sexual misconduct

[BRUTE]

called Milton Friedman a communist

perfect

[jacob]

So far from all these examples, I have not seen anything that has rendered my initial abstract model invalid. However, I have gotten a much better understanding of the distribution and the various characters which leads me to conclude that the problem is even worse than I originally thought. There's a large amount of behavior that actively sabotages other people.

I'm also somewhat more interested in practical/concrete solutions at this point.

I'm just going to throw random observations out for now.

• Defining rape as "sex with physical violence" is a very intelligent move. Whereas "sex" can take many forms, physical violence has much less room for mis/interpretation; so this creates signal clarity.
• Piggy-backing on that rape definition (call it rape classic) in order to make people take other sexual harassment (call it new rape) more seriously is a stupid bandit move. As noted (see Riggerjack post), while it seems like a good idea at first, the system eventually adapts resulting in a diluted signal for rape classic. Because of limited enforcement resources (see 7wb5 post), it will take resources away from rape classic and people might even stop believing accusations or at least least not pursue them as hard. Example: If I report some angry dude pointing a finger into my chest as "attempted murder" in order to get the police to go after him with more resources, not only will take resources away from other homicides ... but by taking resources away, actual killers will have an easier time.
• The "no means no" vs the "no really means yes" is extremely destructive to the system. First, it creates a confusing signal on a matter where the possible outcomes are either a rape charge or exciting sex. It doesn't get more binary than that. This causes some not to play. For those who keep playing (or learn their lesson for the next time), the "no really means yes"-gamers are training frustrated people to be more aggressive and ignore nos in future encounters. Remember, as illustrated from the multiple examples above, you can't tell for sure which is which until it's too late. Eventually, one will be too aggressive against a "no means no" person.
  
  The practical solution to this is "safe words". Those who like to play those games need at least two safe words. The first one should communicate a terminal stop in a completely unambiguous way. Kinda like the command codes to the starship bridge, if someone says "alpha pi five", it means a total stop that ends the game where people go home and maybe never see each other again, and it needs to be a word that would NEVER be accidental/unintentional anywhere. The second one should communicate "slow down" or "stop that particular activity". This word needs to be face-saving and easy, so "uh uh" is a good one (hand signals also work, for e.g. loud areas). The only rule is that the word or sound ALWAYS means either slow down or end a particular activity. It's not hard to understand that too many "uh uh"s eventually earn you an "alpha pi five".
  
  These words must never be part of the actual games people play. They are meta to the game. They are not words one fucks around with literally and figuratively. These two words must become universal and taught on campuses and HR departments, etc. They need to have legal value on par with someone signing with their signature. Once established in the minds of people are free to engage in their various dominance games ("Noooo noo noo don't .. yes more more more") everywhere. This might also reduce harassment.
  
  Words like "stop" or "no" are obviously NOT useful at this point.
• Given all the examples, it's quite clear that people have very different experiences and therefore very different worldviews. Another thing to add here (see Scott2 post, I think it was) is that these things tend to run in bubbles. And they might even run in positive feedback bubbles where the issue gets better and better or worse and worse respectively. Remember Trump's locker-room talk excuse? Well, I have been in lots of locker rooms in 7+ different kinds of sports and I have never heard such talk. If anyone thought about pussygrabbing, at least they knew enough not to say it out loud in "my" locker rooms, and so there were no "teaching moments". Yes, we've had Trump-like locker room talk on these forums (which is a kind of a bubble), so I fixed it.
  
  What's important to acknowledge here is that assertions or policy recommendations that imply "all men" or "all women" or "all locker rooms" (or forums) puts the burden on individuals and groups of individuals or rooms who likely have never seen the problem (in their own bubbles) nor been guilty of it. In particular, this kind of willy-nilly mass-recruitment of people "for the cause" based simply on gender, sports facilities, or forums might even turn off potential allies; especially if it implies that they're part of the problem.
  
  An actionable solution is to recruit selectively. Never say "men need to" or "women need to". (I know I used "all males/females" in my systems analysis, but I also pointed out that it was necessary for analytical purposes.) It's been pointed out that men will defend their wives and daughters (seen in all cultures). It's also been pointed out that people will defend their friends; other sex and same sex (see C40 and saving-10-years posts). A suggestion for recruiting selectively is wingmen (and wingwomen), preferably in a gender mixed batch. Not only does this offer protective/enforcement services (by numbers alone); it also helps with the awkwardness both on the passive and active side; and it bridges communication issues(&) between inexperienced guys and girls. It also prevents false accusations. And, especially in mixed groups, it assists in hooking up people while ensuring that others communicate the proper signals (like "I hear X is really interested in you"). Overall, it seems like an intelligent solution.
  
