Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[halfwise]

That's an extremely good point that the non-verbal cues probably come from the expectation of not making the first move. The whole system is fucked up, there's no two ways about it.

[halfwise]

In fact it's SUCH a good point that I think you should write a response article about it, and submit it to the same magazine.

[azriel]

Its difficulties all the way. Every turn you take is like stepping on egg shells. Dating, courting, wooing, whatever you like to call it is slowly phasing out. I think that's a bad idea. And yes, sadly, women are conditioned to wait....for the ask, the 1st date, the 1st kiss etc. If by some push of confidence we initiate the 1st move & it goes wrong & we try again we get labelled slut, tart, whore etc. The ones that can initiate 1st must come from a confident, open family that can discuss lessons of life, I dunno. Men are never called derogatory names yet its ok for them to dip their wick. Whats so wrong with kissing a few frogs till you find your Prince ? saves a lot off agg in the long run. I don't know if there ever will be a conclusive answer to this ? Animals have similar ideas I think. Some display their feathers & dance till the girlie bird is happy others, like Lions, just grab grunt & sod off. Halfy is right, where is it in life apart from films do we see lessons in love ??

[Pettytyrant101]

{{I think the basic underlying problem has been ongoing since the1900's, more or less. Before that families tended to live communally, often in one large room or only a few rooms for many people. And before that even the animals were in there with you half the year.
Sex and releationships in its natural form would be all about you, human and animal, growing up- as would, possibly more importantly, its consequences. }}}

[halfwise]

uh, I'd put the problem going way further back than the 1900's. Jane Austen pretty well demonstrates how totally half-assed things were in Victorian times among the upper classes, and even if communication was more straightforward in the lower classes the mysogyny might have been even worse.

I think culture itself has gotten in the way. Norway may be on the right path trying to eliminate all gender references at a young age, but you have to wonder if it will take.

[Mrs Figg]

{{{At which point if she made no vocalization of having changed her mind about sex, and never passed out during, was he supposed to know she had changed her mind? He didn't in fact know she had apparently changed her mind until the police arrived at his door several days later. It hadn't even occurred to him- they had been all over each other in front of many witnesses, gone back to his had sex, as far as he knew consensual with no outward display otherwise, then two days later she claims she was too drunk to give her consent. How is the guy supposed to know this exactly? Did she genuinely feel she had been violated? Or was she just doing it because she had done something she regretted doing and needed someone else to blame? Who knows?}}}

if she made no 'vocalisation because she was unconscious with drink then she did not give consent, and a person has a right to say no at any point of the proceedings if they change their mind, after all its their body and decide what happens to it. she may have gone back to his house with the intent to have sex then changed her mind, its not a binding contract, in which case a gentleman would have accepted it and waited until she was sober or at least awake.

[Mrs Figg]

if a woman is drunk don't shag her. end of story. its common sense.- Figg

{{If human shad stuck to that rule is doubtful we would all still be here. I know I was conceived whilst my parents were drunk after a New Years party.
And you cant tell me you've never had sex drunk- you're from the North!!}}}


for fucks sake if in doubt, ask.- Figg

{{As I pointed out in my first true life example, I tried that once when I was young and she laughed in my face. When is the moment anyway to ask outright?}}}

if it is consensual drunken sex there is no problem.

maybe she laughed because she was embarrassed, or shy, or Scottish, who knows, but its always better to ask and be refused than putting yourself in a bad situation later.

[halfwise]

Um, this is really not clear at all.  You can't tell if someone is "unconscious with drink" if there is clear willingness at the time: if she is acting totally willing after one drink is it okay?  After 2?  4?   And he's probably not in the best state to judge anyway.

Some people may seem loopy but full of life, afterwards they remember nothing.  Most people remember everything.  Sorry, there is no drunk test for consent.  If the woman can be said not to give consent because she's drunk, why does the man only get held responsible for his actions?

You can't say consensual drunk sex is okay then back off and say she was in no position to give consent.

