(January 17, 2018 at 5:46 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 5:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I think that if he wanted to say "bitches be lying"...he had that opportunity, and if it were true, it would have made every bit of sense in the world to say it.  I would have spent at least a few minuites directly responding to some of the more bizarre elements of my fictional bedroom repertoire.

Work with me, Shell.

Maybe he didn't want to come off as a dick? You're making inferences into what he said. He said it was by all indications completely consensual, which does negate a lot of what she said. Maybe he has a longer statement? Maybe his publicist said, "Dude, just play it cool." and he did. We don't know any of this, but I definitely think he is disagreeing with her assessment.

Seen as it's innocent until proven guilty... unless she actually has evidence for her accusations against him then "It was completely consensual" should be all he needs.

And yet his career can be damaged based on accusations that may just be complete lies or delusions.

---

(January 17, 2018 at 11:23 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 11:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Didn't you take a powder last year in part because that same first question was asked of you? Forgive me if I'm not remembering that correctly, but it seemed terribly upsetting to you at that time.  

I believe Joods is questioning why she went to a reporter instead of the police; not why she didn’t go to the police at all.

I think she just wanted a story.

---

(January 17, 2018 at 11:23 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 11:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Didn't you take a powder last year in part because that same first question was asked of you? Forgive me if I'm not remembering that correctly, but it seemed terribly upsetting to you at that time.  

I believe Joods is questioning why she went to a reporter instead of the police; not why she didn’t go to the police at all.

I think she just wanted a story.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 1:56 am)Khemikal Wrote: @Ham

I don't think that silence is taken to be consent..but she wasn't silent, so?  I don't really see the slippery slope there as being all that credible either.   No one is insisting that he should have waited for her to consent constantly, only that he doesn't seem to have stopped the first time, or the second time, or he third time....that she expressed her desire not to continue.  He drove over those objections, like a common teenager, trying to fingerbang sally rottencrotch under the prom bleachers.

None of this is clear at all. It would be clear to most people, and from what I can see it seems clear that she wanted him to stop sex altogether and not specific acts. But that can sometimes be easily misinterpreted. If she said "Don't touch me" that couldn't be misinterpreted.

To just say you're uncomfortable doesn't make it clear whether your're uncomfortable with the current sex act or uncomfortable with the sex altogether. Even "Stop" might mean stop the specific sex act. If sex has already been engaged.

The slippery slope is real. Once people have already started having sex words like "Stop" and phrases like "Stop touching me" and "I don't like it when you put your fingers in my mouth" become especially important.

And when a guy is missing your hints and clues, that's not the time to play the "I hope he gets the next hint because he's totally oblivious so far" game, it's time to play "Stop touching me."

She could have been way, way clearer... at a time when being clear is important.

You don't think silence is taken as consent when sex has already started? But then you really would have to constantly say "Don't stop" and that's ridiculous.

Once sex has started silence is consent until you say "Stop". And it is important to be clear. The guy should stop touching you altogether when you say stop but then it's important to specify exactly what you want to stop if he's not getting the message. He should be being more careful but if he isn't it's certainly possible for him to think you meant stop the current sex act and try something else... rather than stop the sex altogether. Maybe he thought you were both enjoying sex together but you weren't currently into what he was trying with you. It's time to be clear.

Again, "Stop touching me" or "Don't put your fingers in my mouth" is better than withholding your own thoughts about how the guy isn't getting your clues. It's not a time for "clues" it's time for specific "Stop doing X". Which can include "Stop touching me altogether."

Sigh. None of this is difficult. Things can easily be misunderstood and during sex it's extremely important to be clear. It would really suck if a guy who is really shit at taking hints gets compared to a rapist/sexual assaulter.

(January 18, 2018 at 3:03 am)Hammy Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Throughout the course of her short time in the apartment, she says she used verbal and non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was. “Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling. I know that my hand stopped moving at some points,” she said. “I stopped moving my lips and turned cold.”

