Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

As far as I know guys learn how to fuck from porn (or so they think), but not how to behave in a relationship, as most porn doesn't even touch on that. What is probably a far bigger factor are things such as 'date (mis)advice' in magazines and 'The Game.' The info available via popular sources often doesn't give a balanced view about how to behave. Nice guys finish last, girls want a man who leads, jerk up your game, that kind of (if I may use that term) poison.

[Leafsnail]

I believe the intent is education. You'd be surprised how many well-meaning people out there do not understand no means no; not because they're deaf or jerks, but they're under the impression that they're supposed to be dominant in bed. They think it's some sort of teasing.


There are a billion reasons for this, really. IMO one of the bigger ones is young men learn the most about sex from porn... and porn is most often made with male domination fantasies in mind. Teenagers and such most often do not understand this and think that's how things really go. That's one of the reasons I really like sex ed, and think that sex should be a vastly more open subject to talk about in the first place.

It's all very well saying "education", but I really don't see what this is supposed to be teaching anyone.  That not raping people is a possibility?  If there are people that don't think no means no, they aren't going to listen to these ads since they don't even attempt to make an argument for their position and don't say anything new.  Just stating "You are wrong, this is correct" never helps.  I can imagine a similar campaign which actually tells people about the harm rape causes or about how they'll make sure you get caught that could actually make an impact, but this doesn't really tell people anything and therefore just comes across as patronising.

I mean, I'm not at all against sex ed, but I don't think that this is it.

[GlyphGryph]

I have to agree with Kaij - I think there are a surprising number of completely unintentional rapes that happen. People honestly not understanding. Especially because many women instinctively "give in" after a certain point, which some guys could take as a change of denial to acceptance.

And combined with what Virex is saying, the fact that it is talking about it, it might have a cultural effect as well.

I don't think they are that bad, honestly, and I like that they have a male non-victim included. Though a final poster a gender reversal probably wouldn't be a bad idea to really sink the message in that "situation doesn't matter, no means no".

I do have another objection to it though and that is that if she has to say no or clearly is uncomfortable, you've already gone too far

Yes, but until that point it's shades of grey, and its the easiest point (hypotheticall) to make an impact on people's behaviour because you can link an associated trigger with it. Plus I was under the impression you were like against sex in general, so that may color your view of how successful (for both parties) sexual encounters usually progress. There's not always certainty, and people can and do change their minds halfway through. And a lot of people just really suck at subtlety.

[kaijyuu]

It's all very well saying "education", but I really don't see what this is supposed to be teaching anyone.  That not raping people is a possibility?  If there are people that don't think no means no, they aren't going to listen to these ads since they don't even attempt to make an argument for their position and don't say anything new.  Just stating "You are wrong, this is correct" never helps.  I can imagine a similar campaign which actually tells people about the harm rape causes or about how they'll make sure you get caught that could actually make an impact, but this doesn't really tell people anything and therefore just comes across as patronising.

I mean, I'm not at all against sex ed, but I don't think that this is it.

Fair enough; I don't think it'll be all that effective either.

[Virex]

I do have another objection to it though and that is that if she has to say no or clearly is uncomfortable, you've already gone too far

Yes, but until that point it's shades of grey, and its the easiest point (hypotheticall) to make an impact on people's behavior because you can link an associated trigger with it.

True, it's convenient, but there's a danger that people will only consider that trigger. In that case, no means no also becomes not no means yes. In other words, of she doesn't object, it's OK, which is not a given. For example, she could change her mind but not feel comfortable with stopping him in the act.


Or as someone who's name eludes me put it:
No means no. Maybe means no. Yes can also mean no.

[kaijyuu]

Err, in normal situations (IE ones where she CAN object), I think it rather reasonable to expect her to ask him to stop. (or him asking her to stop; it happens, as some women legitimately think that men always like sex anytime and that arousal means he wants it)


This isn't like robbing a store, where it's implicit that the act is unacceptable. Communication is vital if you want to avoid this stuff. While it's hardly "all the women's fault" if she doesn't say something, you do have to wonder what's going through her head.



Ignoring of course malicious rapes, but they already understand no means no so it's rather irrelevant.

[GlyphGryph]

However, I think GETTING to "no means no always means no" would be a major improvement over what we have now, especially if we become much better at teaching women to be more ready and willing to say no.

Is it the optimal way to handle things? No, but it seems like it has the most potential for effectively doing good. Could be wrong, of course.

(Which does bring up another thing I think these campaigns should focus on: We need to make women okay with saying no, instead of letting themselves feel 'obligated' or being too afraid to say otherwise.) People are emotional creatures, especially in the heat of the moment they are prone to misinterpretation - having the potential victims be as clear as possible is the best way to avoid ruining two lives (the victim, and the criminal who was caught up in the moment and thought what he was doing was alright).

