.
But get someone to press charges.
"Hi, your honor. I'm a desperate little sociopath who was told he could learn how to manipulate or force women into bed, and I got ripped off by Mystery who simply gave me a prostitute."
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 07:11:03 PM
Wasn't there like, five minutes in this country when that would have been illegal? In 1963 or so? :horrormirth:
It's illegal now. It's fraud, for one thing.
But get someone to press charges.
"Hi, your honor. I'm a desperate little sociopath who was told he could learn how to manipulate or force women into bed, and I got ripped off by Mystery who simply gave me a prostitute."
I want popcorn and rotten tomatoes at that trial. :D
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 01:07:15 AM
Check out the follow up thread, too, for hilarious quotes from idiots.
http://theattractivearts.com/2012/08/backlash-of-the-titans/
Apparently, Rake upset a LOT of wannabe rapists.
Bump.
It appears these people also troll OKCupid (http://theattractivearts.com/2013/03/what-not-to-write/):
QuoteHIM: Hey cutie
Me: Really? Two words? I didn't even merit a complete sentence?
HIM: U R priceless. What R U looking for?
Me: Someone who can be bothered to type out actual words?
HIM: So am I ur type?
Are we sure they're not PD's alter-ego, in some strange way?
Quote from: Cain on March 28, 2013, 01:59:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 15, 2012, 01:07:15 AM
Check out the follow up thread, too, for hilarious quotes from idiots.
http://theattractivearts.com/2012/08/backlash-of-the-titans/
Apparently, Rake upset a LOT of wannabe rapists.
Bump.
It appears these people also troll OKCupid (http://theattractivearts.com/2013/03/what-not-to-write/):
QuoteHIM: Hey cutie
Me: Really? Two words? I didn't even merit a complete sentence?
HIM: U R priceless. What R U looking for?
Me: Someone who can be bothered to type out actual words?
HIM: So am I ur type?
Are we sure they're not PD's alter-ego, in some strange way?
Wow, that's priceless! It's also exactly what I expect from OKCupid. Seriously, I have had conversations like that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:19:56 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:18:50 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:17:54 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on August 15, 2012, 04:17:04 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 02:55:18 AM
Having poked around a little, I think that any time I encounter someone who expresses interest in PUA bullshit I'm going to refer them there instead. For one thing, they seem to actually WANT people to get laid and have healthy relationships, unlike the PUA shit which seems specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever having sex at all.
Um. It is specifically designed so that "Mystery" can charge $4000 for a "boot camp" in which the marks "make runs" at women, who at first are picked at random, but after the "training" are apparently prostitutes hired by Mystery as shills.
Guess who helped Mystery develop his act? Why, yes, it was the guy who owned Church of Google.
Hail Eris, that's pretty fucking funny/horrible depending on how you look at it.
If you're Canada Bill Jones, I guess it's funny.
"It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."
"Pay us to show you how to pick up Prostitutes!"
No, it's "PAY US TO SHOW YOU HOW TO PICK UP HOT WOMEN!"
Works pretty good when the woman is in on the scam. Not so good when the marks go home and try that shit.
Sounds like a great way to sell "refresher" and "advanced" courses.
I was inspired to check my OK Cupid inbox and found this:
QuoteI love YouTube.
These are great songs.
A thousand years, by Christina Perri
You can hear it on YouTube
Go to Google.com
Heart beats fast
Colors and promises
How to be brave?
How can I love when I'm afraid to fall
But watching you stand alone?
All of my doubt suddenly goes away somehow
One step closer
[Chorus:]
I have died everyday waiting for you
Darling don't be afraid I have loved you
For a thousand years
I'll love you for a thousand more
Time stands still
Beauty in all she is
I will be brave
I will not let anything take away
What's standing in front of me
Every breath
Every hour has come to this
One step closer
[Chorus:]
I have died everyday waiting for you
Darling don't be afraid I have loved you
For a thousand years
I'll love you for a thousand more
And all along I believed I would find you
Time has brought your heart to me
I have loved you for a thousand years
I'll love you for a thousand more
One step closer
One step closer
[Chorus:]
I have died everyday waiting for you
Darling don't be afraid I have loved you
For a thousand years
I'll love you for a thousand more
And all along I believed I would find you
Time has brought your heart to me
I have loved you for a thousand years
I'll love you for a thousand more
This is a great song too,
I Swear, by, All 4 One.
go to YouTube.
Official Music Video.
I swear by the moon and the stars in the sky
And I swear like the shadow that's by your side
I see the questions in your eyes
I know what's weighing on your mind
You can be sure I know my heart
'Cause I'll stand beside you through the years
You'll only cry those happy tears
And though I make mistakes
I'll never break your heart
And I swear by the moon and the stars in the sky
I'll be there
I swear like a shadow that's by your side
I'll be there
For better or worse, till death do us part
I'll love you with every beat of my heart
And I swear
I'll give you every thing I can
I'll build your dreams with these two hands
We'll hang some memories on the walls
And when just the two of us are there
You won't have to ask if I still care
'Cause as the time turns the page, my love won't age at all
And I swear by the moon and the stars in the sky
I swear (and I swear) like the shadow that's by your side
I'll be there
For better or worse, till death do us part
I'll love you with every beat of my heart
And I swear
I swear (I swear) by the moon and stars in the sky
I'll be there
I swear like the shadow that's by your side
I'll be there
For better or worse, till death do us part
I'll love you with every (single) beat of my heart
I swear, I swear, oh, I, swear
"You Had Me From Hello"
Kenny Chesney
This is a great song too,
go to YouTube.