During something so important cues/clues/hints are ridiculously inappropriate when someone needs to be told something especially clearly more than any other time. This is not time to play "Guess how you're making me feel and guess how completely unaware of it you are." This is time to play "Get your fingers out of my mouth. Get away from me. Don't kiss me. Don't even touch me."

No doubt clarity is preferred ... but let's face it, when picking up women and trying to get in the zone, it pays to be sensitive to all sorts of cues -- not simply the verbal cues. To be honest, yes, I've had to guess sometimes when working an angle as to what she's feeling. Now, I'm might be a little off, but it seemed to me that my best bet in those situations was to work conservatively. I mean, I've been shot down enough times that one more "no" is not going to buttrash me.

It works better for me if I assume that her saying "no thanks, I'm uncomfortable", or saying "I don't want to hate you because I feel forced" are actually her true feelings -- firstly, because it keeps me out of this creepy/gropey/rapey territory (and that's always good with street cred, ya dig?), and secondly, because it keeps me from having to deal with potential legal consequences.

In other words, I don't assume that another human being is going to be perfectly honest and forthright with me, because in my experience, that is not always the case. They may dissimulate out of discomfort, or hidden thoughts, or day-after peer-pressure, or any number of reasons.

Expecting perfect honesty in a complex situation is to me silly. People mask reasons, motives, and justifications all the time (even to themselves!) and only a fool would act on the contrary assumption.

(January 18, 2018 at 3:03 am)Hammy Wrote: I'm a feminist but fuck those guys who white knight anyone but their crush or significant other

Firstly, the whole "white-knighting"-as-belittling thing is stupid. People are espousing opinions, and denigrating them on assumed motivations when you may or may not know why they're doing so is presumptuous at best and dishonest at worst. Secondly, any man worth his salt has a woman who doesn't need that. I know that's true in my own case.

(January 18, 2018 at 2:09 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 2:05 am)Hammy Wrote: This. The point of saying "no" is to make it very clear and specific.

Specific, and clear.....okay.

Quote:Grace says she spent around five minutes in the bathroom, collecting herself in the mirror and splashing herself with water. Then she went back to Ansari. He asked her if she was okay. “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” she said.

 
She told babe that at first, she was happy with how he reacted. “He said, ‘Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun.’ The response was technically very sweet and acknowledging the fact that I was very uncomfortable. Verbally, in that moment, he acknowledged that I needed to take it slow. Then he said, ‘Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’”

Was that the end of the evening?  Nope. Just the beginning of round 2.

Yes. He took her hint as a hint that he needed to slow down rather than stop altogether.

It wasn't a time for hints. If she said "Don't touch me" that would have been clear.

I find it really strange how in her article it is mentions how she felt violated and she seemed confused by him not getting her hints... which is fair enough. He was totally oblivious. But the fact she was aware of his obliviousness and she went on trying to give subtle hints anyway.... and then she texted him the next day and ended up going to the newspaper.

Just smells of dishonesty to me. If a guy isn't taking hints you shouldn't give another hint. And if you suck a guy's dick how the hell is he supposed to always know whether your hints mean "Slow down" or "Stop altogether" when they're hints instead of actually saying stop altogether? Mixed messages is mixed messages.

I'm sure I would have gotten the message in this situation. He seems oblivious even by my standards. Well, to be honest I'd be on the extra careful size precisely because of how oblivious I can be. I'd probably just kill the mood by constantly asking if the other person was okay and if they were still into it.

It really worries me if this guy really did think she consented to everything and she really did know he was totally oblivious to her hints.

It also bothers me if what he says is true: That she only decided the following day that what had happened was assault. That's not how assault works. You don't feel uncomfortable but consent to everything and then decide the following day that you think you were so uncomfortable that it was assault even though at the time you actually consented.

Ugh, I mean... none of this is difficult. Why are people so goddamn stupid. Things that are open to interpretation shouldn't be part of this debate. When you suck a guy's dick and then during sex with him you decide you don't want anymore, and you tell him to stop... and he misinterprets that as you wanting to stop the current sex act and slow down... then when you are aware that he misinterpreted that... and you clearly tell him to stop altogether.... then he does. Then that's super awkward but the fact that he behaved appropriately once he got the message... I don't get it. WTF.

