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

[Juana]

Of a mind who thinks all women are property, public or private, too.

[LMNO]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

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?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

There should be a Discordian Guide to Responsibly Wooing Mates.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

There should be a Discordian Guide to Responsibly Wooing Mates.

The keyboard is right in front of you.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There should be a Discordian Guide to Responsibly Wooing Mates.

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".

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Dating and Sex for Bipeds would make an awesome title, IMHO.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Dating and Sex for Bipeds would make an awesome title, IMHO.

It would be the first dating and sex guide that WORKED RIGHT.