  (&) For example, I'm wondering how much miscommunication there might be in this thread between "trying to find solutions" and "acknowledging the problem". For some stereotypical humor, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XjUFYxSxDk
• http://memeorandum.com which shows what the media is mostly talking about has been swamped with sexual accusations for weeks now. It's all coming out now and every day is a new guy. Now, people's reactions in response to those allegations and convictions also send signals that indicate how big they think rape or sexual harassment issues really are to them compared to other issues such as politics/power, money, or fame. This goes back to my comments about violence or stepping in for a teachable moment and consequently risking violence (see examples above, distracted-at-work's post; my book link for a realistic perspective). The takeaway there should not have been "what do I get out it?" (how much can I benefit?) but "is is worth it?" (how much can I lose?) which carries a different sentiment altogether! For example, when Trump's pussygrabbing tape came out, I was sure that his chances were terminally sunk (alpha pi five level). But as it turned out that 42% of women voted Trump over Clinton's 54%. So obviously more on the uh-uh level for many women That's telling me [as a signal] that almost half of American women think [political] party is more important than unequivocally/terminally saying no sexual abuse. And now we have the same with the Roy Moore allegations which crosses one line further [age]... and yet a substantial fraction are still okay with that. So in terms of stepping in, I already think that it's "not worth it" to get in between people who are harassing each other politically (or for money or fame)---I'm more the "only against other violence" sort. And now the numbers show me that almost half think that sexual harassment is less important than that I'm using these as examples because we will have actual voting numbers unlike Weinstein or Spacey ... although maybe movie revenue/viewership will be an indication. The actionable solution here is to send a strong signal. I will note that this does not actually have to be consistent to function, but it has to have a material risk for a material cost! (See e.g. Taleb's enforcement matrix(*).) Bandits need to know that there's a real chance of ruining their lives if they engage in bad behavior. Ideally they should not be encouraged, because if they get away with it after all, especially in a public fashion, it encourages other bandits.

(*) It's a skewed strategy that doesn't use proportional response but rather uses an underresponse to most infractions but occasionally/randomly uses an overresponse. This [overresponse] sends the true/unfakeable signal that pissing you off carries some risk of an overresponse; thus encouraging people to act better. Imagine, for example, a society that enforced laws randomly but the only penalty was the death penalty. There was a Star Trek episode, where Wesley steps on some flowers in the wrong place/time and almost gets executed. Conversely, a consistent (non-random) response strategy tells me exactly what someone thinks an infraction is worth.

[Riggerjack]

@jacob

Can't argue with that, but I think you haven't really grasped the nature of the "exciting sex problem."

It doesn't matter where the line is drawn, a significant fraction will always want to be close to it. Not, "price is right style" of close to, but not over the line. But close to the line, on either side, or both. Whether that be liking to play close to the line, and liking to be gagged, or simply disliking that there is a line at all.

Your modeled solution is prefect for responsible, agency wielding, competent people. However, there are people who are none of those, and people actively turned off by the idea of having any control. Giving them control, in the form of a safe word is counterproductive/limiting/defeatist.

I would describe Diane's tastes vs mine as similar to the recently locked thread where I talked about metacontent in a conversation. Acknowledgement of a second set of rules, spoils the game.

Well defined rules would help me, because I like well defined rules. But there are other, perfectly good people who like ambiguity. For whom well defined rules and safe practices are as appealing as whole body condoms. Sure, it's safer, but what's the point?

For what it's worth, I have more to say on this than I have time to type on my less than cooperative phone. I will keep posting, slowly. Though it turns out that the next part (practical application) will involve another creepy but nonsexual story.

[jacob]

@Riggerjack - I read your codex link and wanted to comment on how there's another communications vector in there.

There are people who use ambiguity as an end , because, using my trading market example, they want to keep their optionality open and keep their price hidden. There are also people who use ambiguity/multiple meanings as a means sending messages "between the lines" to see if the other person is capable of that level of intelligence.

My recommendation for safe words is to have a structure in place that can "break out of the game at this [ambiguity] level". Yes, a second set of rules is a cost to edge-players because it moves the danger away from the very edge, but given how many other ways one can pretend, paying that cost is cheaper than the amount of harassment the "no means no" group have to pay as a consequence of "no not meaning no" for what appears to be a surprisingly [to me] large number of people.

