4 ms·

They can, but experience suggests that it's a high-risk situation: risk of one or both people misunderstanding or poorly communicating their intentions, risk of

They can, but experience suggests that it's a high-risk situation: risk of one or both people misunderstanding or poorly communicating their intentions, risk of one party "trying something" and crossing the line with the other, and so forth. It's better for straight, platonic friends of the opposite sex to sleep in different beds to avoid misunderstandings (or predatory "misunderstandings", for that matter).

exolymph 10y ago
She unequivocally told him that she didn't want any romantic or sexual involvement. >As politely as I could, I explained, “You can have the floor, and I’ll take my bed, or the other way around. If you’re comfortable with it, we can share my bed, as friends. Meaning no physical contact.” True misunderstandings are easily cleared up. Predatory "misunderstandings" are not.
- cshimmin 10y ago
  Not coming in on any side here, but to clarify this "unequivocal" statement was made years before the incident, it sounds like.
CamperBob2 10y ago
It's hard not to question the character of adults who put themselves in positions like this, repeatedly, and then whine about the (frankly not-so-injurious) outcome on the Internet. And yes, to some extent you can say this of both Appelbaum and Lovecruft. I can't say if Appelbaum is being targeted for social termination, or whatever the three-letter agencies call it these days... but I will say that if he were, I think the story would read much like this, where a lot of his acquaintances are encouraged to pile on with specific yet non-actionable accusations. See the Julian Assange 'rape' case for another example where his supposed crime was actionable, but only in a jurisdiction with laws that 99% of the world finds unnecessary. It's absurd to think that Assange would have found himself facing rape accusations if he hadn't already painted a target on his back, and that seems likely to be true for Appelbaum as well.
- nkurz 10y ago
  It's hard not to question the character of adults who put themselves in positions like this, repeatedly, and then whine about the (frankly not-so-injurious) outcome on the Internet. Is this different than blaming the rape victim for dressing provocatively? And does it matter if being "provocative" is locally defined as "not wearing a burka"? Or going outside without a male chaperone? On one level, these are simple precautions that likely reduce the risk of sexual assault. On another, they are absurd and outdated limitations on personal freedom. I don't read this or the other accounts as whining. I think it's an account of a community trying to define its norms. At a glance, it looks like those norms are about as far in one direction from mainstream America as conservative Islamic societies are in the other direction. As such, discussion can help those in the middle (who frequently consider themselves enlightened) to understand the perspective of those in the more conservative society.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    Is this different than blaming the rape victim for dressing provocatively? Yeah, I think it is. When the victim willingly climbs into bed with someone who has previously made him/her uncomfortable, it's time for even the most stalwart SJW to acknowledge that the situation is not entirely one-sided. I think it's an account of a community trying to define its norms. We've spent the last 10,000 years or so doing just that. So far, the answer seems to be, "Don't sleep with people of the compatible sex that you don't want to, um, sleep with." Of course we haven't arrived at the best possible set of norms yet, but I'm not convinced that unchallenged cries of victim-blaming in cases like this are going to lead us there. At a glance, it looks like those norms are about as far in one direction from mainstream America as conservative Islamic societies are in the other direction. As such, discussion can help those in the middle (who frequently consider themselves enlightened) to understand the perspective of those in the more conservative society. Sorry, I'm not sure what this means.
    - nkurz 10y ago
      When the victim willingly climbs into bed with someone who has previously made him/her uncomfortable, it's time for even the most stalwart SJW to acknowledge that the situation is not entirely one-sided. Sure, but could the same be said if a lone female gets into a taxi with a male driver, feels uncomfortable, but doesn't get out? If the taxi driver takes this to imply sexual consent, does saying that only "the most stalwart liberal Westerner" would defend her behavior make the situation any less one-sided? We've spent the last 10,000 years or so doing just that. So far, the answer seems to be, "Don't sleep with people of the compatible sex that you don't want to, um, sleep with." I'm claiming that there is far less uniformity to these beliefs than you imply. Some societies take it further, and say "Women should not show their face to anyone who is not their spouse or kin", and others take a more liberal approach. Even in Western society, approaches to sharing beds have changed dramatically in the last couple hundred years. Try here for explanations of "bundling" and "pigging": https://books.google.com/books?id=WnrEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT259&lpg=PT259 https://books.google.com/books?id=WnrEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT259&lpg=... Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Based on your statements, I'm guessing that you hold relatively standard conservative Western beliefs regarding the implications of certain interactions between non-married members of the opposite sex. As such, a woman inviting a man to non-sexually share her bed is a difficult situation to comprehend: how could anyone be blamed for misinterpreting and overstepping the bounds of this arrangement? I'm saying that just as we in the West might condemn a taxi driver or shopkeeper for raping an unchaperoned female patron (even if that patron felt uncomfortable with the situation but entered it voluntarily), others might be justified in condemning someone who "feels up" a woman whose bed they are allowed to share. I don't have the answer as to whether condemnation is justified in this case, and can only say that the "rightfulness" of the condemnation depends on the societal context within which it occurs. I don't think there is an absolute basis by which the "right" limits of propriety can be judged.

exolymph 10y ago

She unequivocally told him that she didn't want any romantic or sexual involvement. >As politely as I could, I explained, “You can have the floor, and I’ll take my bed, or the other way around. If you’re comfortable with it, we can share my bed, as friends. Meaning no physical contact.” True misunderstandings are easily cleared up. Predatory "misunderstandings" are not.

cshimmin 10y ago
Not coming in on any side here, but to clarify this "unequivocal" statement was made years before the incident, it sounds like.

