sexual misconduct

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
CS
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by CS »

The thing with Lauer that surprised me today was how everyone at work (left leaning and right leaning) were all happy he was gone! Perhaps it's the culture of this particular workplace, where people are nice to each other and humility is valued, but the general agreement was that he was an arrogant turd who was a shitty journalist!

My head was spinning a bit with Garrison Keillor getting the boot today too. I cannot recall ever seeing anything like this swift cultural change. Has anyone else?

@jean
As far as careers verses family... well, I personally hate that we have to make a choice. Wouldn't it be so much better to have social support so women could have children, a year off for each child- paid, and then a job to go back to? Instead, women are put in a rough spot - and considering how much the productivity is *not* needed - it is completely unnecessary. Men too. Why can't men have a year off to bond with their children as well. Of course ERE solves that problem... but most of mainstream culture will never get that benefit.

@classical_liberal
That is an interesting comparison. I am not surprised. FWIW, I too have some dread with this thread as well. Having rational discussions about touchy subjects is always a good challenge (for me anyhow) :?

@ffj
I don't think anyone here is saying 'all men', but in a sense how the culture, and how humans in general, work is a sort of group dynamic. If the culture is that 'men are allowed to pick on women' (by men getting away with it), then more men will pick on women than would, if say, it was clearly stated that it was unacceptable. People pick up on cues of what is okay behavior from those around them. That is why I would argue for even a few words of disapproval from those not guilty. Some will never listen, yes, but many others would change their behavior to be part of society. I think this ties in with the cultural differences you mentioned in your post. Western culture is better that some others, but in itself it too could be better.

I don't think it's a zero sum game. I don't think highlighting what women deal with takes away from other issues, including those that you are concerned about in your own personal life. If instead of focusing on the fact that white men don't do those behaviors in that particular video, just take in the fact that women have to put up with that crap! A lot of times men have no clue how awful it is. You might have a better idea than most, since you have some good points about power dynamics.

Also, part of the cause of the strength of my reaction to your post is that I've experienced the silencing women, by others saying "it is isn't that bad", or "it's not just women". This is part of oppression to me. The opposite of that is proclaiming that women do get to have their concerns matter. Women do get to be the center of attention. Because for a long time, that was not the case. Women have had to endure - not being able to vote, not being able to own property, not being allowed credit, getting fired for being pregnant, not being allowed to walk about in society alone (not just the middle east - this was the case in London not all that long ago!) "honor" rapes and killings. And things can change faster that you can imagine, even in modern societies. Iran wasn't that bad a place for women before the revolution.

@7w5
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:52 am
I guess my gut reaction would be that maybe women should do more to build alternate power structures at various levels since it's kind of more practical to say "F*ck you. I'm out and I'm taking my marbles with me." than it is to say "F*ck you. Let me in." But, I could be wrong.
This - omg, so much this! Maybe its my INTPness, but I would rather just do it on my own that submit/work with certain ick factors - like the LA movie making scene. Not when a good iPhone and a three person crew would be enough to make your own movies. Same with several other past careers. Find a tribe of good allies and go around the horrible.

Your DD is going to have a lot to navigate. My mom did the career thing, so I heard her stories and how crappy they were. Perhaps you could show your DD the path to just go around those turdy obstacles she will find on her way, rather than just commiserating about the hassle as I did with my mom, or learning how to work within the system. My mom is actually why I carry a big stick (PhD) as one way to go through obstacles - as opposed to going around them. A few alternative skills (aka mindset & thinking) is probably a better advantage, even in the careerism world, and would be more efficient that 10 years of college.