Safe words can be given legal (or cultural) teeth. "We have witnesses that heard her saying "alpha pi 5" but the dude didn't stop engaging her so that's when the fight broke out and unfortunately the dude broke his shoulder when he feel against the table. So this was a clear case of intervention, so his civil suit for medical costs should be dismissed"(*) Of course this doesn't stop some people from playing dangerous games. For example, one can imagine a stupid couple who decides to enact a rape in public, so they dress up and proceed to have sex in an dark alley complete with masks and screams. Exciting to them, but how could this possibly not go wrong? So costly to everyone else and maybe ultimately to the couple too. In your examples above, if Diane wanted to abuse the universal safeword system; you'd have a very good standing: "She was pretty much using the acknowledged universal safeword all night long, so of course I didn't do anything. I'm not an idiot."

(*) Conversely, if some enforcer steps in during the uh-uh phase, the legal blame is on them. What the two words do is to create a clear line which actually has some cost to the one using the words because there's a risk they may never see the other person, because that's essentially what the alpha pi five statement is declaring to bystanders/witnesses. They're willing to pay that cost for the benefit a rescue. IOW, the "service" is no longer free. Recall that a complex system functions better when all costs are shared.

My main goal here was to raise the cost on the bandits and I think universal safewords will do it. It's established practice in BDSM exactly because there's violence/aggression involved and having safewords removes the ambiguity. I propose to remove that ambiguity universally. Edge-players will pay the cost (lose the value they're currently extracting from everybody else). Since bandits are the only one's paying, whereas currently they're getting their kicks from free-riding by everybody else ("no=no" + potential enforcers) paying the cost, I admit I don't care about their loss Knowing that there are [apparently many] people out there who get their kicks from behavior that has the consequence of getting some women harassed against their will, and some men denied, pisses me off somewhat.

One could make this experiment on a random college. See how it works out.

[bryan]

This "exciting sex" problem reminds me of the scene in Snow Crash where a personal defense weapon was triggered.. For the most part I think folks should arm themselves thusly, if they wish (once the tech is there). Ideally they are practiced in the art of refusal (truly an art.. any lessons out there?) to prevent the escalation or wasting of time/energy. Sexual assault seems to favor the assaulters today.

Of course what @Riggerjack says is true.. but I think a world with folks able to reliably deny sexual violence (e.g. using sexual assault defense weapons) is worth the cost.

> "if you guys would take the cosbys of the world out to the woodshed"

I think it's more along the lines of "see something, do something." This behavior may or may not be "white knighting" (politically loaded and probably carries meaning that may not be applicable e.g. aiming to win a damsel or going to battle against black knights). To be sure, the social situation is quite different than it was even a few months ago: past performance is not an indicator of future performance. It could also mean some vigilante justice like "punch rapists" or a plea for changing the system.

I would like to point out, though, that I'm not so sure I would be happy to live in a world of extreme retribution (instead of rehabilitation, probation, conscription, reparations, or some other mechanisms). To some extent I do empathize with those folks who have done evil and are punished harshly and cry their eyes out or commit suicide etc. and it doesn't seem hugely effective at deterring others [citation needed].

[jacob]

@ffj - Two wrongs doesn't make a right, but feel free take from the 54% (Clinton women voters) and add to the 42% Trump women voters or start counting from the other way around. Regardless, you get a high number. That just makes my point stronger that voters send a signal that they care more about politics than sexual harassment. That sexual harassment is not a deal breaker. Maybe the true number is 66% or 96% or whatever. Note that 54+42=96 < 100, so there were other choices INSOFAR voters (during the primaries and all the way to the end) considered this issue more important than getting their team into office .. which obviously they didn't.

The reason such things mainly come out during elections is standard avalanche/network theory. Same thing that causes stock markets to collapse hard and fast instead of a nice and orderly fashion. Insofar a person is a habitual abuser, they most likely have a long track record of it (by construction #habitual). Insofar they don't enter the limelight, all their activity is hidden both to the public and to other victims (divide and conquer is an effective power-strategy!). When they enter the limelight, journalists and the opposition (if the person is a politician or associated with politicians, e.g. Weinstein) start digging for dirt. If they find something, they dig some more. Publishing it makes it clear to other victims that they are not alone. This makes it a lot easier to stand up. (Marginal cost of being the first one is the highest). This then starts the avalanche. This is why you only hear about it at certain times and why when you finally hear it, you hear so much of it/multiple people. Of course, just because we [the public] no longer hear about it doesn't mean that it went away. Public attention resources are also limited.

The reason all these allegations keep coming out every day with more for existing people and new people being added is the positive feedback of other victims coming out. It is unfortunate that this process of discovery occurs via the media and opposing politicians during election campaigns and not so much by other means at other times.