It all comes down to intentions. Either he misunderstood and was oblivious and she knew this and continued to give hints that she knew he wouldn't get so she could complain about it and make a story out of it the next day... and she did this on purpose. Or she was honestly hoping he would get the hints eventually and honestly thinks it's okay to blame him for not getting her hints when it was her responsibility to be clear about something important.... or he did actually assault her. Or he pretended not to get her hints. Or... I dunno I'm just trying to think of all the options here. But if he honestly stopped as soon as he honestly got the message... then I don't get it.

Her message was more than clear from most people's perspective, including my own.... but it is indeed possible to honestly not get the message and to think the other person just meant stop the current act.

I mean, if you are deluded into thinking the other person is really enjoying the sex with you, which is not difficult to believe if he really did keep asking "How do you want me to fuck you?"..... then it makes perfect sense from that perspective to think that when the person wants you to stop it must mean the current sexual act because you're deluded into thinking they're enjoying sex with you so much that they couldn't possibly not want sex with you altogether.

Okay right now I'm thinking the guy was deluded into thinking she was really enjoying sex with him so she must have meant stop the current act and not sex altogether.

I mean, all of this could have been solved if she just said "Don't touch me."

Seems more like a victim of miscommunication to me. I really hope he's innocent and I hope that she didn't intentionally not bother to be more direct because she was planning to make a story out of this afterwards.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 2:21 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 1:42 am)Hammy Wrote: From what I've read it seems he was more clueless than inattentive.

That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Inattentiveness leads to cluelessness, don't you agree? I mean, you have to be attentive to pick up clues.

It's the fact it has a difference that precisely makes it a distinction.

Inattentiveness doesn't lead to cluelessness. The fact you are not paying attention to something doesn't mean you don't understand it. You can have all the clues but fail to get them because you don't bother to pay attention.

My point is that it seems to me that he was more incapable of understanding the clues (hence how he was clueless) rather than being unwilling to spot them.

"Clueless" isn't a synonym for "Careless", you know. It's actually a synonym for "stupid". And the definition of clueless is not "Not bothering to be attentitive enough to pick up clues", the definition of clueless is: having no knowledge, understanding, or ability.

And an example is: "you're clueless about how to deal with the world". And in that statement it's meant that the person is lacking in knowledge..... rather than willpower.

Anyway, my point was that the guy seems more useless at understanding the clues and hints rather than merely failing to pay attention to them.

TL;DR: He's looking but not seeing.

"Perspective" is all nice and well. Consideration is more important, in my book. "What if I'm wrong" should certainly spring into the mind of any man who's dealing with a woman who explicitly tells him his actions are making her uncomfortable.

This is a lesson I've learnt myself -- in a very different context -- in the recent past. "I'm me, therefore my actions are justifiable" is not a good way to run a railroad.

She puts her clothes back on, and tells you "all you fucking men are the same!" and you answer it with a "gross kiss" ... who is misreading who? Who is stepping on who?

I'm thinking you should read the article, Hams.

(January 18, 2018 at 2:43 am)Khemikal Wrote: So, something like.."I'm uncomfortable and I don't want to hate you"?

Seems intentionally vague.

That's totally dodging the message. That's like she's more interested in being polite than interested in telling him to stop.

A reasonable response to that might be "Why are you uncomfortable? Why would I hate you?"

Or simply "What are you going on about?"

Quote:Or "You're all the same, you're all the same, you're all the same"?  "Next Time"?  "I don't think I'm ready to do this"?  How about sobbing, just balls out, mascara down the face sobbing?

That's her ranting after the vagueness.

I'm being unnecessarily harsh because her hints are more than clear enough for most mature adults most of the time. But that's not clear enough... it's not like her words couldn't be misinterpreted.