[G-Flex]

Err, in normal situations (IE ones where she CAN object), I think it rather reasonable to expect her to ask him to stop. (or him asking her to stop; it happens, as some women legitimately think that men always like sex anytime and that arousal means he wants it)

It's not reasonable to expect that, at least not under all circumstances, such as any where the victim feels (for whatever reason) intimidated.

This isn't like robbing a store, where it's implicit that the act is unacceptable.

Yes, it is implicit. "No means no" does not mean "Lack of 'no' means yes". If you can't actually get consent from the other person, there is a problem, whether they outright say "no" or not... pretty similarly to how you don't just assume you can walk out of a store without paying just because nobody told you to stop.

Ignoring of course malicious rapes, but they already understand no means no so it's rather irrelevant.

"Malicious rapes"? What exactly would a benign rape be?

[Virex]

Err, in normal situations (IE ones where she CAN object), I think it rather reasonable to expect her to ask him to stop. (or him asking her to stop; it happens, as some women legitimately think that men always like sex anytime and that arousal means he wants it).

While you obviously mean this in the best of ways, that opens the possibility of "insecure shaming". After all, if she didn't say no, it was her fault that he didn't stop. It may only happen to a small minority, but you're still running the risk that such a stance is interpreted as a carte blanche for putting the blame on the victim.

[GlyphGryph]

"Malicious rapes"? What exactly would a benign rape be?

A rape where the person doesn't intend to hurt the other person or mistakenly believe the other person is consenting/has consented, I would assume? Though I'd classify it as "reckless" rape rather than "benign" rape.

[Virex]

Ignoring of course malicious rapes, but they already understand no means no so it's rather irrelevant.

"Malicious rapes"? What exactly would a benign rape be?

I don't know, but it probably involves fantasies and SM gear...

[Frumple]

Or as someone who's name eludes me put it:
No means no. Maybe means no. Yes can also mean no.

What, uh. What's left? Everything means no but... what?

What about cases where it's 'yes' the day of, but 'no' the day (or couple months) after? Is there blame to be laid, there?

Basically, what's your solution to the stuff you're bringing up, since communication can apparently fail?

[kaijyuu]

EDIT: See my next post.

[G-Flex]

Or as someone who's name eludes me put it:
No means no. Maybe means no. Yes can also mean no.

What, uh. What's left? Everything means no but... what?

What about cases where it's 'yes' the day of, but 'no' the day (or couple months) after? Is there blame to be laid, there?

Basically, what's your solution to the stuff you're bringing up, since communication can apparently fail?

"yes can mean no" presumably means that there are some cases where even a "yes" can be insufficient for consent. See: Situations involving intimidation (or an abuse of authority, as a specific example) or drugs/alcohol.

"Lack of no means yes" is just as ridiculous a leap as "lack of no means no." Lack of no means... nothing. We're talking about miscommunications here; obviously the potential rapist thought what they were doing was ok in the first place, so without any incoming information that they're doing something wrong, it's pretty unreasonable to expect them to stop.

Maybe we should be advocating "don't do anything without explicit consent" which I would be pretty fine with.

"Don't do anything without explicit consent" and "Lack of a yes means no" mean the exact same thing. They're both ways of saying that a lack of explicit consent means a lack of consent, period.

Also: Doing something atrocious because you mistakenly think it's okay is still pretty atrocious. Not as atrocious, but still bad.

[kaijyuu]

Err, in normal situations (IE ones where she CAN object), I think it rather reasonable to expect her to ask him to stop. (or him asking her to stop; it happens, as some women legitimately think that men always like sex anytime and that arousal means he wants it)

It's not reasonable to expect that, at least not under all circumstances, such as any where the victim feels (for whatever reason) intimidated.

Hrm... fair enough. I'll accept intimidation as a reasonable reason for not saying anything, but that even furthers the miscommunication going on here.

This isn't like robbing a store, where it's implicit that the act is unacceptable.

Yes, it is implicit. "No means no" does not mean "Lack of 'no' means yes". If you can't actually get consent from the other person, there is a problem, whether they outright say "no" or not... pretty similarly to how you don't just assume you can walk out of a store without paying just because nobody told you to stop.

"Lack of no means yes" is just as ridiculous a leap as "lack of no means no." Lack of no means... nothing. We're talking about miscommunications here; obviously the potential rapist thought what they were doing was ok in the first place, so without any incoming information that they're doing something wrong, it's pretty unreasonable to expect them to stop.

Maybe we should be advocating "don't do anything without explicit consent" which I would be pretty fine with.

Ignoring of course malicious rapes, but they already understand no means no so it's rather irrelevant.

"Malicious rapes"? What exactly would a benign rape be?

I'll use a different word if you prefer. I was referring to rapes that are intended to be rapes; those are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're talking about rapes where the rapist thought what they're doing was ok, due to ignorance or whatever.



EDIT: Whoops, hit quote instead of edit.