4 ms·

Love Hurts

46 points by jseliger 6y ago

jeff_jefferson 6y ago
The only reason that people are talking about explicit consent is that so many people (yes, mostly men) were either not noticing or not caring that there wasn't even any implicit consent for their actions. #MeToo was born out of people being abused and raped due to a culture that gave power to men who were beyond question. Change that culture and maybe we can go back to just having a bit of fun.
- tone 6y ago
  Are you saying that "so many" men were accidentally raping as there was no implicit consent? That's ridiculous. As the article alludes, sex is not a scary and horrible minefield, and the idea of consent shouldn't be overused and watered down to apply to every difficult situation. You're describing power within an industry, not our culture. You are for no reason attributing the action of a few to many. Which is sexist.
  - loopz 6y ago
    --
    - tone 6y ago
      The masses....? I think you've lost it a bit here.
      - loopz 6y ago
        --
        Cthulhu_ 6y ago
        Democracy (at least the US flavor of it) has run its course and is no longer working - since apparently the president can appoint the top brass of the judicial branch, and the house can just make legal action against the president go away. To name a few examples. Also voting is not considered a right or obligation, but a privilege. I can go on.
        roenxi 6y ago
        Technical point, but US democracy has survived a literal civil war in the past and been fine. The US would continue doing fine if it carried on this way for another 100 years. Although the politicians might want to implement some wealth creation policies imho instead of experiments with literally banning working. The change is the corruption is visible now that the internet is a thing. The making of the democratic sausage has always been a disgusting process.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    You are for no reason attributing the action of a few to many. The point is that it isn't a few men. If you listen to women most of them have accounts of how they've been harassed in some way. A recent (2018) survey[1] found that 81% of women had experienced verbal sexual harassment, and 27% reported physical sexual assault. That is not "a few" men giving the rest a bad name. Also it is not sexist to point it out. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849/a-new-survey-finds-eighty-percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849...
    - watwut 6y ago
      I think it is minority of men doing the same thing again and again and again. Verbal sexual harassment is specifically something that one person can do to many others within short time. But I remember reading that rapes are similar. One person is doing it multiple times till he get caught.
      - onion2k 6y ago
        I hope so. It would be appalling if it was a majority of men. I don't think we can really state that as a fact without more research though.
      - didibus 6y ago
        That's a good point. As a men, I am always like in total shock when I read about some of these stories. I always think? What who does that? I never ever even thought of doing that? And wondered like, am I the outlier? Do everyone else just call their coworkers to their office waiting for them with their member out? How come so many women have had that experience? But I think it is very possible like you said that a few can impact a lot of women by just repeated behavior. Somehow I hope so at least.
    - NalNezumi 6y ago
      >A recent (2018) survey[1] found that 81% of women had experienced verbal sexual harassment, and 27% reported physical sexual assault. Sorry but this stats does not support your claim...? If the stats phrasing was "81% of men had conducted" it would support your claim, but experienced doesn't in any way means that every woman that experienced harassment experienced it from one unique male each time (which is probably the least likely implication of all). It is sexist to point it out, just at it is racist to point to incarceration rate (weighted by population) of blacks to call a black person more prone to disobedience. (or male incarceration rate, for that matter) It is a classical classroom example case of misrepresentation of statistic to make discriminatory remark, or shift the blame to a group.
  - didibus 6y ago
    Not OP, but I'm pretty sure they meant that too many men were deliberately raping or abusing women against their consent, through force, extortion, manipulation, deceit and incapacitation. And that this is where the MeToo movement came from, to show people just how prevalent this is. > and the idea of consent shouldn't be overused and watered down to apply to every difficult situation I got the impression that's what the article was doing. That was my main issue, it seems to take consent and MeToo and frame it in a very juvenile manner, contextualized with teenagers getting to know their sexuality and first experimenting not sure about what they want, like or how to act. Where consent and MeToo is about preventing serious sexual abuse, not dealing with a breakup or an ackward kiss.
    - noobermin 6y ago
      The article explicitly talks about the Warren Ellis case which is not about consent at all but something that sounds like an unscrupulous man.
- loopz 6y ago
  Much problems arise from hypocritical double standards of the elite, like Trump and his cult, but also for much of leadership in corporate they've gotten away with too much. If people can stop expecting special treatment and double standards, we have a fighting chance to address higher existential issues.
- didibus 6y ago
