(January 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm)J a c k Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 2:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Let's go back to the comment I made. It was this:


I dont mention religion or being religious at all here, and it was by no means meant to be a religious comment.

A person need not be Catholic to have this view of sex, and Im sure there are atheists out there who also think that hook up culture/porn/using each other in bed is unhealthy and counterproductive to having a better sense of respect for other people. I'm sure there are atheists who also think it's a positive thing for sex to be a language of self giving love and commitment to another person, verses just using each other for pleasure in a one night stand. This can be just as much a humanist approach, and Catholicism doesn't have ownership to this, just as it doesn't have ownership to many other views on morality.  

I'd like to think I'd still have this view of sexuality even if I wasn't religious... simply because it seems the healthiest and makes the most logical sense to me. I made that comment because I was voicing my honest response to the post above it. I in no way meant to push Catholic agenda by doing so (still not sure what that even means).

CL, let me tell you why I want to be extra clear that I’m not offended by that post and while I disagree, I still understand how someone can think that way.
It’s important to me, because you and I have participated in threads in which I was actually offended and felt deeply about my counter arguments, threads which were also about sexual assault. That was actually the first interaction I ever had with you, I think. Ever since then I try to keep away from rapey threads, to avoid conflict and unnecessary stress. I promised myself I’d keep calm during the duration of this one, because I found it interesting to discuss and to see how people feel about this specific case. I’m happy to see I’ve kept my cool, and more importantly, that I haven’t even seen anything that could offend me. Perhaps I’m growing up, too (like pool lol)? And the thing is that I really do understand where you’re coming from there, even when I disagree. In this particular case. I still feel strongly about my disagreements regarding other issues, but I want to be super clear that I don’t feel like that post was offensive.

Omg I’m being so redundant today lol

Thanks girl. That post was to clarify for those people accusing me of trying to push my agenda, and I knew you weren't one of them.

I'm sorry to hear I upset you so deeply in a past thread about rape. While I dont recal such a thread, let me reiterate that I would never think of rape as anything other than a horrible, evil thing, and never ever the victim's fault. I'm sorry if I ever may have given you a different impression somehow.

(January 18, 2018 at 3:03 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Affirmative consent isn’t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other’s shirts. Instead, it’s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.

My bold.

Is it saying that what we call normal consensual sex is neither normal nor consensual?

I don't get the part about no one suggesting the running through a checklist... because that is what affirmative consent would seem to imply. Because there are no clear rules on what precise actions would and wouldn't need affirmative consent... the only clear boundary would be "everything" which would involve a checklist, and contracts, and impossible robotic sex where perfectly normal and rational and decent people and innocent people could get falsely accused of rape because they slipped up when they didn't follow every single instruction down to the most microscopic details. I do not understand.

Fuck MRA. I'm a feminist and I hate the MRA. Men don't need their rights fought for. But this isn't about men. This is about the fact that this movement ISN'T feminism. Affirmative consent could never actually work in practice. It would lead to no sex ever at best and regular false accusations of sexual assault at worst. Demonizing men has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

No, but it it does suggest that some of the things me may now or have previously thought was consensual sex doesn't really fit into that set.

So after reading everyones posts about consent it got me thinking.

She sexually assaulted him. Because he pointed to his penis and she started sucking. Pointing does not equal consent. His reaction was to bury his shame internally and put on a facade the next day during texts as if this assault didn't happen. Even putting her feelings ahead of his.

Did he run to the police or run to the media (using a fake name but her real name)? No. He had to live the rest of his life with this burden. Knowing that he was violated. But the icing on the cake is that now he is the victim of a scandal (not just the victim of a sexual assault).

Knowing the very thing he once fought to protect, betrayed his trust. yes he was a "guardian of the vagina" (as shellB would call it). So it's like blow after blow. Life is cruel if you're a short comedian guy who is aged 36.

Surely there isn't a God. Look at this example, oh and also bone cancer in children.

all the internets!

(January 18, 2018 at 3:07 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 3:03 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Affirmative consent isn’t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other’s shirts. Instead, it’s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.