There is nothing about what she said that couldn't be interpreted as her not liking how the sex was going so far and she simply wanted him to slow down. The fact he suggested okay "Let's chill out a bit" or something like that afterwards, does suggest he misinterpreted what she was saying as her merely wanting him to slow down or stop temporarily rather than stop altogether. It all makes sense if we start from his premise of assuming she totally wants him to fuck her so she must just want him to slow down. The guy needed to wake the fuck up out of his creepy horny daze. Something like "Don't touch me" would snap him out of it a lot better than "I'm uncomfortable."

Hell, even "Don't touch me" might get a response like "... like... don't touch you at all?" and she may something like "Yes. Don't touch me at all." and he might have been the one crying in the bathroom instead. "I thought she wanted me to have sex with her!!".

If he kept touching her after she literally said "Yes I mean that I don't want you to touch me at all" then that would have been assault.

The fact a guy doesn't get hints when hints don't make any sense anyway... isn't assault.

I think he just needed to wake the fuck up and it was important that she was clear rather than vague. Especially when it was clear that he wasn't clearly getting her 'hints'.

I fucking hate hints as it is.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 4:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: To be honest, yes, I've had to guess sometimes when working an angle as to what she's feeling.

I have absolutely no fucking idea what the fuck ANYBODY is feeling unless they literally state what they are feeling. I don't even literally feel MY OWN feelings.

I think I'm kind of glad I'm alone all the time lol.

If I have to actually empathize with people enough to guess how they're feeling and what their hints mean, then I think I'm probably going to give up on socializing... and certainly sex. Which thankfully I've only had a couple of times anyway and thankfully so far no one has tried to get me to guess that they weren't in the mood. Thankfully they seduced me rather than the other way around (I have no idea when a girl is flirting at me or whether they like me or not. I don't know what these supposed social cues things even are).

---

(January 18, 2018 at 4:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It works better for me if I assume that her saying "no thanks, I'm uncomfortable", or saying "I don't want to hate you because I feel forced" are actually her true feelings -- firstly, because it keeps me out of this creepy/gropey/rapey territory (and that's always good with street cred, ya dig?), and secondly, because it keeps me from having to deal with potential legal consequences.

Yeah what I do is just play it safe and end up on the unnecessarily cautious side and kill the sexual mood together.... I'm on the extra careful super nervous side.

Until I get intimate with someone enough for them to be my sexual partner.

If I was having sex with a girlfriend who always loved having sex with me and one day she randomly stopped enjoying the sex halfway through.... then hopefully if we'd become that intimate she'd already know by then that I wasn't the sort of person to be given hints half way through sex. I'd be totally deluded at that point and without nerves and caution so I'd need them to be literal at that point.

Thankfully I've never been close to anyone enough in RL for me to trust them enough to lose my own anxiety enough to stop being careful so much that I worry so much that I kill the mood.

Basically, I am glad I've never become complacent in RL.... I guess. Probably a good thing I'm too anxious to even get a date in the first place. Better than getting a girlfriend and stopping worrying about being unable to take hints and letting myself relax a little and be happy and then my girlfriend for some bizarre reason suddenly doesn't know that I'm me the guy who can't take hints, and goes ahead and goes for the giving hints approach anyways.

I just realized I haven't slept for since like forever lol.

(January 18, 2018 at 4:42 am)Hammy Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 2:21 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Inattentiveness leads to cluelessness, don't you agree? I mean, you have to be attentive to pick up clues.

It's the fact it has a difference that precisely makes it a distinction.

Inattentiveness doesn't lead to cluelessness. The fact you are not paying attention to something doesn't mean you don't understand it. You can have all the clues but fail to get them because you don't bother to pay attention.

How can you have the clues if you've failed to get them? Silly.

(January 18, 2018 at 4:42 am)Hammy Wrote: My point is that it seems to me that he was more incapable of understanding the clues (hence how he was clueless) rather than being unwilling to spot them.