@tyler9000
Yeah, those power players running scared... I can believe it. Their whole world is turned upside down. Also, the knowledge of the schadenfreude they are providing must just be galling.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by BRUTE »

CS wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:11 pm
As far as careers verses family... well, I personally hate that we have to make a choice. Wouldn't it be so much better to have social support so women could have children, a year off for each child- paid, and then a job to go back to?
so the solution is for CS to take brute's money via redistribution? somehow brute is not surprised.


in other news, older humans in society force human children to do things against their will all the time. this applies to human male children just as much.

the scene is a household. the human female grandmother is visiting. the little boy doesn't like her. she's old, she smells bad, she likes to give him kisses with her bad teeth. he does not want to be kissed and hugged for minutes at a time by the disgusting grandma, and vocally and physically protests. yet through physical force and the bullying of the female human mother, what would nowadays be called sexual assault or rape continues day after day, and the little boys grows up in this toxic environment, learning that his desires and wants are nothing, compared to the feelings of the (female) grandmother and (female) mother.

anything to the contrary will be interpreted as nullification of brute's experience and a silencing of brute, a sign of his continued oppression.

The Old Man
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:55 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by The Old Man »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opin ... %2Fopinion
Emily Lindin, a columnist at Teen Vogue, summed up this view concisely last week on Twitter. “I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations,” she wrote. “If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

https://www.innocenceproject.org/
The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. Most of the cases are sex crimes. Of all crimes you would think we would have a good idea of the perpetrator in sex crimes. Looks like we don’t.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
In theory, in USA jurisprudence there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That right is being demolished as we speak. In this thread itself we have a discussion of extra-legal actions as the preferred course of action. Rather than a discussion of reforming the legal system people here advocate for violence – justice be dammed. Feelings trump all.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by Riggerjack »

justice be dammed. Feelings trump all.
And if we had a justice system that dispensed justice, maybe it would be more valued. Instead we have a police force that doesn't even pretend that they dispense justice, keeping the peace is beyond them, but at least it's a partially achievable.

This isn't a critique of cops, they do what they do, for both better and worse. This is a critique of the justice system, where rarely justice is present, and mostly by coincidence.

And I don't know how to fix this, either.

As to the bandit behavior of the activist, well, most activists are bandits. For that matter, most smart people are bandits. And Twitter is hardly the place for nuance, is it?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@CS@jennypenny:

I was thinking that maybe the reason we are seeing this now is due to medium-not-the-message. I mean it is possible that women could go out and get more gun permits and take more self-defense classes, but is this really necessary in a world where it is now possible to simply snap a picture of a man's hand on your thigh on the bus, and then another shot of his face, and then instantly broadcast it to the world at large?

This also has to do with why I am really not all that worried about my DD26 having problems with climbing the corporate ladder of conventional success. The reason why the old patriarchal structures (which didn't serve 2nd or 3rd sons, who were less aggressive or less conformist, very well either) are crumbling is that many human resources are literally becoming distributed as nodes on a web structure.

@The Old Man:

One of my sisters and one of my ex-polyamours were highly involved in organizations affiliated with the Innocence Project. That's one reason why I kept bringing up the issue of limited resources available in the system to maximize enforcement of law, order, justice. It is already the case that if there weren't individuals who were engaged in justice work as a "labor of love", the situation would be even worse than it is, and I am not entirely optimistic about availability of more resources of any type in the future.

This is also definitely an issue that could result in NIMBY, like in the Victorian era, but likely with trans-national, as opposed to just railroad track boundary applied to black market availability of "desired good." It could also have the unintended consequence of widespread "nanny effect" where the employment of conventionally attractive young women will be viewed as a financial risk factor, since likely male offenders would be more difficult to pick out of crowd of applicants. A good many people believe that this is what happened with affirmative action with hiring of non-favored-race female applicants being favored over hiring of men of same background/appearance. You always have to ask "If I build a barrier here, what's the next stupid-easy path woodchucks, rabbits, wolves, humans will take?" You can't legislate desire.

Kriegsspiel
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by Kriegsspiel »

BRUTE wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:44 am
CS wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:11 pm
As far as careers verses family... well, I personally hate that we have to make a choice. Wouldn't it be so much better to have social support so women could have children, a year off for each child- paid, and then a job to go back to?
so the solution is for CS to take brute's money via redistribution? somehow brute is not surprised.
One of the great achievements of our time is the reduced birthrate related to better medicine and female education & employment. A policy that, in effect, pays women when they have kids sounds like a step in the wrong direction.