Is it saying that what we call normal consensual sex is neither normal nor consensual?

 
I don't know what you consider to be normal and consensual. I usually try communication and clarity instead of pushing and coercion. For me, that is normal and consensual.

It actually is fairly easy most of the time: don't make assumptions, go slow enough that you can get proper feedback, ask if unsure, etc.

Mixed signals can still happen, but being nice instead of a jerk goes along, long way.

(January 18, 2018 at 3:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: When did this thread switch from attacking positions to attacking each other?  Can’t we ever just say, “guess we’re not going to see eye to eye on this one guys; let’s walk away”, rather than devolving into twenty pages of nasty personal attacks and shit slinging?

In my experience it just means it's time to spend more time alone until you don't care enough to get personal anymore.

I don't feel the need to insult anymore!

Now make fun of people for laughs, that I CAN do!

Quote:Is it saying that what we call normal consensual sex is neither normal nor consensual?

Not sure what you consider normal consensual . But does not sound like mine .

(January 18, 2018 at 2:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Let's go back to the comment I made. It was this:

(January 16, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I agree.

Maybe we should try getting to the root of the problem? Promote sexual morality and respect for self and others. Discourage hook up culture. Discourage porn use. Discourage men and women using each other in bed...

Promote the radical idea that sex is a language of self giving love and commitment.

Now there's a thought.

I dont mention religion or being religious at all here, and it was by no means meant to be a religious comment.

A person need not be Catholic to have this view of sex, and Im sure there are atheists out there who also think that hook up culture/porn/using each other in bed is unhealthy and counterproductive to having a better sense of respect for other people. I'm sure there are atheists who also think it's a positive thing for sex to be a language of self giving love and commitment to another person, verses just using each other for pleasure in a one night stand. This can be just as much a humanist approach, and Catholicism doesn't have ownership to this, just as it doesn't have ownership to many other views on morality.  

I'd like to think I'd still have this view of sexuality even if I wasn't religious... simply because it seems the healthiest and makes the most logical sense to me. I made that comment because I was voicing my honest response to the post above it. I in no way meant to push Catholic agenda by doing so (still not sure what that even means).

Your comment was just fine. The irony with it is, if you were an atheist saying that same thing, you wouldn't have been judged for it. It would have been totally accepted and you would have even gotten a few extra kudos for it. But, because you are a theist, more specifically a catholic, some people here will always have issues with what you say, regardless. Those are the people who should not be talking about acceptance of others when they can't even see past their own indifferences. 

Many people seem to have issues with theists here, on all fronts - not just on subjects revolving around religion. This is sad because people are so much more than being religious or non-religious. A Theist makes some wonderful hats and when he posts pictures of them, he gets a lot of kudos. So why is it that some individuals here can't get away from their own hate towards religion when it comes to the non-religious things you say? Probably because they would instantly cut off their nose to spite their face rather than admit that you might have a valid point about something that had nothing to do with religion. 

What's sad about all of that is that those who seem to take issue with every word you say and want to judge you harshly for you being you, seem to have forgotten that they left their own closet door open and a bunch of skeletons fell out in the process.

(January 18, 2018 at 3:12 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 3:07 pm)Hammy Wrote: Is it saying that what we call normal consensual sex is neither normal nor consensual?

 
I don't know what you consider to be normal and consensual. I usually try communication and clarity instead of pushing and coercion. For me, that is normal and consensual.

It actually is fairly easy most of the time: don't make assumptions, go slow enough that you can get proper feedback, ask if unsure, etc.

Mixed signals can still happen, but being nice instead of a jerk goes along, long way.

I'm always on the insanely cautious side. But if a woman grabs my dick I'm not going to ask something like "Am I allowed to touch your body too?"

I consider normal consensual sex to be normal consensual sex. If two people are having passionate sex... all spontaneously... then spontaneous sexual movements that weren't agreed upon beforehand isn't rape. Missing vague signals isn't rape. Ignoring verbal demands to stop all sexual contact is rape.

In fact, having it agreed to upon beforehand is far more rapey.