  I feel similarly confused by the article. It seems more focused on criticizing sexual education and suggesting alternative approaches, and breaking down old stereotypes and mentalities. And that part I thought was good and I could agree with. But the parts about #MeToo and consent seem to just brush over real sexual violence and abuse that spurred those movements and ideas in the first place. Maybe if you hang out in the twitter sphere you get a distorted view, but some of the real implications around consent are things like: It's not consensual if one person is blacked out drunk. I mean just read one of the brochure like this one: https://mcckc.edu/images/ac/counseling/whatisconsent.jpg https://mcckc.edu/images/ac/counseling/whatisconsent.jpg Now go back to the article, and where is the part discussing: "Consent cannot be given through physical violence or threat" The problem is, how are we even at a place where a brochure on consent needs an entire section to explain this? That's what the MeToo movement at least from my impression was about, it's like, hey reality check, more women then you know experience really ridiculous abuse, and we're not talking about their boyfriend cheating on them.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > The problem is, how are we even at a place where a brochure on consent needs an entire section to explain this? I think it is because some of men who used implied threat of physical violence pretended they are completely unaware of what was going on. And that was treated as serious argument. See, they were just poor naive beings unaware of the situation (despite being highly charizmatic and fully socially aware in other situations). So, everyone is getting that brochure now.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  While your position seems reasonable, but that's not what is being proposed or implemented. Sweden for example out of a dozen countries who have passed these laws. The removal of the 'forced' part of rape means it's entirely consent now. If you didn't have explicit consent in some form of proof. You are now a rapist. You never threatened, coerced or used force of any kind; the other person never resisted at any time. Innocent until proven guilty is gone. You must prove you got explicit consent. Which lets be realistic, you don't have that. Nobody is signing a contract or equivalent before sex. You are now a rapist. Which is why Rape has increased something like 400% in Sweden. Why do you think the Swedish men are such rapists?
maitredusoi 6y ago
I feel it as it is the other way round, society is infantilizing men and demonizing women....
rbanffy 6y ago
I think this article confuses so much I can't really start to peel it apart. The number of dog whistles per paragraph is astonishing. I can begin by questioning the idea that a "ruined woman" still exists in our society. I married twice and never expected a virgin in either case. I married intelligent and interesting women and I'm much better and richer for that. I wasn't a virgin either, so it'd be unfair to demand that anyway. Between marriages I noticed the vast power I could have over younger less experienced people. Of course I could manipulate them - I was the experienced and interesting person myself. And then I realized I was once as naïve as they were and the fact I was a man didn't protect me from being manipulated by others smarter and more experienced than me who got away with what they wanted. Don't get me wrong - I had a lot of fun, but, still, it did hurt and it was wrong to be manipulated. It's unacceptable to drive a car recklessly without care for pedestrians or other drivers the same way it's unacceptable to have sex recklessly without care for the consequences to others. And, yes, that includes casual sex that's more casual for one of the partners.
- scandox 6y ago
  You mention dog whistles. I know the concept but I obviously can't read the subtext. Can you elaborate?
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    In the subtitle, "demonizing men". Then the framing as "progressive language" and "paternalistic". And then the argument that a "breathtaking range of disappointing male behavior gets swept under the umbrella of MeToo". This is quickly followed by the "certain progressive spaces" bogeyman, which is followed by the familiar "men, dehumanized by a framework that casts their desires as inherently predatory". It was a lot. We usually see one or two.
    - scandox 6y ago
      Ok so those are common tropes for people who are appealing to a particular group who interpret those phrases as "this person is on my side"? A group that presumably believes men are in some way the victims of unfair critique of their behaviour... The difficulty for me is how can I distinguish between a dog whistle and a statement of authentic opinion. Unless one spends time in constant engagement with this type of rhetoric?
scandox 6y ago
> Men, already saddled with the pressure of making the first move, Is this still the case? It is a stupid convention.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rimliu 6y ago
  Of course that is still the case. Which planet are you from?
  - scandox 6y ago
    Planet married
    - engineeringwoke 6y ago
      Men are still the choosers and women the chosen... as it always has been. Surprisingly enough, sex wasn't reinvented this time like the youth thought it was
noobermin 6y ago
The first thing I'll say is that the beginning of the article kind of violates the spirit of the journal. I looked at the about section of the website, it looks like as the name suggests, they believe in persuasion and arguments and reason and connect it with their defense of free speech. Unfortunately, the tone at the beginning seems to be in a derisive tone to those I assume it wants to reach, which makes it not very effective in that effort to pursade. That said, if you can wade through it (which is difficult as most of the comments here suggest), the take away is good I think, and even moderate. It makes the point that all relationships can be dangerous with respect to the possibility of finding one's heart broken. "Intimacy requires vulnerability; the joy of human connection always comes with the risk of being hurt," and that some people who engage in metoo discourse tend to wrap real power imbalance and consent issues in with things that don't really have that, like the example of Warren Ellis cited here. She argues that some of the rhetoric around metoo has created a culture that treats all relationships as something potentially dangerous, and also critiques some of the rhetoric as being dis-empowering of women. These are all reasonable critiques I think. Hopefully they won't be lost in the snide tone of the opening.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  I instantly get my hackles up whenever anyone or any outlet mentions they advocate free speech, atheism and reason; while I believe in all of them, it's often used as a shield and an excuse for having beliefs that they know aren't acceptable to a lot of people. It brings to me associations of insufferable smugness. Being an atheist isn't a personality. Everybody believes and advocates free speech - for themselves. Reasonable debate is a two-way street.
  - noobermin 6y ago
    A lot of people use the idea of free speech disingenuously. I am not sure if this site is doing so here, but I personally believe in it as a principle. I'm not sure if I agree with their about page though, people are genuinely not as open to persuasion as we wish they could be.
- Udik 6y ago
xyzal 6y ago
Would someone please explain why was this post flagged?