This leads me to [more suggestions]

• Hoaxers and hoaxing which we've seen in multiple different domains e.g. crying rape when it turns out not to be the case, spray-painting racist slurs against your own to make the other side look worse as if it came from them (false flag attacks), etc... is a kind of stupid bandit strategy with serious social repercussions. People sometimes wonder/question why financial fraud is punished almost as hard as murder when all that really happened objectively was that a bunch of numbers where moved around on spreadsheets and accounts. The reason is that social/subjective cost of such banditry is huge. Hoaxers need to be punished or otherwise deterred a lot harder than they currently are because of the number of people they hurt down the line. It needs to be a lot more than a fine or a wrist slap for wasting police time. The current cost is not high enough.
• A sealed reporting system could be put in place in such a way that ... if a person has ever been sexually abused, they can file a report on a specific person. The system would keep these accusations hidden until a critical number has been achieved. Of course in an ideal world, that number should be 1, but bare with me here. A victim might have good reasons to stay hidden until there's critical mass so e.g. it's more than just "their word against my word". Now enforcement resources are limited, so there's likely not enough for that (see 7wb5 comment about 1 in 4 lawyers). Now IF a quantity is exceeded, then humans get involved with an investigation. With this system, not only is there a historical record... that record would also have more validity if it dates way back to before the media figured it out and advertising algos made it frontpage news. There are significant practical problems with it (what if the system gets hacked, how do we deal with abusers, ... ), but it would focus enforcement on the worst serial offenders and make it harder to hide because victims don't need to wait on the bravest victim to come forward first.

[Riggerjack]

Think like a preditor, for a minute.

Not a sexual deviant, a preditor. One who preys. If you were out to get someone, for whatever purpose, how would you do it? Too big a stretch? Look at nature.

It helps to be bigger and stronger. It helps to have many preditors and to single out prey. It helps a lot to ambush. It helps to use chemicals. To be successful, a preditor has to win fights, regularly. This means he has to win by a wide margin. No knock down, drag out, extended fights. He takes too much damage for this to keep working out. So for a lion to prey on zebras, he needs the whole pride.

Now break that set of traits down to a level practical for preying on humans. There's size and strength differences, but usually not big enough that size and strength is enough. I'm six foot and 275 lbs, my odds in a fight are better than average. But even so, odds are good I'm going to take damage in a fight. I could study martial arts more, and improve those odds, but even so, prey can do the same.

So, if I wanted to overpower someone,I should look to other advantages. Chemicals. Enough said there. Bringing in some buddies to better the odds, not my thing, but it happens.

Ambush. Damn but that is effective. Sudden changes in the environment cause some people, me too, to freeze for a second or two. I think this is pretty strongly correlated to the Sensing/iNtuitive spectrum. In that people who live in their heads seem very susceptible to being startled.

So let me get to the creepy description of an ambush I set up, 25 years ago, when I was much more feral than I am today.

I was in the army, looking for a sideline income. The commissary sold cartons of cigarettes cheap, and with coupons, far cheaper. It occurred to me that buying a few cartons, and selling packs to smokers in the barracks would be profitable. With coupons, I was paying seven dollars a carton, and selling for 2 bucks a pack. Then I started extending credit, at 25% interest per pay period. After a while, I had way more money out than I was comfortable with, and some guys were skipping payments. I needed to change this.

So I looked at the books, saw the biggest balance belonged to a soldier I will call G. G was perfect. Not just because he owed me the most, but because he was socially a joiner. Nice enough guy, but not a friend, and that is how most of the guys in the company thought of him. Also, he seemed to come from a nice comfortable middle class background. At the time, I just thought of him as soft. Not physically, but mentally. He was pliable.

So, I told him he needed to settle up next payday. Come see me on the first, with cash. Settle up.

Then I bought a cheap extension cord, cut off the end, and stripped the wires back about an inch. I coiled it up and left it on my stereo.

The first comes and goes, no G. On the 5th, with several of my friends in my room playing spades and drinking, G stops by to see if I can loan him some more money.

"Come on in, let's see what we can work out." Stand up, go to the back of the room a grab my book. Invite him along. Keeping voice light, "you know, you were supposed to settle up five days ago..."

You'll get your money

"Yeah, I know I'll get my money, but we need to talk about how we're going to spend our time between now and then." Start uncoiling extension cord, grab one lead, plug it in, edge over to keep G cornered.

"You know me, I'm a curious guy. And I read a lot. I have some ideas, and I am kinda curious how some of the stuff I have read about would play out in real life. So, I'm going to pay you, $300/hr to help me work this out. An hour seems like way too much at a time, so I think I'm going to hire you for a minute a day."

What!?!

"Today, I'm going to shock you, for one minute. Anyone have a second hand on his watch?"

From behind me, "I do."

"Cool, so let me know when we get to the twelve. Hold still, this is gonna knock 5 bucks off your balance."

Man, I said you'll get your money!

"Oh, dude, I know. That's not even in question. You will want to let go of my wrists, once I make contact, you want me to be able to let go."