:|

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by Riggerjack »

This is also definitely an issue that could result in NIMBY, like in the Victorian era, but likely with trans-national, as opposed to just railroad track boundary applied to black market availability of "desired good." It could also have the unintended consequence of widespread "nanny effect" where the employment of conventionally attractive young women will be viewed as a financial risk factor, since likely male offenders would be more difficult to pick out of crowd of applicants. A good many people believe that this is what happened with affirmative action with hiring of non-favored-race female applicants being favored over hiring of men of same background/appearance. You always have to ask "If I build a barrier here, what's the next stupid-easy path woodchucks, rabbits, wolves, humans will take?"
I often feel, when reading your posts, that you are summarizing convoluted thoughts, using your own private lexicon. Could you elaborate on this?
So, I will not choose to carry a gun, because I know that I do not possess the discipline or interest necessary to practice safe, competent gun-handling and maintenance.
I am strongly pro-gun. I own many, and have a concealed carry permit. But I don't carry. I don't endorse others carrying, though I'm not against it. For me, it's that if it gets down to shooting, everyone present loses, some more than others, and my ability to figure out who are the good guys, and where they are, and who are the bad guys, and where they are, is far slower than bullets, and you can't take shots back if you make a mistake. At home, I have far better understanding of firing lanes, and know who is where from the get go. Plus, people get wierd when they spot your concealed pistol. I don't need another way to make strangers feel uncomfortable about me.
Prostitution is also common and affordable. Significantly more so than US.

Harsh penalties to kill off the stupid bandits, and cheaper access to sex to satisfy the intelligent bandits?
Just how do you think prostitutes are chosen/trained/offered for sale/rent? I'm no expert, but I was there as a kid when my oldest uncle described it to his little brother who was facing trial soon.

As he described it, the prairie is full of wild ponies, but that doesn't mean anything. First you need to pen one off, and ride it until it stops fighting. Then each time you go back, it will fight less, until you break it in. Then you can add it to the stable for sale or rent.

Yeah, he wasn't a pimp, he was a cowboy. The rationalizations people use to reinforce their self image as a good guy despite all evidence to the contrary, are mind boggling. I haven't heard anything from him since the 90's, when he went inside on his third strike, I assume he is still alive, not that anyone cares.

But that afternoon comes to mind whenever someone suggests that somehow prostitution reduces rape.
Yes, but we are talking about humans and humans, not humans and sharks.
I think we can agree to disagree on this.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by BRUTE »

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:43 pm
I often feel
o_O

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Riggerjack:

I was thinking that a good deal of "everyday sexual harassment" could be addressed and ameliorated through the same mechanism by which roadside littering has been much improved since the 1970s. However, even when humans are successfully taught the behavior of holding on to trash until proper receptacle can be found, the trash still needs to be processed. Therefore, "Not In My Back Yard" rule of thumb which causes trash created by the affluent to be processed in more impoverished regions would likely apply. Affluent men will be more likely to take "sex holidays" to realms where social manners and legislation are more lax. In any ecosystem, a distinct border, such as natural shoreline or paved road, will create unique niche with unique opportunities. So, for instance, some fledgling entrepreneur who just bought acreage in unincorporated area outside of Vegas or some burg in Southeast Asia, reads this thread and thinks "The Man Spread, yeah, that would be the perfect name for my new adult entertainment ranch."

During the Victorian era, when social manners were superficially very prudish, prostitution was rampant. In many human cultures throughout world history, humans have been very well able to accept that there are some people who are not acceptable sexual partners, or partners likely to accept certain aspects of sexuality, and others who are better suited. For instance, in our culture, we do not condemn affluent powerful men for looking at pornography on the internet, because women who perform in pornographic videos are not quite real, and also have theoretically freely contracted to provide such services.

