“”Unfortunately, I can’t decry the process of “asking repeatedly,” mainly because it’s the only stimuli a lot of women respond to. Frankly, I think any woman who has to be begged fifteen times before she eventually accepts should be drug into the back alleyways and beaten”
What what what?
Okay, previous statement about generally decent guy making mistake retracted.
(Hat tip for additional context and WTF.)
Related Articles
24 users responded in this post
…I think I can only echo the tag. What a douche.
Who’s that saying?
Not that the context helps a lot, but at least provide the entire quote:
Unfortunately, I can’t decry the process of “asking repeatedly,” mainly because it’s the only stimuli a lot of women respond to. Frankly, I think any woman who has to be begged fifteen times before she eventually accepts should be drug into the back alleyways and beaten, because her rampant need for a string of pleadings trains the wrong sort of men that no doesn’t mean no. And then we should go beat up the men for good measure.
The context doesn’t help at all. Suggesting that it’s the woman’s job to “train” men to learn no means no is repugnant.
It seemed kind of like that it was more untraining people from thinking “no means no.”
Makes me glad I’m a socially inept internet shut-in. I’ll never have to worry about this kind of thing.
Wow, entitlement issues much? “Women should train men; it’s their job to make sure society runs according to rules, and it’s their fault if they do anything encouraging of bad behavior.” I just want to smack him around for a couple of hours.
Personally, I don’t find “Women who train men that no means yes are part of the problem,” to be a particularly problematic statement. I think Ferrett’s choice of wording is a problem and he’s admitted since then that he did a really bad job of expressing it (and, in fact, he’s commented more than once that he tries and fails at this particular sort of controversial statement a lot), but I don’t think what he was trying to get at is the problem.
Frankly, I’d take Ferrett, who tries and fails and takes being smacked around for it and keeps trying to get better about it rather than just blowing it off, over a lot of folks who don’t even seem to notice their privilege. Maybe that’s just me. I’ve seen a lot of males writing about sex who couldn’t care less when they fuck it up like this, or who don’t even consider it to be a fuckup.
Except… theferrett presupposes that someone saying “yes” after being asked repeatedly is just playing “hard to get.” When it most likely actually means “she got badgered into saying yes due to exhaustion.”
This officially makes him a terrible human being.
I’m on the Ysabel side of this, though clearly Ken has a point. I liked the comments on the link: someone pointed out “how offensive to women AND men that paragraph is.”
holy shit
Sorry, could you move your foot? I think my jaw rolled under your chair.
Wow! Score another for the “congoers are completely insensitive pignerds” stereotype! This is a lovely example of how stereotypes get to *be* stereotypes.
What previous statement are you refering to?
Oh, of course “Women who train men that no means yes are part of the problem” is such a great point – it really gets to the heart of the issue, you know? I mean, the perfect solution has been staring us in the face this whole time. Just as soon as all women mean “no” every time they say “no,” cases of rape will plummet! Start the ad campaigns now!
To seriously say that that sort of attitude coming from some women affects the likelihood of rape or assault in any meaningful way is, to be extremely generous, missing the forest for the trees in the worst way. It doesn’t matter how he phrases it.
0_0. . . .my brain. . .it has melted.
So he’s saying that women’s behavior causes the harassment of women, so these women should be beaten for causing men to harass them?
Well, it’s not exactly a new argument, but it’s very badly put.
I would like to state clearly, for the record, that pepper spray has been proven to be synonymous with a marriage proposal.
Seriously, what a fucking fuck. You, sir…! You shall touch none of my nuts! You are denied the privilege.
It was always seemed to me that if you’re all indigent about women playing “hard to get”, the simplest solution is to encourage men to take anything they say at face value. That way, women who mean “no” mean “no” and women who may have bought into the absurd concept quickly learn that it doesn’t work and abandon it. But I suppose such byzantine reasoning is lost on anyone who suggests (even jokingly) a woman should be beaten because he can’t touch her boobies.
And dangit, Open Source Groping is, at core, a workable idea and I do like it. Curse you, human nature! Curse your sudden but inevitable fucking up.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
“And dangit, Open Source Groping is, at core, a workable idea”
No.
THIS is all kinds of awesome.
http://www.getofftheinternet.org/groping-vainly-for-a-clue/
““theferret” mentions “high school” a few times in his purplish recounting of events, suggesting some past tragedy worthy of Jay Gatsby — only instead of reaching for the green light across the bay, he’s reaching for what’s under the green button.”
NCallahan – wait, haven’t we established that this is not a workable idea yet? Come on, dude, the “this is a workable idea” camp loses some serious ground when “we should be allowed to rape and physically abuse women who say no because they are probably playing hard to get, after all, some women do that” is the attitude expressed by supporters towards women who say no.
I know I’m (mostly) preaching to the choir here – however, I’ve been firmly in the “this is a stupid idea and you’re stupid if you support it” camp on this one, simply because, well, ever since I got my own set of boobs, I’ve been fending off morons who think they’re entitled to have a feel simply because they’re there. So often do I have to say no in my day to day life that I really have no desire to have to yell it over a crowd of people saying “but it’s empowering to say yes!”, which is exactly the kind of situation this project would create. It’s only adding insult to injury to imply that because from time to time I do say yes, I’m only “playing hard to get” when I say no.
To say that the project is a workable idea is to deny that this sort of behavior goes on, which is not only stupid, but insulting to every woman – and man, hello, men are not immune to being objectified and exploited – who’s experienced it. But you cannot honestly say it’s a workable idea when the evidence of what makes it unworkable is RIGHT UP THERE IN MGK’S ENTRY.