CamperBob2 10y ago

It's hard not to question the character of adults who put themselves in positions like this, repeatedly, and then whine about the (frankly not-so-injurious) outcome on the Internet. And yes, to some extent you can say this of both Appelbaum and Lovecruft. I can't say if Appelbaum is being targeted for social termination, or whatever the three-letter agencies call it these days... but I will say that if he were, I think the story would read much like this, where a lot of his acquaintances are encouraged to pile on with specific yet non-actionable accusations. See the Julian Assange 'rape' case for another example where his supposed crime was actionable, but only in a jurisdiction with laws that 99% of the world finds unnecessary. It's absurd to think that Assange would have found himself facing rape accusations if he hadn't already painted a target on his back, and that seems likely to be true for Appelbaum as well.

nkurz 10y ago
It's hard not to question the character of adults who put themselves in positions like this, repeatedly, and then whine about the (frankly not-so-injurious) outcome on the Internet. Is this different than blaming the rape victim for dressing provocatively? And does it matter if being "provocative" is locally defined as "not wearing a burka"? Or going outside without a male chaperone? On one level, these are simple precautions that likely reduce the risk of sexual assault. On another, they are absurd and outdated limitations on personal freedom. I don't read this or the other accounts as whining. I think it's an account of a community trying to define its norms. At a glance, it looks like those norms are about as far in one direction from mainstream America as conservative Islamic societies are in the other direction. As such, discussion can help those in the middle (who frequently consider themselves enlightened) to understand the perspective of those in the more conservative society.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Is this different than blaming the rape victim for dressing provocatively? Yeah, I think it is. When the victim willingly climbs into bed with someone who has previously made him/her uncomfortable, it's time for even the most stalwart SJW to acknowledge that the situation is not entirely one-sided. I think it's an account of a community trying to define its norms. We've spent the last 10,000 years or so doing just that. So far, the answer seems to be, "Don't sleep with people of the compatible sex that you don't want to, um, sleep with." Of course we haven't arrived at the best possible set of norms yet, but I'm not convinced that unchallenged cries of victim-blaming in cases like this are going to lead us there. At a glance, it looks like those norms are about as far in one direction from mainstream America as conservative Islamic societies are in the other direction. As such, discussion can help those in the middle (who frequently consider themselves enlightened) to understand the perspective of those in the more conservative society. Sorry, I'm not sure what this means.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    When the victim willingly climbs into bed with someone who has previously made him/her uncomfortable, it's time for even the most stalwart SJW to acknowledge that the situation is not entirely one-sided. Sure, but could the same be said if a lone female gets into a taxi with a male driver, feels uncomfortable, but doesn't get out? If the taxi driver takes this to imply sexual consent, does saying that only "the most stalwart liberal Westerner" would defend her behavior make the situation any less one-sided? We've spent the last 10,000 years or so doing just that. So far, the answer seems to be, "Don't sleep with people of the compatible sex that you don't want to, um, sleep with." I'm claiming that there is far less uniformity to these beliefs than you imply. Some societies take it further, and say "Women should not show their face to anyone who is not their spouse or kin", and others take a more liberal approach. Even in Western society, approaches to sharing beds have changed dramatically in the last couple hundred years. Try here for explanations of "bundling" and "pigging": https://books.google.com/books?id=WnrEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT259&lpg=PT259 https://books.google.com/books?id=WnrEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT259&lpg=... Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Based on your statements, I'm guessing that you hold relatively standard conservative Western beliefs regarding the implications of certain interactions between non-married members of the opposite sex. As such, a woman inviting a man to non-sexually share her bed is a difficult situation to comprehend: how could anyone be blamed for misinterpreting and overstepping the bounds of this arrangement? I'm saying that just as we in the West might condemn a taxi driver or shopkeeper for raping an unchaperoned female patron (even if that patron felt uncomfortable with the situation but entered it voluntarily), others might be justified in condemning someone who "feels up" a woman whose bed they are allowed to share. I don't have the answer as to whether condemnation is justified in this case, and can only say that the "rightfulness" of the condemnation depends on the societal context within which it occurs. I don't think there is an absolute basis by which the "right" limits of propriety can be judged.