Now G was getting very scared. Perhaps too scared. I didn't want him screaming, or thinking he could fight his way out, so I took a half step back, and said "look man, this is only 110v. It won't kill you, it's no big deal, think of it like going to the spa. All your muscles are going to contract hard, but if you have a hold on me, I'm going to get hit too. No problem, I've paid for harder jolts, but then we're going to be locked together. I won't be able to let you go. We will just be here, twitching until one of the drunk guys behind me kick us apart. I'm fine with that, but I don't pay overtime. Today's lesson only pays five bucks, no matter how long it goes on.

I said you'll get your money!!!

Twelve

"Ok, ok. You seem to be taking this way too hard. Relax man, it's only 110v. Look.

At this point, G has my wrists, and is trying to stop me from getting any closer. I change up, and cross the leads about 8 inches from his face. A dead short on a 20a circuit makes a pretty impressive spark. As an added benefit, I plugged into the same GFCI as my stereo, so when I shorted the leads, and tripped the outlet, it killed the stereo for even more dramatic effect. G's eyes get huge, and he says if I let him go, he'll have all my money in 30 minutes.

At this point, the outlet is tripped and I don't have anything to do with him so I say ok.

G takes off, the guys keep drinking. One asks if I was really going to do it.

"Hell yes. That soft piece of shit owes me $600 bucks!"

G was back, 15 minutes later, having sold most of the contents of his room to anyone with cash. Word got around, and money I had forgotten about came in.

It hadn't gone as planned. I didn't plan to cross the leads, G was faster than I expected, I thought I could drop a lead fast enough to catch his hand if he made a grab for my wrists. Turns out I couldn't. If I were to do it again, I'd separate the wires further, and mark the hot wire. I hadn't planned to have my friends there, but it helped. G didn't know if they were going to stop him if he bolted. Word spread, and when someone asked me about it later in the week, all I had to do was laugh, and say "you know, I read a lot, there's all kinds of things I have always wanted to try."

So. It worked. But what could G have done to change things? Not come into the room, for that matter, avoid me entirely. Not follow me to the far side of the room, putting people between him and the door. Not let me corner him. Take a short term shock as he bolted for the door. Just start screaming. While my hands had the leads, shove me over the guys behind me and bolt.

But G did what I needed him to do. He paid me and spread the word that others should do the same. It worked out all right. So well in fact, that he continued to borrow money, and get behind and tried to dodge me, again. This is just unforgivably stupid.

After all that, the next time he needed to settle up, he got drunk and spent the money he should have paid me, to get a tattoo. REALLY. A tazmanian devil, on his calf.

But the second time he had the sense to not come into my room.

In those barracks, each two man room is connected to another by way of a connecting bathroom. I snore like a chainsaw, so if anyone has a room to himself, it's going to be me. The guys in the connected room got out, and that room was empty.

So, again, I set the stage. Overhead lights out, light over the sink on. Plastic over the bare matress, pre-tied tethers on all 4 corners, a Tupperware container full of salt, a a wooden spoon to bite down on, and pliers and an xacto knife, bandages and a first aid bag. Then I had someone lead him past my door, to where his back was to the door to the staged room.

Then I just opened the door, and yanked him inside. While he adjusted to the dark room, and got an idea what was going on, I shoved him down on the bed, and told him to strap in.

Long story short, I told him that he bought a tattoo with my money. So I was keeping it. This resulted in him hosting a fire sale of his stuff, again. I got paid, and he went back to his life as a tattooed soldier. I never lent him money again, just too much work.

Now how could he have avoided me the second time? Don't owe me money. Pay when he agreed to. Don't think the only unsafe place was my room. Don't talk to my friends, close to a known to be dangerous place. In short, don't expect to be safe.

This expectation of being safe was why I chose G. It made him easy. It made him stupid. It allowed him to continue to borrow from me, even with his experience. It made him think he could dodge me. His expectations didn't match reality, and this made him easy to ambush.

By setting the stage, I was able to rattle him in ways my physical presence couldn't. We were both soldiers of similar size, but I ambushed him. Caught him off guard, and played the "Hollywood bad guy" talking slowly, not contradicting him, laughing at his protests. Honestly, Hollywood tropes made that so much easier.

Now, some of you are probably freaked out by this. Let me remind you that no Gs we're physically harmed in this riggerjack production. While if absolutely necessary I would have followed up on my threats, it was very much in my interests not to. Scared soldiers pay. Damaged soldiers bring CID.

And as I have mentioned in other posts, middle class soft living agrees with me. I have been faking middle class ethos for over 20 years, and it sticks. I wouldn't do any of this for money again. I may not be very empathic, but I'm empathic enough to get by. I pretend that everyone has souls, even people I strongly dislike. I do this because it makes many aspects of life better, or easier, or both. So, no worries, I am out of collections. No repeat performances.