"Clueless" isn't a synonym for "Careless", you know. It's actually a synonym for "stupid". And the definition of clueless is not "Not bothering to be attentitive enough to pick up clues", the definition of clueless is: having no knowledge, understanding, or ability.

And an example is: "you're clueless about how to deal with the world". And in that statement it's meant that the person is lacking in knowledge..... rather than willpower.

Of the definition you've given (and I haven't googled it, I'm assuming you're quoting accurately), I will draw your attention to the word "understanding" ... because it's pretty hard to understand anything if you are inattentive to the details of that something.

(January 18, 2018 at 4:42 am)Hammy Wrote: Anyway, my point was that the guy seems more useless at understanding the clues and hints rather than merely failing to pay attention to them.

TL;DR: He's looking but not seeing.

Perhaps. Or perhaps he paid no attention. Or perhaps he knew full well what was going on but tried instead to impose his will upon the matter.

Perhaps he should have simply thought about how his actions might be affecting her -- especially after she verbally expressed discomfort -- and done as advised and chilled out.

(January 18, 2018 at 4:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 3:03 am)Hammy Wrote: I'm a feminist but fuck those guys who white knight anyone but their crush or significant other

Firstly, the whole "white-knighting"-as-belittling thing is stupid. People are espousing opinions, and denigrating them on assumed motivations when you may or may not know why they're doing so is presumptuous at best and dishonest at worst. Secondly, any man worth his salt has a woman who doesn't need that. I know that's true in my own case.

It's not worth belittling if it's not actually white knighting.

I'm only referring to the guys who actually do white knight women. And what I mean by that is.... they get disingenously defensive of women in order to try to appeal to women more in hopes of getting laid more.

I'm not referring to people who aren't actually doing that.

And it doesn't count when it's your significant other or crush either. Because I 100% white knight my girlfriends and crushes. Lol. I just can't help myself. I get so biased and defensive of people I have a strong affection for. I can't even help it. I can be totally aware of that bias and I still continue to do it.

No, that's not a problem. That's not what I'm talking about.

(January 18, 2018 at 4:59 am)Hammy Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 4:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: To be honest, yes, I've had to guess sometimes when working an angle as to what she's feeling.

I have absolutely no fucking idea what the fuck ANYBODY is feeling unless they literally state what they are feeling. I don't even literally feel MY OWN feelings.

I think I'm kind of glad I'm alone all the time lol.

If I have to actually empathize with people enough to guess how they're feeling and what their hints mean, then I think I'm probably going to give up on socializing... and certainly sex. Which thankfully I've only had a couple of times anyway and thankfully so far no one has tried to get me to guess that they weren't in the mood. Thankfully they seduced me rather than the other way around (I have no idea when a girl is flirting at me or whether they like me or not. I don't know what these supposed social cues things even are).

---

(January 18, 2018 at 4:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It works better for me if I assume that her saying "no thanks, I'm uncomfortable", or saying "I don't want to hate you because I feel forced" are actually her true feelings -- firstly, because it keeps me out of this creepy/gropey/rapey territory (and that's always good with street cred, ya dig?), and secondly, because it keeps me from having to deal with potential legal consequences.

Yeah what I do is just play it safe and end up on the unnecessarily cautious side and kill the sexual mood together.... I'm on the extra careful super nervous side.

Until I get intimate with someone enough for them to be my sexual partner.

If I was having sex with a girlfriend who always loved having sex with me and one day she randomly stopped enjoying the sex halfway through.... then hopefully if we'd become that intimate she'd already know by then that I wasn't the sort of person to be given hints half way through sex. I'd be totally deluded at that point and without nerves and caution so I'd need them to be literal at that point.

Thankfully I've never been close to anyone enough in RL for me to trust them enough to lose my own anxiety enough to stop being careful so much that I worry so much that I kill the mood.

Basically, I am glad I've never become complacent in RL.... I guess. Probably a good thing I'm too anxious to even get a date in the first place. Better than getting a girlfriend and stopping worrying about being unable to take hints and letting myself relax a little and be happy and then my girlfriend for some bizarre reason suddenly doesn't know that I'm me the guy who can't take hints, and goes ahead and goes for the giving hints approach anyways.