[Mrs Figg]

That's an extremely good point that the non-verbal cues probably come from the expectation of not making the first move.  The whole system is fucked up, there's no two ways about it.

its difficult for everyone especially youngsters to know how to act appropriately. as a girl it was agonising liking someone and not knowing how to let them know without looking fast or easy, girls are brought up to expect the man to 'hunt' to pick and to choose who to date, the girl has to sit there looking demure yet interested which is very difficult balance, no wonder girls seem hard to read, we are waiting always waiting, waiting for 'the phone call' cant tell you how many hours I spent sitting by my parents phone waiting for the boy to ring me, because I wasn't allowed by society to ring him first. like it wasn't allowed for a girl to walk into a pub on her own, or walk up to a boy and start talking, all that waiting makes you go doo-lally. so say finally a boy asks you out on a date, theres another dilemma, when do you allow him to kiss you, because society and your parents all say 'don't be easy' make him wait, its not like we are being teases, its society that is telling us not to give out because if you do he will think you are cheap and take advantage, tell his friends and give you a bad name, bad names are social death for a girl at school, branded a tart and all respect has gone forever. so what does a girl do if she really likes a boy, what she does is give it out in small doses, not too much, or she will lose his esteem, not too little or he will go off her and find easy Ellen down the street. girls are in a terrible position really, if girls give out mixed messages its self defence. its societies rules. check this, there's even rules about smiling at men, you are taught not to smile too much because it looks like you are inviting bonking. its mad.

[Mrs Figg]

Um, this is really not clear at all.  You can't tell if someone is "unconscious with drink" if there is clear willingness at the time: if she is acting totally willing after one drink is it okay?  After 2?  4?   And he's probably not in the best state to judge anyway.

Some people may seem loopy but full of life, afterwards they remember nothing.  Most people remember everything.  Sorry, there is no drunk test for consent.  If the woman can be said not to give consent because she's drunk, why does the man only get held responsible for his actions?

You can't say consensual drunk sex is okay then back off and say she was in no position to give consent.

what I mean by consensual drunk sex is a married couple having a few glasses of wine and a quickie afterwards, I wasn't talking about blind drunk strangers getting into difficulties.

[halfwise]

Oh, good luck trying to stop that.

[Mrs Figg]

yeah maybe not.

[azriel]

Due to their large use and popularity, fans began to affect gestures and thus a fan “sign language” developed between 1711 and 1740.[5] In a 1740 edition of the Gentleman's Magazine, there was an advertisement for “The New Fashioned Speaking FAN!”[1] This “speaking fan” created a system whereby motions of the fan translated into letters of the alphabet. The alphabet, with the exception of J, was split into five sections. These sections corresponded to one of the following movements:
Moving the fan with the left hand to the left arm
Moving the fan with the right hand to the left arm
Placing the fan against the bosom
Raising the fan to the mouth
Raising the fan to the forehead
In order to signal a letter two movements were necessary. The first corresponded to one of the five alphabet groups, and the second told the letter’s position in the group. For example, to signal “D”, one would use movement 1 (first section of the alphabet), followed by movement 4 (fourth letter in that section of the alphabet).[1]
Other communication systems developed as well. Pierre Duvelleroy, a Parisian fan maker, published a version of the “fan language” which included the following:
Twirling the fan in the left hand: We are watched.
Carrying the fan in the right hand in front of her face: Follow me.
Covering the left ear with the open fan: Do not betray our secret.
Drawing the fan through the hand: I hate you.
Drawing the fan across the cheek: I love you.
Touching the tip of the fan with the finger: I wish to speak to you.
Letting the fan rest on the right cheek: Yes.
Letting the fan rest on the left cheek: No.
Opening and shutting the fan: You are cruel.
Dropping the fan: We will be friends.
Fanning slowly: I am married.
Fanning rapidly: I am engaged.
Touching the handle of the fan to the lips: Kiss me.

I think it was Japanese that adopted this idea also ? But, you had to be educated in the language of hand fans maybe it was on the school curriculum ?

[David H]

Ask a straight question, get a straight answer, and shake hands on the deal. That's the way farmers like to do business!

{{{Dave- that sounds like a sensible way to do things to me  }}}

Umm, does Scotland have a lot of lonely bachelor farmers too?