Increasingly, as in the case of the two women I knew who were girlfriend-experience-escorts, the internet is blurring the line between pornography and dating, and making prostitution de facto legal with no intermediary pimp necessary. I asked my friend how she kept herself physically safe, and she told me that the not-USA-based internet site she used to find clients had a rating system like ebay and the escorts cooperatively shared information (and clients) otherwise, the traffic was heavy enough that she felt free to simply reject anybody who gave off whiff of psycho, and all her appointments were booked by her at large hotels with good security. IOW, she was willing to risk the legal consequences in order to stay safe if necessary. Therefore, I would say that if legal consequences were to be even further reduced, independent operator sex workers might be safer, and the line between sexuality and violence might be better delineated. As in, "I agreed to accept x$ to provide Service B, but then he started choking me and demanded that I prefer Service D for free." The fact that sex workers would be more likely to suffer assault than average citizen would really be no different than the fact that late night party store clerk is more likely to suffer assault than average citizen.

What I meant by "nanny effect" has to do with how even many affluent middle-aged women are likely to recognize a very attractive young female as a sexual risk factor when they have to hire a live-in nanny. If dealing with sexual harassment claims becomes a serious drain on business profits, capitalists will make choices in alignment with reducing the possibility of this expense. Therefore, they will likely make the same assumptions about who is safe to hire as those an affluent wife/mother who is not 100% certain of her husband's fidelity would make when choosing a nanny. Of course, any male applicant who exhibited any degree of risky behavior would also be summarily rejected or dismissed, but initially would be harder to spot. Of course, a very attractive female could claim discrimination if much less attractive female was hired in her stead, but I would not want to be the judge on that case. ( I definitely want to note here that it is not the case that only conventionally attractive females are harassed or assaulted, but I am just speaking to the general perception that underlies the "nanny effect.")

I have had some training in firearms, and I am an okay shot, but I find target shooting almost as boring as standing out in the middle of a field waiting to maybe catch a ball that is being thrown around for no productive reason. If I was 12 year old dirt-poor Annie Oakley living in the wilderness, and I had younger siblings to help feed, then I would endeavor to become a great shot. Otherwise, low priority. I am actually pacifist enough to only wish cartoon-violence on the man who attacked me. IOW, I think my feelings of anger are natural and should be freely expressed, but it would ultimately be counter-productive to act upon them in alignment with eye-for-eye simpleton ethics. I believe in the possibility of education and redemption, but hope for higher functioning becomes slimmer in a situation of increasingly scarce resources and overcrowding. Choices must be made. Triage is inevitable. If I have to choose between my tax dollars or philanthropic efforts going towards feeding your uncle in prison versus providing school lunch to 6 year old refugee girl from Bangladesh before I teach her some math, that's a no-brainer. I mean, instead of paying for privatized prison system, why don't we just sell violent criminals to space-tech-start-ups that need crash-test-dummies for budget Mars landings?

CS
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by CS »

BRUTE wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:44 am
in other news, older humans in society force human children to do things against their will all the time. this applies to human male children just as much.

the scene is a household. the human female grandmother is visiting. the little boy doesn't like her. she's old, she smells bad, she likes to give him kisses with her bad teeth. he does not want to be kissed and hugged for minutes at a time by the disgusting grandma, and vocally and physically protests. yet through physical force and the bullying of the female human mother, what would nowadays be called sexual assault or rape continues day after day, and the little boys grows up in this toxic environment, learning that his desires and wants are nothing, compared to the feelings of the (female) grandmother and (female) mother.