Everywhere you go, someone is there. They know the space better than you. They may have prepared the space for you. When that startling moment happens, bolt. Bolt as hard and as fast as you can. Scream. Flail. Make a complete ass of yourself. But don't stay where you are. Don't try to figure out what's going on. Don't try to be cool. Don't try to bluff. You can be wrong, and laugh it off later, but don't ever let someone keep you where they want you in an ambush.

Be safe.

[jacob]

I'm going to bow out of the political dimension as well. Too distracting.

[jennypenny]

@jacob -- No you don't ... I can't let your suggestion that women who voted for Trump ignored this issue go unchallenged. First, in the republican primaries, a much higher percentage of women voted for other candidates. It was only when faced with two choices in the general election that more women voted for Trump. Two big reasons for that were: (1) republican/conservative-leaning women (b/c that's who we're talking about) saw both candidates as scoring zero in the protecting-women-from-predators category. I know you're probably too young to remember (did you live here then?), but the stories about WJC's exploits *and* the stories about HRC harassing his accusers were non-stop for a while. Her role was particularly distasteful to conservative women. (2) republican/conservative-leaning women also tend to be pro-life, and that is definitely an issue that might override concerns about Trump's views of women.

Sorry, I'll let it go now too.

[jennypenny]

@ffj--I'm not mad. I'm frustrated, I guess. Women posted about experiences that happened to them and the responses questioned whether the women responded appropriately, whether they put themselves in danger, whether they were misinterpreting what happened, whether they just didn't understand the system in which they were functioning, etc. Is it any wonder women give up reporting this stuff? You guys are familiar with us and still responded that way. Imagine how it would feel for us to try to convince a stranger. We weren't talking about dates gone wrong or walking in dark alleys. We talked about experiences in crowded public areas and at work.

Note that all of the women who posted reported multiple experiences that varied by degree. That should be a clue that we have a lot more experience with this stuff so our judgment might be better. Why should I have to explain that yes, I can tell the difference between nice ass grab and sleazy opportunistic grab done when DH isn't around. And that was an inconsequential experience. Trust me, we know when someone has crossed the line. We know when someone has hurt or frightened us. Wouldn't you? But 9 times out of 10, when we tell someone, they question whether it happened the way we said it did.


@C40 -- You asked what I mean about taking guys like Cosby out to the woodshed. Maybe this is a better way to explain it ... You know not to hit a woman, right? How do you know that? How did you learn it? Would you ignore it if a guy was doing that? (not just witnessing it but knew it was happening in private) It seems to me that men know not to hurt women. Some still do but there seems to be more agreement about how bad it is and generally people believe women when they report abuse. I assume that it must be more than just the law and that male culture must reinforce it somehow, yes? That's what I mean.

(that rule should apply here too but it doesn't seem to once the aggressive act becomes sexual in nature)

[jennypenny]

@jacob -- Sorry, that sounded harsher than I intended. (I say that a lot, don't I? ) It's a sensitive issue anyway, so it hurts when it's suggested that women who voted for Trump don't consider this a high priority.

If you're looking for solutions, guys should start taking what women say at face value (especially the ones they know) and make it clear to other men that they find this stuff intolerable no matter the circumstances. I know men think of it in terms of the perpetrators ... like they think of Cosby or Weinstein as one guy/one incident, but think about how many victims they had and count each one as an incident (because that's how I look at it). Stopping one guy like Cosby prevents dozens of women from being victimized. Speaking up or stepping in might be preventing countless future occurrences.

[7Wannabe5]

@Riggerjack:

Diane was "topping from the bottom" which is practice that is verboten in BDSM circles because it is stupid dangerous for more than one reason. You were quite right to not allow her to taunt you into aggressive behavior.

@jacob:

I think universal safety word is interesting suggestion. The point of having a safety word is that you don't want to have to use it, but it is always available if you need it. So, it forces your attention on your internal landscape of anxiety rather than outward. IOW, you have to take responsibility for your own fear up to the point that you choose to make use of your safety word. Anxiety, aggression and arousal are very near nodes in core brain. Stupid to poke around like a drunk monkey with a stick in that realm, but controlled experimentation can offer some out of the box perspective.