Official Music Video.
One word, that's all was said,
Something in your voice called me, caused me to turn my head.
Your smile just captured me, you were in my future as far as I could see.
And I don't know how it happened, but it happens still.
You ask me if I love you, if I always will
Well, you had me from "Hello"
I felt love start to grow the moment I looked into your eyes,
You won me, it was over from the start.
You completely stole my heart, and now you won't let go.
I never even had a chance you know?
You had me from "Hello"
Inside I built a wall so high around my heart, I thought I'd never fall.
One touch, you brought it down
Bricks of my defenses scattered on the ground
And I swore to me that I wasn't going to love again
The last time was the last time I'd let someone in
Well, you had me from "Hello"
I felt love start to grow the moment I looked into your eyes,
You won me, it was over from the start.
You completely stole my heart, and now you won't let go.
I never even had a chance you know?
You had me from "Hello"
That's all you said
Something in your voice calls me, caused me to turn my head
You had me from "Hello"
You had me from "Hello"
Girl, I've loved you from "Hello"
From http://www.okcupid.com/profile/Bruceisyours
Sweet (or creepy, not sure), but doin' it wrong.
Bad poetry is where it's at.
I am inspired to email my wife.
He says he's "sparkly" and he "twinkles". :lol:
Quote from: stelz on March 28, 2013, 06:50:07 PM
He says he's "sparkly" and he "twinkles". :lol:
Please cut & paste his profile. Nannywall.
His profile is really not bad. If I was around his age and I saw it, I might very well be tempted to message him
and be shot down because he isn't interested in women his age.
Quote
You're visiting Bruceisyours
My self-summary
I am sparkly. I twinkle for women and old people and store clerks. I engage strangers in conversation in elevators and believe that people are happier when connected. I genuinely like people and have built a career around the sheer pleasure of spending time talking to interesting human beings. I think the best of everyone until proven wrong, and if I have a fatal flaw it is that I believe in someone's unproven potential more than their sordid past. I am worldly and should know better, and yet I still face each day optimistically.
I'm not demure or retiring, but sometimes people call me sweet. I often say things that other people might think twice before saying because I am not afraid of opinions or words or shaking a fist at entrenched dogma. It is still possible to amaze and delight me.
This is not my first rodeo and maybe it won't even be my last, but I've learned many things from my experiences, most importantly about myself. I own my own business, my kids are almost grown, my heart is finally unencumbered by the past. While it seems cruel that life waited until wrinkles formed around my eyes to fully understand my own powers, I'm making up for it by being good in... other areas.
Online dating can be really hard and frustrating, but there are ways to make it work for you. I think with a little effort, you could write a profile that reflects your authentic self and will attract the right person for you.
What I'm doing with my life
I like new beginnings, so I'm always starting a new project.
staying fit, and eating well is important to me too.
I'm really good at
Telling the truth. They say that we all tell little lies to spare the feelings of others, but I think people do that because they are either cowards or lazy. Telling the truth takes bravery, surety and skill.
Oh, and I'm great at first dates. Even if there is no chemistry, most report that a good time was had by all.
The first things people usually notice about me
I twinkle and I'm smart. Okay, really it's that I'm tall and have big smile.
great eyes, and hair.
Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food
I have a playlist called "Today's Faves." Checking this playlist periodically will give you a good idea what kind of mood I'm in. Today this list includes:
Trouble Town -- Jake Bugg
O' Be Joyful -- Shovels & Rope
Put The Gun Down -- ZZ Ward
Inside Out -- Eve 6
Touch the Lightning -- He's My Brother, She's My Sister
If I Didn't Know Better -- from the tv series Nashville
"Stuck in Speed Bump City, where the only thing that's pretty is the thought of getting out." -- Jake Bugg, "Trouble Town"
The New York Times comes to my door every Sunday. It takes me a week to read it cover to cover, and I spend the week saying, "I read in the Times..." or "Did you see the article in The Times about...?" However, the Times is best read over coffee and croissants, wordlessly trading sections at regular intervals. There is no better foreplay than the crossword done together.
The six things I could never do without
Coffee – This is non-negotiable.
iPhone – the modern Swiss Army Knife.
The Sunday New York Times – weekend foreplay
My To Do List – It is a thing of beauty.
Passion -- the only thing in a relationship you can't outsource.
Words -- Lots of words. Big words, small words, the right words.
I spend a lot of time thinking about
The next big thing.
On a typical Friday night I am
At the gym.
Or in the pool for a long swim.
The most private thing I'm willing to admit
When I'm going on a long trip, it takes twice as long to drive there – anywhere -- as it does everyone else. You will think that your presence in the car, behind the wheel or not, will change this fact. It will not.
I'm looking for
Straight girls only
Ages 40–55
Near me
For new friends, long-term dating, activity partners
You should message me if
You are fearless. And a little bossy.
New poems down in B&B.