anything to the contrary will be interpreted as nullification of brute's experience and a silencing of brute, a sign of his continued oppression.
Yes, exactly. That is correct and shouldn't be allowed either. Speaking up for one injustice is not tacit approval of other injustices. This is not a zero sum game.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by Riggerjack »

o_O
:D
I was thinking that a good deal of "everyday sexual harassment" could be addressed and ameliorated through the same mechanism by which roadside littering has been much improved since the 1970s. However, even when humans are successfully taught the behavior of holding on to trash until proper receptacle can be found, the trash still needs to be processed. Therefore, "Not In My Back Yard" rule of thumb which causes trash created by the affluent to be processed in more impoverished regions would likely apply. Affluent men will be more likely to take "sex holidays" to realms where social manners and legislation are more lax.
Well, littering is a left over from pretty much all of human history. Most older (pre great depression) houses have a midden heap buried in the back yard somewhere. So maybe that is a good model for dealing with some of this sexual assault/abuse/harassment. But unlike littering, witch is mainly caused by short term thinking, casual disrespect, and convenience, there is a strong sex drive tied up in this. A drive that is poorly understood, and often poorly directed. So while I think a similar approach to littering could be useful to curb mild harassment, I think it's very unlikely to end even the most mild forms of misconduct.

And JP's question of the mechanism for not hitting girls being applied was never really addressed.

For me, the don't hit girls shaming started young. Like I don't remember the first time I heard that, but it was commonly understood by grade school. Mainly, this was boys on boys pressure. Maybe in families with more male adult role models, some adult pressure is applied to teach these rules. In a world where fights are mainly about status, fighting a girl is generally understood to be a status losing event. All the schoolyard rules I understood as a child we're about standing tall, being assertive, and minimizing damage. Don't kick. Don't hit girls. One on one. Some places where I was still thought a fight stopped when someone gave up. But this was more of a city/sticks divide, and this was in flux. It was how alphas separated themselves from betas, and how pecking order is established.

We seem to have completely screwed all of that up with zero tolerance and anti bullying policies. I don't know how to rebuild what we had, let alone try to create a system where boys shame boys for being creeps. And, as I said above, sex drive us poorly understood and poorly directed, so one thing we do know is shaming can have unexpected results on sex drive. Think of all the guys who have a thing for women's shoes. I don't think anyone intentionally tried to tie their desires to shoes, I can't think of an evolutionary reason for this, but there it is. If we don't know how to tie or release a man's desire to or from shoes, I doubt we could do the same to creepy or aggressive desires.

And that concerns me. Going back to the video example, of the guys on the street, saying "look at the tits on that!" We know we can, as a society, shame undesirable behavior, to the point that they wouldn't feel comfortable saying such things where they could be overheard. What we don't know us how that shame will manifest in such a society. And while I'm all for experimenting to make the world we live in a better place, and there is very clearly room and need for improvement here, we should go into such experiments with eyes wide open, and the knowledge that improving this metric is not the only measure of success. For instance, I'm not comfortable increasing polite public behavior, if that also makes nonpublic behavior more dangerous.

But my comfort isn't the issue here. I just want to address this like a real problem, not just click "like" and send memes.
Increasingly, as in the case of the two women I knew who were girlfriend-experience-escorts, the internet is blurring the line between pornography and dating, and making prostitution de facto legal with no intermediary pimp necessary. I asked my friend how she kept herself physically safe, and she told me that the not-USA-based internet site she used to find clients had a rating system like ebay and the escorts cooperatively shared information (and clients) otherwise, the traffic was heavy enough that she felt free to simply reject anybody who gave off whiff of psycho, and all her appointments were booked by her at large hotels with good security.
Good. I had heard of these things improving, but it's not an area of interest for me, other than in the most general terms. I should point out the the story I told has some caveats. At that time, to my knowledge, my uncle Kevin was not a pimp. His story was specific to prison, I don't know that it applies outside. He was an ex navy drug dealer, giving a full afternoon's safety briefing to his little brother who was about to go inside the first time, at 14. He was explaining the dangerous areas, and behaviors of the juvenile hall. It was as close a thing to a Hallmark moment as I ever saw in that family. Oh, and I'm not related to either of them. They are my former step father's younger brothers, but uncle is easier to type.