46 points by jseliger 6y ago

The only reason that people are talking about explicit consent is that so many people (yes, mostly men) were either not noticing or not caring that there wasn't even any implicit consent for their actions. #MeToo was born out of people being abused and raped due to a culture that gave power to men who were beyond question. Change that culture and maybe we can go back to just having a bit of fun.

tone 6y ago
Are you saying that "so many" men were accidentally raping as there was no implicit consent? That's ridiculous. As the article alludes, sex is not a scary and horrible minefield, and the idea of consent shouldn't be overused and watered down to apply to every difficult situation. You're describing power within an industry, not our culture. You are for no reason attributing the action of a few to many. Which is sexist.
- loopz 6y ago
  --
  - tone 6y ago
    The masses....? I think you've lost it a bit here.
    - loopz 6y ago
      --
      - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
        Democracy (at least the US flavor of it) has run its course and is no longer working - since apparently the president can appoint the top brass of the judicial branch, and the house can just make legal action against the president go away. To name a few examples. Also voting is not considered a right or obligation, but a privilege. I can go on.
        roenxi 6y ago
        Technical point, but US democracy has survived a literal civil war in the past and been fine. The US would continue doing fine if it carried on this way for another 100 years. Although the politicians might want to implement some wealth creation policies imho instead of experiments with literally banning working. The change is the corruption is visible now that the internet is a thing. The making of the democratic sausage has always been a disgusting process.
- onion2k 6y ago
  You are for no reason attributing the action of a few to many. The point is that it isn't a few men. If you listen to women most of them have accounts of how they've been harassed in some way. A recent (2018) survey[1] found that 81% of women had experienced verbal sexual harassment, and 27% reported physical sexual assault. That is not "a few" men giving the rest a bad name. Also it is not sexist to point it out. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849/a-new-survey-finds-eighty-percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849...
  - watwut 6y ago
    I think it is minority of men doing the same thing again and again and again. Verbal sexual harassment is specifically something that one person can do to many others within short time. But I remember reading that rapes are similar. One person is doing it multiple times till he get caught.
    - onion2k 6y ago
      I hope so. It would be appalling if it was a majority of men. I don't think we can really state that as a fact without more research though.
    - didibus 6y ago
      That's a good point. As a men, I am always like in total shock when I read about some of these stories. I always think? What who does that? I never ever even thought of doing that? And wondered like, am I the outlier? Do everyone else just call their coworkers to their office waiting for them with their member out? How come so many women have had that experience? But I think it is very possible like you said that a few can impact a lot of women by just repeated behavior. Somehow I hope so at least.
  - NalNezumi 6y ago
    >A recent (2018) survey[1] found that 81% of women had experienced verbal sexual harassment, and 27% reported physical sexual assault. Sorry but this stats does not support your claim...? If the stats phrasing was "81% of men had conducted" it would support your claim, but experienced doesn't in any way means that every woman that experienced harassment experienced it from one unique male each time (which is probably the least likely implication of all). It is sexist to point it out, just at it is racist to point to incarceration rate (weighted by population) of blacks to call a black person more prone to disobedience. (or male incarceration rate, for that matter) It is a classical classroom example case of misrepresentation of statistic to make discriminatory remark, or shift the blame to a group.