[7Wannabe5]

@jennypenny:

I think part of the problem is that it is difficult for anybody, or even any creature with a face, to demand respect and project vulnerability in the same instance. It is also difficult to project vulnerability when we are weak or fearful and therefore maybe have our armor up. Vulnerability is the attractive vacuum for protection. Demanding protection does not work. Even politely requesting protection does not work. You can't fake vulnerability and you have to honestly reveal it before it will naturally attract protection. For better or worse, perception of value is prerequisite for recognition of vulnerability. IOW, easier to see the lovely damsel being tied to the railroad track by mustachioed villain as vulnerable than to see the average female daytime tv talk-brawl show contestant screaming back and forth with some male peer in a parking lot as vulnerable. I mean, a lot of the code of chivalry had to do with knights in relationship to royal females whom they could only serve through protection. It has never applied to all relationships between human males and females. I think it may be the case that we have to be either all the way in or all the way out of the dollhouse when it comes to this issue.

[Riggerjack]

Ok, I should stop for a minute with the stories, and talk about my experiences in how men and women talk about sex. In the locker room and the kitchen, so to speak. Yes, that's totally sexist, but since I'm about to generalize on my experiences without breaking out every possible exception, that won't be the worst of it.

Guys, when talking about sex, are poetic. (BS, I hear you say, boo hiss) but it's true. How the story is told is far more inportant than accuracy or details. Think Viking sagas. Nobody wants an accurate blow by blow portrayal, we want big imagery and if possible a good joke.

And example of my personal best in locker room talk: I'd gone out the night before, to one of the small Korean clubs one of my sargents DJ'ed for the night before, met a few ladies, and left with both of them. Then next day he asked how that worked out, in the shop, with all the guys there.
"Well, I thought is was going great, dancing all night, buying drinks, when we left, the one i was into suggested we get a room. I thought, hell yeah! But after we got the room, and her friend left and things were looking good, we got to talking about religion and nothing much happened after that."

"WTF?"

Well yeah, things were going good, then she spent the next 45 minutes saying "oh, God. Oh, God, oh God."

Queue laughter and general sounds of approval.

Now, truth be told, it wasn't 45 minutes, and she did say oh God a few times, but then, accuracy was not my goal.

Now compare and contrast with the times I spent as a bus boy, and the stories the waitresses tell. No detail is omitted. Length, girth, duration, any special circumstances, smells, it's all there in extremely graphic detail.

Different cultures, different standards. I know this doesn't match the popular image, but that's been my experience. Kinda like I have been in plenty of strip clubs, but I have NEVER seen the typical Hollywood rowdy strip club. Strip club customers are quiet, every time. Even bachelor parties are subdued in strip clubs.

Speaking of different cultures, jp, twice now you have come in, summed up the thread, and expressed (disappointment, dismay, general disapproval, hell, one of those) at the general lack of support here.

Now, what I have seen is people asking for details, telling extremely personal stories, and opening up on a subject that most certainly has taboos and folks more than willing to jump on perceived heresies with both feet, and no remorse.

You seem to have missed it, so let me be as clear as I can be.

That is what respect looks like.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I use general terms of support, granted it's rare, but it happens, I don't use them for people I respect. Support is for the weak and the helpless. I offer support to those not capable of helping themselves. They need support.

I offer my thoughts and help to my equals. I have seen lots of responses from lots of people here, discussing this as a serious topic.

If you need blind, politically correct, sympathetic support, I expect you can find it on huffpo, and damned near anywhere else on the internet. Why would you want it here? Why would you want it at all?

[7Wannabe5]

@Riggerjack:

The difference in forms of storytelling you describe is due to perspective on "performance." Something I did vs. something that happened. Very clear to me that "male sexual culture" is non-existent compared to "male mutual sports-viewer culture." Not all women talk all that much either.

[JamesR]

This thread is thought provoking and informative. Aside from some of the strangely random or overly defensive story telling / personal anecdote sharing.


Sexual misconduct is pretty shit. I definitely think that women have it rough from the stupid/bandit males.

A few months ago I came across an article about online dating, and it was appalling at how women get treated on dating sites. Loads of rude & crude messages. Some men would suddenly flip out and become incredibly abusive and call them the worst names they can think of. The opposite never really seems to happen.

Flipping out and becoming abusive is the definition of 'stupid', it's a waste of time/energy and only burns bridges.

Perhaps the stupid women aren't on the online dating sites, but stupid men are. Supply/demand issue - sex is cheap for stupid/bandit women, but not stupid/bandit men?

