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

[Pope Lecherous]

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.

[Pope Lecherous]

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. 

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.

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?"

[Placid Dingo]

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.

[Placid Dingo]

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.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

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.

[Freeky]

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. 

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.

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.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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:

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.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

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! 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[Pope Lecherous]

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.

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.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

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.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

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.

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? 

[Pope Lecherous]

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.

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.

I also have to admire how succinctly Nigel put this:

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.

[Juana]

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.

[Pope Lecherous]

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

[Juana]

That doesn't answer my post at all.