- didibus 6y ago
  Not OP, but I'm pretty sure they meant that too many men were deliberately raping or abusing women against their consent, through force, extortion, manipulation, deceit and incapacitation. And that this is where the MeToo movement came from, to show people just how prevalent this is. > and the idea of consent shouldn't be overused and watered down to apply to every difficult situation I got the impression that's what the article was doing. That was my main issue, it seems to take consent and MeToo and frame it in a very juvenile manner, contextualized with teenagers getting to know their sexuality and first experimenting not sure about what they want, like or how to act. Where consent and MeToo is about preventing serious sexual abuse, not dealing with a breakup or an ackward kiss.
  - noobermin 6y ago
    The article explicitly talks about the Warren Ellis case which is not about consent at all but something that sounds like an unscrupulous man.
loopz 6y ago
Much problems arise from hypocritical double standards of the elite, like Trump and his cult, but also for much of leadership in corporate they've gotten away with too much. If people can stop expecting special treatment and double standards, we have a fighting chance to address higher existential issues.
didibus 6y ago
I feel similarly confused by the article. It seems more focused on criticizing sexual education and suggesting alternative approaches, and breaking down old stereotypes and mentalities. And that part I thought was good and I could agree with. But the parts about #MeToo and consent seem to just brush over real sexual violence and abuse that spurred those movements and ideas in the first place. Maybe if you hang out in the twitter sphere you get a distorted view, but some of the real implications around consent are things like: It's not consensual if one person is blacked out drunk. I mean just read one of the brochure like this one: https://mcckc.edu/images/ac/counseling/whatisconsent.jpg https://mcckc.edu/images/ac/counseling/whatisconsent.jpg Now go back to the article, and where is the part discussing: "Consent cannot be given through physical violence or threat" The problem is, how are we even at a place where a brochure on consent needs an entire section to explain this? That's what the MeToo movement at least from my impression was about, it's like, hey reality check, more women then you know experience really ridiculous abuse, and we're not talking about their boyfriend cheating on them.
- watwut 6y ago
  > The problem is, how are we even at a place where a brochure on consent needs an entire section to explain this? I think it is because some of men who used implied threat of physical violence pretended they are completely unaware of what was going on. And that was treated as serious argument. See, they were just poor naive beings unaware of the situation (despite being highly charizmatic and fully socially aware in other situations). So, everyone is getting that brochure now.
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
While your position seems reasonable, but that's not what is being proposed or implemented. Sweden for example out of a dozen countries who have passed these laws. The removal of the 'forced' part of rape means it's entirely consent now. If you didn't have explicit consent in some form of proof. You are now a rapist. You never threatened, coerced or used force of any kind; the other person never resisted at any time. Innocent until proven guilty is gone. You must prove you got explicit consent. Which lets be realistic, you don't have that. Nobody is signing a contract or equivalent before sex. You are now a rapist. Which is why Rape has increased something like 400% in Sweden. Why do you think the Swedish men are such rapists?