[BRUTE]

The situation reminds me of a sign that said something to the likes of " instead of teaching women how to defend themselves, how about we teach men not to rape?". Does anybody believe that men rape because they don't understand that it is wrong?

this slogan has always seemed absurd to brute, too. it seems to imply that most men rape. that's not true. rapists rape, and they're probably <1% of all men. so slogans like these implicitly guilt trip/shame/offend 99% of men, and how much would the actual rapist 1% care about it? there is literally no upside and plenty of downside to this type of generalization.

there also seems to exist this misconception that, every morning, all men get on a conference call and agree (unanimously?) to rape. this is not the case. men don't have a say in what other men do. some of them are just assholes. most men that get murdered get murdered by other men!

using the gender categories here can't lead to positive outcomes, it's simply a terrible mental model.

brute thinks of predators like wolves. it's absurd to go into the woods, get attacked by wild animals, and then go back into town to complain to mammals of the same gender. the civilized male mammals have about as much control over the wolves as the female civilized mammals do - none. is that fair or moral? no. it just is.

brute senses that jennypenny feels (civilized) men have a (moral?) obligation to prevent predatory men from being predators. brute is unsure where this obligation (or this belief) comes from. for example, brute doesn't feel responsible for the crimes of male murderers, the genocides of male dictators, the war crimes of atheists, or really anything else he hasn't done.

if the group identity was a chosen one, or a personal one, there could be an argument made - joining a club of rapists implies some kind of conviction or approval, and not leaving a club that turns out to contain rapists does the same. but no human male chose his gender, and it's impossible to really change, so how could they be responsible for the behavior of third party individuals they've never seen or met?

[JamesR]

[people].. have a (moral?) obligation to prevent predatory ..[people].. from being predators.

Whoa BRUTE.. what's the point of having laws and paying taxes to support a police force if you don't think there's any obligation to prevent predatory predators?

[7Wannabe5]

this slogan has always seemed absurd to brute, too. it seems to imply that most men rape. that's not true. rapists rape, and they're probably <1% of all men. so slogans like these implicitly guilt trip/shame/offend 99% of men, and how much would the actual rapist 1% care about it? there is literally no upside and plenty of downside to this type of generalization.

I wish that rape could be written off as rare systems defect internal to extremely limited number of human males. Unfortunately, our history as a species does not lend plausibility to this theory. Obvious, well-documented, modern example being the Rape of Nanjing. Since I have been reading a good deal of gloomy works on the topic of impending resource depletion recently, I might suggest that what we are witnessing is just one symptom of tension which is indicative of prelude to war.

I would also note that on the biological level, part of the problem is that human females do not go into heat in predictable cycle, and humans have a relatively poor sense of smell. Sometimes it is important, or revealing, to use language in a more exacting manner. A rapist is not literally a predator. House cats, no matter how tame, are predators. Female alley cats scream when they are mated because male cats have barbed penises. The purpose of the barbs is to stimulate ovulation. There is some evidence that humans are not wholly remote from this level of functioning. Human females lubricate even when exposed in lab experiments to pornographic films that their conscious minds find morally repulsive. Obvious mechanistic-explanation being that if human females did not lubricate in situations where sex was likely to be happening without their consent then they would suffer greater injury.

Female-audience oriented erotica and romantic-erotica are full of scenes in which the protagonist is being jacked up against the wall of an elevator by an attractive stranger or exposed as female stowaway rather than cabin boy as the Captain commences to punish for minor infraction, etc. etc. etc. Denial of the popularity of this sort of theme in female pulp would be tantamount to denial of the appreciation of a .7-ish waist-to-hip ratio in male porn. So, trying to train females to be turned on by non-assertive approach is not unlike trying to convince males that they SHOULD be turned on by a female who is shaped like a stick or a blob. IMO, it is very important to be forthright in discussing this reality, because otherwise there is no basis, no shared vocabulary, from which and with which a sexually self-aware woman can clearly communicate that she enjoys rough sex but abhors rape. It is a rare occurrence that I have sex with a man anymore without first having frank discussion about sexuality. It's actually not that difficult. Instead of, or in conjunction to "safety word", we could teach young people that spontaneity is not ideal, and mixing alcohol with sex is stupid. Dismantling the magical ideal of spontaneous sex could also go a good way towards promoting continued exhibition of vibrant sexuality in long-term relationships.

[jennypenny]

I think that slogan is meant to stop victim blaming as much as rape, similar to how the bullying issue has been addressed.

I also think this goes back to the question of consequences. Most said you consider the consequences of white night behavior before acting. If I understand correctly, you agree on some level that stepping into the role of white night is the morally right thing to do but the cost that can often be too high. If most men think that way (cost/benefit) then look at sexual assault the same way. Men might know it's wrong, but that might not influence their actions as much as the cost of sexually assaulting someone. If they think there's a good chance they can get away with it because people tend to look the other way, blame the victim if she's put herself in a compromising position, etc, then the cost isn't high enough to discourage them. We need to make the cost higher. (and this is where the behavior of women can negatively affect the cost as well by complaining about hugs, etc -- as I said, I'm not letting women off the hook)

That's what I was hoping to get across, and was surprised that I got so much push back. I'll let it go ... and continue to carry my G.