So, I don't know how prostitutes are recruited nowadays, but it's nice that tech seems to be making it better for independent operators.
Speaking up for one injustice is not tacit approval of other injustices. This is not a zero sum game.
It would be nice to think so, but I don't think this is true. There is only so much public attention and motivation. Today, we are talking about sexual misconduct, a few weeks back, nazi wannabes, a few weeks before that the Cheeto in Chief. We will be talking about something else in a few more weeks. How we frame our concerns when they are at the back of the public mind is how we frame them for the short time they are at the front. It is a short window, and we can be deep into the particulars of one subject, or wide in tieing varied subjects together. But we can't do both. So, while this is at the front, should we be deeply concerned about powerful men leveraging that for sex, or men being creeps on buses, or men being casually rude to strangers, or should we just click like on memes concerning all of these things? Because if there were enough resources to address all of these properly, we wouldn't have to talk about this at all, it would have been addressed before now. It's not like anyone other than the bandits who like this sort of stuff benefits from it.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by Riggerjack »

I mean, instead of paying for privatized prison system, why don't we just sell violent criminals to space-tech-start-ups that need crash-test-dummies for budget Mars landings?
https://youtu.be/WXNl4swZOB0
I guess sometimes, there just aren't enough rockets.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack wrote: But unlike littering, witch is mainly caused by short term thinking, casual disrespect, and convenience, there is a strong sex drive tied up in this. A drive that is poorly understood, and often poorly directed. So while I think a similar approach to littering could be useful to curb mild harassment, I think it's very unlikely to end even the most mild forms of misconduct.
Oh, I agree, but the analogy still holds up to some extent, if you think about a corporate dumping fines being treated as just another cost of doing business. Of course, sexual desire/drive and trash are always "eyes of the beholder", I only used this analogy because I am used to thinking about closing loops on wasted sources of energy.
We seem to have completely screwed all of that up with zero tolerance and anti bullying policies. I don't know how to rebuild what we had, let alone try to create a system where boys shame boys for being creeps. And, as I said above, sex drive us poorly understood and poorly directed, so one thing we do know is shaming can have unexpected results on sex drive. Think of all the guys who have a thing for women's shoes. I don't think anyone intentionally tried to tie their desires to shoes, I can't think of an evolutionary reason for this, but there it is. If we don't know how to tie or release a man's desire to or from shoes, I doubt we could do the same to creepy or aggressive desires.
My recollection of schoolyard rules was that it was okay to fight with a boy who was one grade younger than you :lol:

Human sexuality is poorly understood. It's pretty obvious that individual humans have both hard and soft tendencies and triggers, and some of this is culturally mediated. For instance, whether or not you find tattoos sexually attractive on a woman could be a "soft" generational divide between Boomer and Gen-X men. OTOH, it has been suggested that dominant sexual or social functioning in adult men may be influenced by whether the individual was frequently held above hip level by his mother as an infant. If true, that would be "hard" conditioning.

The core problem with trying to separate aggressive tendencies from sexuality is that they're snuggled right up next to each other down in the crocodile part of the brain. Anybody who has ever kept their eyes open while having sex in missionary position with a male should recognize the truth of this. I mean even if your lover is madly in love with you, it's still like 5 seconds of soft-eyes-I-tender-love-you followed by 10 seconds of hard-eyes-I-am-f8cking-your-brains-out, in cycling loop until total-testosterone-hard-face conclusion. In fact, one of the suggested exercises in couples sexual therapy is to attempt to achieve mutual eyes-open-and-locked orgasm, and one of the more amusing suggestions for interacting with a man who gets too locked-out-into-crocodile is to smack him hard on the ass in order to get him to give you some eye contact.

Looking another human in the eyes is universal mutual respect and recognition behavior. Bowing or ducking your head and looking down is submissive gesture. Staring down at another human, or not bothering to make eye contact while maintaining upright posture is dominant gesture. But signals can become confused because, for instance, maybe a woman is attempting to signal "I am invisible.", but her behavior is readily confused for 'I am submissive and willing to be approached." Maybe a man is just feeling something like 'I kicked ass on the soccer field this morning, and it is a beautiful sunny day.", but his behavior signals "I am taking up all the space in this room and conversation, and thereby making you feel relatively diminished." And an individual woman's own sexual experience might create tendency to hear differing signals when a man is overheard saying something like " And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab them by the pussy." For instance, what I "heard" in this sentence was that Trump is a childish buffoon who couldn't self-aware sexually dominate his way out of a paper bag. I am probably a better top than him :lol:

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by BRUTE »

CS wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:30 pm
Yes, exactly. That is correct and shouldn't be allowed either. Speaking up for one injustice is not tacit approval of other injustices. This is not a zero sum game.
but it isn't sexism. this idea that if something bad happens to a woman there must exist sexism is absurd to brute.

in CS' original post in this thread, she describes a man as a "predator" for the crime of sitting too close and talking. there isn't any mention of touching or the talk being sexual. this is not sexual assault or harassment, it's simply being a jerk. it is also not sexist.

CS has equated men sitting with their legs apart to a literal threat of rape.

prominent feminists say proudly and publicly that they don't care if innocent men suffer, as long as some number of women get revenge.

this sounds very much like a zero-sum game to brute.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by BRUTE »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:07 pm
" And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab them by the pussy." For instance, what I "heard" in this sentence was that Trump is a childish buffoon who couldn't self-aware sexually dominate his way out of a paper bag.
this so much!

brute has no idea why humans were so angry at his comments. from the way Trump talks about human females, he's had sex about three times in his life. Mitt Romney seems like a womanizer in comparison.

the idea that this comment somehow made Trump a sexual predator was also complete bullshit to brute. the quote literally implies consent ("they let you do it"). sure, it could be construed in some way to imply that the consent was enforced, but it could equally be interpreted as the mentioned human females simply giving consent out of her own free will. that certainly seems the naive, obvious meaning of the sentence. the idea is pretty obviously true, too: who is really surprised by the claim that human females are open to sexual contact with stars?

insisting on these absurd, partisan, obviously politically biased, and reality-eschewing views drives all the reasonable humans away.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Arrogance is a dysfunction of the adult masculine quadrant because it blocks the ability to learn and improve. To give Trump some credit, it is pretty obvious that he isn't repressed, so highly unlikely that he ever sought to cover up his trail with threats.

Maybe I am being partisan, but I find the accusations against Garrison Keillor rather confusing and unlikely. I mean somebody who would write the humorous line "where the women are strong, the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average" does not vibe predator to me. Sounds more like somebody who has a confident, relaxed ambient sexuality. Mark Halperin, OTOH, does sound like a nasty piece of work secretive-repressed egotistical prick.

Anyways, a skilled self-aware dominant is going to sound more like "direction, direction, direction...praise" or sometimes "critical/humorous remark, direction, direction, direction...praise" or "direction, direction, state of being inquiry, direction..." Being strong in the submissive requires the ability to hear and respond appropriately to direction when you judge it is in your self-interest to do so. Sometimes it is more important to be wary of from whom you are accepting/seeking praise than some idiot bandit attempting intimidation as short-circuit to earning respect.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by Riggerjack »

Well, bill Cosby was funny, too.

I'm going to go off topic for a moment. 7w5, you are very descriptive, and precise when you write of sexuality, and in particular, dominance and submission. When I first heard your views, they were so far removed from my own desires and proclivities that I simply dismissed you as a fetishist, talking about her fetish.

However, I have been reading what you have been writing for years, and every once in a while, what you say matches up with something else that happened in my past, with previous girlfriends. This has happened enough that I think you are about 99% right.

You see, I'm just not wired that way. I have a pretty open mind, and I have played BDSM games, in all the roles. But it didn't do anything for me. Some roles were more uncomfortable than others, but none of them worked for me. I don't have anything against them, I just played along because we all want our partners to have a good time. So whatever works for her is worth giving a try. Your description of what a top sounds like is a nice summation of how I sound in a leadership role, I can do it well enough that I don't have to think about it, but it is just a role. I play the role for a purpose, not because it appeals.