maitredusoi 6y ago

I feel it as it is the other way round, society is infantilizing men and demonizing women....

rbanffy 6y ago

I think this article confuses so much I can't really start to peel it apart. The number of dog whistles per paragraph is astonishing. I can begin by questioning the idea that a "ruined woman" still exists in our society. I married twice and never expected a virgin in either case. I married intelligent and interesting women and I'm much better and richer for that. I wasn't a virgin either, so it'd be unfair to demand that anyway. Between marriages I noticed the vast power I could have over younger less experienced people. Of course I could manipulate them - I was the experienced and interesting person myself. And then I realized I was once as naïve as they were and the fact I was a man didn't protect me from being manipulated by others smarter and more experienced than me who got away with what they wanted. Don't get me wrong - I had a lot of fun, but, still, it did hurt and it was wrong to be manipulated. It's unacceptable to drive a car recklessly without care for pedestrians or other drivers the same way it's unacceptable to have sex recklessly without care for the consequences to others. And, yes, that includes casual sex that's more casual for one of the partners.

scandox 6y ago
You mention dog whistles. I know the concept but I obviously can't read the subtext. Can you elaborate?
- rbanffy 6y ago
  In the subtitle, "demonizing men". Then the framing as "progressive language" and "paternalistic". And then the argument that a "breathtaking range of disappointing male behavior gets swept under the umbrella of MeToo". This is quickly followed by the "certain progressive spaces" bogeyman, which is followed by the familiar "men, dehumanized by a framework that casts their desires as inherently predatory". It was a lot. We usually see one or two.
  - scandox 6y ago
    Ok so those are common tropes for people who are appealing to a particular group who interpret those phrases as "this person is on my side"? A group that presumably believes men are in some way the victims of unfair critique of their behaviour... The difficulty for me is how can I distinguish between a dog whistle and a statement of authentic opinion. Unless one spends time in constant engagement with this type of rhetoric?

scandox 6y ago

> Men, already saddled with the pressure of making the first move, Is this still the case? It is a stupid convention.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rimliu 6y ago
Of course that is still the case. Which planet are you from?
- scandox 6y ago
  Planet married
  - engineeringwoke 6y ago
    Men are still the choosers and women the chosen... as it always has been. Surprisingly enough, sex wasn't reinvented this time like the youth thought it was

noobermin 6y ago

The first thing I'll say is that the beginning of the article kind of violates the spirit of the journal. I looked at the about section of the website, it looks like as the name suggests, they believe in persuasion and arguments and reason and connect it with their defense of free speech. Unfortunately, the tone at the beginning seems to be in a derisive tone to those I assume it wants to reach, which makes it not very effective in that effort to pursade. That said, if you can wade through it (which is difficult as most of the comments here suggest), the take away is good I think, and even moderate. It makes the point that all relationships can be dangerous with respect to the possibility of finding one's heart broken. "Intimacy requires vulnerability; the joy of human connection always comes with the risk of being hurt," and that some people who engage in metoo discourse tend to wrap real power imbalance and consent issues in with things that don't really have that, like the example of Warren Ellis cited here. She argues that some of the rhetoric around metoo has created a culture that treats all relationships as something potentially dangerous, and also critiques some of the rhetoric as being dis-empowering of women. These are all reasonable critiques I think. Hopefully they won't be lost in the snide tone of the opening.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
I instantly get my hackles up whenever anyone or any outlet mentions they advocate free speech, atheism and reason; while I believe in all of them, it's often used as a shield and an excuse for having beliefs that they know aren't acceptable to a lot of people. It brings to me associations of insufferable smugness. Being an atheist isn't a personality. Everybody believes and advocates free speech - for themselves. Reasonable debate is a two-way street.
- noobermin 6y ago
  A lot of people use the idea of free speech disingenuously. I am not sure if this site is doing so here, but I personally believe in it as a principle. I'm not sure if I agree with their about page though, people are genuinely not as open to persuasion as we wish they could be.
Udik 6y ago

xyzal 6y ago

Would someone please explain why was this post flagged?