I just realized I haven't slept for since like forever lol.

Sounds like another thread entirely, bud. Go get some sleep, and g'night.

(January 18, 2018 at 2:06 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 12:37 am)Joods Wrote: I wonder at what point in the conversation with her friends did it become a priority to get it out in the news and let the court of public opinion hang this guy, versus going to the police to have charges pressed.

Probably when he posed, hypocritically imo, as a "#metoo" kinda guy.

As for going to the police, we know that doesn't happen in many of these cases. Does that mean they never happened?

I'm not saying that "something" didn't happen. I guess the court of public opinion should decide this one since she was more intent on having it make national headlines, prior to seeking help from the law about it first. And if I was a defense attorney, this is one of the things that I would absolutely argue. Where were her priorities and what was her motive at the time she decided to forego the police in favor of a news article?

The guy is creepy. He's probably really shitty in bed and if he did what she claimed he did, he's already been shamed in public for it. But I honestly see no actual crime here on his part. What I see is things went sour because she wasn't into whatever he was doing. I have playfully batted Rob's hand away but that doesn't mean that he's sexually assaulting me. If I say I'm not in the mood or if I say stop it, he complies. 

Men can be dense and need way more than non-verbal cues with a lot of things.

(January 18, 2018 at 5:13 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: How can you have the clues if you've failed to get them? Silly.

Do you think that's honestly what you think I meant? Lol. You seem very obtuse right now. It's not difficult to figure out what I'm trying to say here.

By clueless rather than inattentive I mean clueless rather than inattentive. They have very distinct meanings.

You can be without clues without failing to get them unless you're equivocating.

To fail to get them doesn't merely mean to not get them. It means to try and not get them. My point is this has nothing to do with his unwillingness to put the effort in... (that's where your equivocation is, because I'm referring to try as in effort rather than try as in attempt)..... it doesn't matter how much he looks he can't see.

How can it be so difficult to get such a simple message through to you?

It's like I said, he's clueless rather than inattentive. He is looking but not seeing.

My whole point was this has nothing to do with efforts on his part and everything to do with him being... well... clueless. You do know what "clueless" means right?

Quote:Of the definition you've given (and I haven't googled it, I'm assuming you're quoting accurately), I will draw your attention to the word "understanding" ... because it's pretty hard to understand anything if you are inattentive to the details of that something.

My point is that he's too clueless to be capable of understanding what he's looking at. It has nothing to do with effort or willpower and everything to do with him being... clueless.

Quote:Perhaps. Or perhaps he paid no attention.

And my point is it seems to me that he's more clueless than careless.

Quote:
Perhaps he should have simply thought about how his actions might be affecting her -- especially after she verbally expressed discomfort -- and done as advised and chilled out.

It's useless to speculate about what should have occurred to us. Of course it should have occured to him. And the fact that it didn't, IMO, is exactly why I think he's clueless rather than careless. He simply didn't see the cues when he looked at them when most people would look at them and see them.

I fucking hope I wouldn't be complacent enough to miss those cues in his situation, that's for fucking sure.

If it was a girl I'd only recently met I'd be wayyyyyyyyy too nervous to be complacent enough to safeguard my inability to take hints. Thankfully. But if I felt too comfortable who fucking knows how clear the woman would have to be when my subconscious would find a loophole in everything. And that's what it seems to me that he was doing. It wasn't conscious on his part. At least I hope it wasn't.

It would never be conscious on my part.

Thankfully all this stuff would be super obvious to me because ... like I said... I err on caution.

But I guess I empathize with his lack of empathy.

Or should I say... I can relate to his lack of empathy............ sounds less punchy that way though.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 5:17 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Sounds like another thread entirely, bud. Go get some sleep, and g'night.

Yeah it's 9.30 AM... I will get to bed today eventually lol.