What I'm trying to say is that I agree with you, but what you state with unconditional confidence, I would describe as one end of a spectrum, and I occupy the extreme other end. The far less popular end. I wanted to say this for the people like me. The ones who read what you write and dismiss it as fetishist, a minority view, because it clashes so hard against what they feel, and what they are often told.

I think almost all the women I have been with wanted me to play a role, and I was looking for an equal partner. When I found her, I married her, and now I compare what you write with how we are, and just smile. You and I are hardwired completely differently, but niether is wrong. It's just that while you enjoy a dominance differential, my wife and I just find it distracting.

This isn't particularly germain to this thread, but to your writing in general. I would like to disagree in support. :lol:

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Riggerjack:

Thanks for the props, but I'm actually the opposite of a fetishist (individual who is very specific in triggering, like ONLY aroused by red stiletto heels.) I'm hypersexual and very ambient/flexible in my sexuality. I was only actively engaged in BDSM community for around a year around 8 years ago. So, I am kind of like a gluttonous omnivorous foodie who spent a year at some exquisite cuisine culinary arts school, and then got bored always having to wait around for the food to be perfectly plated, but I held on to the vocabulary and concepts because rather universally applicable. Prior to that experience, I also belonged to a forum for intelligent people who were trying to save their sexually challenged marriages, and I learned about the theory of increasing sexual dichotomy feminine/masculine in order to combat what is very politically incorrectly described to as the lesbian bed death of the egalitarian heterosexual relationship. This theory is very relevant to this discussion because it suggests that developing the habit of exhibiting sexually neutered behavior throughout the course of the work day results in individuals who are weak in sexual dynamic.

So, hetero/homosexual, submissive/Dominant, masculine/feminine are 3 different spectrum, and there are certainly many more. People certainly are wired differently, but I would say that anybody who has ever experienced runner's high or hot yoga high or found it a bit exciting to watch a scary movie with a lover could probably find some enjoyment engaging in some aspects of BDSM. It's also rather scientifically interesting to experiment with your own wiring. For instance, erotic acupuncture can make your erogenous zones multiply and expand and jump all over your body. My Dom was actually early retired because he made a lot of money designing very expensive connoisseur stereo systems, so that was one of his areas of expertise, along with shibari. He was super meticulous, not like any of these idiots in the news, but not very cuddly. Anyways, most overt submissives are dark sad erotic catharsis seekers, and I am more about fun and curiosity. Super serious overt Dom types don't really like it so much when you try to make them laugh in the middle of a scene, and I am way too absent-minded and dorky to be successful as a Domme for more than about 5 minutes, but I do think that would be a good way to quickly achieve FI for someone who had the skillz.

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by ZAFCorrection »

Stanford swimmer Brock Turner is appealing his conviction. Apparently the prosecutor was prejudicial in indicating Turner was behind a dumpster when in reality he was next to a three-sided garbage can, i.e. not trying to hide what he was doing.

I guess running your reputation through the gutter a second time and risking a worse sentence is worth the slim chance of not having to register as a sex offender. :roll:

JamesR
Posts: 947
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:08 pm

Re: sexual misconduct

Post by JamesR »

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:43 pm
Prostitution is also common and affordable. Significantly more so than US.

Harsh penalties to kill off the stupid bandits, and cheaper access to sex to satisfy the intelligent bandits?
Just how do you think prostitutes are chosen/trained/offered for sale/rent? I'm no expert, but I was there as a kid when my oldest uncle described it to his little brother who was facing trial soon.

As he described it, the prairie is full of wild ponies, but that doesn't mean anything. First you need to pen one off, and ride it until it stops fighting. Then each time you go back, it will fight less, until you break it in. Then you can add it to the stable for sale or rent.

Yeah, he wasn't a pimp, he was a cowboy. The rationalizations people use to reinforce their self image as a good guy despite all evidence to the contrary, are mind boggling. I haven't heard anything from him since the 90's, when he went inside on his third strike, I assume he is still alive, not that anyone cares.

But that afternoon comes to mind whenever someone suggests that somehow prostitution reduces rape.
Very good point. Thanks for this

Locked