[David H]

its difficult for everyone especially youngsters to know how to act appropriately. as a girl it was agonising liking someone and not knowing how to let them know without looking fast or easy, girls are brought up to expect the man to 'hunt' to pick and to choose who to date, the girl has to sit there looking demure yet interested which is very difficult balance, no wonder girls seem hard to read, we are waiting always waiting, waiting for 'the phone call' cant tell you how many hours I spent sitting by my parents phone waiting for the boy to ring me, because I wasn't allowed by society to ring him first.

I've been told by more than one old friend years later, "You know I had the biggest crush on you back then but you never did anything about it. I was wondering if you were gay or something."

No, just clueless.....

[Mrs Figg]

it would save so much time if we knew how to read each others minds, maybe one day.

[halfwise]

Supposedly dating sites were to solve all this: pose a question, get a response, work it out, it should work like magic.

But when you meet in person you both seem unrecognizable. The whole damn thing collapses because there's so much more going on in person that can't get conveyed.

The Korean internet dating cafes seem to work a bit better. You wander around and check people out, then message them - they wander around and check you (and who knows how many others out) and then message back to their choices. I think you're supposed to go with friends so you've got some social interaction displayed.

Then they probably meet, giggle goofily at each other and it all falls apart.

[bungobaggins]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/06/europes-show-trials-americas-anti-speech-regime-going/

[halfwise]

Yep, a slippery slope when speech is not free. We now have a lot of this type of stuff on university campuses.

[bungobaggins]

What can be done about it?

[Mrs Figg]

its very tricky. but I do agree with clamping down on the rabble rousing foolish rubbish that people like Farage and Trump had spouted during their campaigns. its not been seen in society since Hitler and his Brown Shirts, the tone has deteriorated dramatically and society has become more barbaric as a result. we are better than this surely.

[bungobaggins]

That didn't take long for you to break Godwin's Law.

Judas, you can have your Kangaroo Courts for all I care.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{I dont trust that articles journalism in the slightest- the UK example using Farage is a complete under represtation of what the process is to make it seem what its not.
In the UK any petition on the official government site that exceeds 40,000 has to be reviewed by a committee of MP's.

But thats it- thats all thats promised- they will review it- only if that committee decides the people have a genuine case will they advise it be taken up by Parliament for debate- the Farage thing never got further than the mandatory has to be heard.

And anyone can put a petition up for anything they like- thats the point of it- and if 40,000+ so be it.

But to dress it up as anything more than a bit of procedure that went nowhere is misleading, especially when citing it as evidence for something its not.

As to the Dutch (I think it was Dutch) example depends if under their law that counts as hate speech or not. I know in the UK there has been a definite shortage of folk advocating that Muslim preachers should be allowed to espouse publicly what we consider hate speech! But then hey, their muslims, maybe they don't count any more.   }}}

[Mrs Figg]

That didn't take long for you to break Godwin's Law.

Judas, you can have your Kangaroo Courts for all I care.

fuck Godwin's Law. if I want to talk about Hitler I will do so. nobody is going to shut down my freedom of speech. which is ironic really.

[Eldorion]

American politics has taken a bad turn. We see this in an increase in politically motivated criminal charges. At universities, students’ due process protections are being eliminated in favor of a politically modish star chamber. One presidential candidate even promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the other.

Strangely, given the tone of the rest of the article, none of these examples are even close to being instances of the left trying to criminalize the rhetoric of the right. One was an overzealous prosecutor in a police brutality case in which none of the charges against the cops were about speech. One is about the opaque internal administrative processes of a private university in response to sexual assault and harassment, so while it's partially to do with speech it's not political speech, and moreover has nothing to do with the criminal justice system. And the final example is about a right-wing politician threatening his liberal opponent, which is literally the opposite of the claim in the article's subtitle.

EDIT: regarding the Yale thing, I suspect the author's complaint is less about the sexual harassment policy and more about the Christakis affair in which two faculty/staff members were the subject of intense student protests, but despite another Federalist contributor's attempt to tie the two issues together (source), the Christakises were not investigated or sanctioned by Yale, which dragged its feet but eventually affirmed its support for the couple, though they chose to resign some months later (see here).