Let’s just all agree that it’s moronic and move on, please.
Yeah, the whole “workable idea spoiled by human nature” angle is a bit flimsy. After all, if it weren’t for human nature, no one would want to touch breasts in the first place.
(By the by, does theferrett strike anyone else as an especially creepy mash-up of David Brent and Gareth Keenan?)
If we say that something can’t be allowed to happen under any circumstances because the potential for corruption exists, then you basically rule out any group human enterprise. Yes, what happened at Penguincon was a bunch of horrible people intimidating women into accepting abuse. But that doesn’t mean that this will be the rule every time a group of consenting, informed adults choose to sexually experiment together. What it does mean is that if you are going to do something like this, you have to be aware that the potential for abuse exists, create safeguards that rely on more than the good graces of a few individuals, and everybody involved has to understand that they have a responsibility to protect themselves, everybody else involved, and anybody who comes into casual contact with the activity, within the boundaries of what each party consents to.
And moreover, it doesn’t mean that abusers need situations like this to justify themselves. If these men had the inclination to go out and force themselves on women, how does that disappear outside this scenario? They feel facilitated be the whole thing, but the “no means yes” argument is thinking they brought with themselves — it’s not a new species of logic that exists only within this single given situation. Yes, somebody should have said “this is wrong” and intervened — the fact that nobody did is one of the problems here, as is the fact that people used this scenario as a cover to perpetrate abuse — not that somebody proposed some light sexual experimentation in the first place.
Yes, I want to feel and be felt. I’m not ashamed of this. But I don’t want to force anybody into anything they don’t want; it want to enjoy myself with other people who want the same thing as I do. Part of me wants to do it for physical pleasure and part of me wants to do it as a learning experience, confronting and testing my own taboos. I understand that myself and others may run into situations we don’t enjoy and because of this, it should be clear to myself and to others that all involved parties have a right to disengage at any point, no strings attached. And not out of some social contract, but because I consider securing the wellbeing of people’s bodies and minds a moral responsibility.
Of course, the simple thing is to say because we can never be assure of other people’s intentions, we must never experiment. But what kind of an environment does that create? Human sexuality is an intrinsic part of our beings and will be expressed in one form or another; you cannot *not* be sexual. You can only be sexual in a healthy manner or an unhealthy manner. I would argue that expressing and enjoying your sexuality is a good thing and experimentation creates understanding, even if that understanding ultimately is “I do not like this, it should stop”. There are safe ways to experiment, yes, and unsafe ways, and more to the point, ways that are harmful to others. What theferrett did and the manner he did it in was irresponsible and reprehensible, but that doesn’t mean a safe variant can’t be created.
I don’t want to just throw up my hands and say, “Free call on all boobies and nuts, anybody who says ‘no’ is an asshole!” But I do want to say, “Would you be interested in letting your taboo zones felt and in turn feeling other people’s taboo zones? Please, examine the scenario we’ve constructed and decide if it feels safe. And please understand that there are limits to what we’re proposing, for sake of people’s safety and dignity, and the group will be expecting you to abide by those limits or it will take steps to remove you. Also, take a doughnut if you want, but all that’s left are those shit ones with the white frosting.”
“But that doesn’t mean that this will be the rule every time a group of consenting, informed adults choose to sexually experiment together.”
Uh, what was going on at Penguicon wasn’t a bunch of consenting, informed adults choosing to experiment with each other. Not even close. What you’re describing sounds very much like something best suited to a PRIVATE scenario with a bunch of people who KNOW each other. What went on a Penguicon was a bunch of people approaching TOTAL STRANGERS in the hopes of copping a feel. I very much agree that a group of consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want with and to each other. I do not think that they should be able to go out and ask to grope random strangers, who may or may not consent to even being asked. There is a very distinct difference.
“it doesn’t mean that abusers need situations like this to justify themselves.”
They don’t NEED them but they certainly can USE them. The project does not create abuse and sexism, it only creates an atmosphere in which they are vastly more likely to occur and vastly harder to locate and stop. That’s kind of my point.
“Of course, the simple thing is to say because we can never be assure of other people’s intentions, we must never experiment. But what kind of an environment does that create? Human sexuality is an intrinsic part of our beings and will be expressed in one form or another; you cannot *not* be sexual. You can only be sexual in a healthy manner or an unhealthy manner. I would argue that expressing and enjoying your sexuality is a good thing and experimentation creates understanding, even if that understanding ultimately is “I do not like this, it should stop”.”
Oh for fuck’s sake. Look. I work in a sex shop. I like sex and I’m all about healthy experimenting and creating a dialogue about sex and discussing and challenging my own taboos. But never, EVER in a way that comes at the expense of another person’s sense of safety. Period. I expect the same courtesy from others.
“But I don’t want to force anybody into anything they don’t want; it want to enjoy myself with other people who want the same thing as I do.”
Then do it, as I mentioned earlier, in a private setting, with other consenting adults who have already consented.
“I don’t want to just throw up my hands and say, “Free call on all boobies and nuts, anybody who says ‘no’ is an asshole!” But I do want to say, “Would you be interested in letting your taboo zones felt and in turn feeling other people’s taboo zones?”
It doesn’t matter how carefully you phrase it, you’re still a total stranger asking to do something no total stranger is entitled to do – or ask to do. You ARE entitled to explore your sexuality with people who are comfortable with it, in a setting that isn’t going to bring in, intentionally or not, anyone who isn’t prepared or doesn’t want to participate. You are not entitled to approach random women and challenge their taboos. Their taboos are not yours to challenge. At the risk of being pedantic, just because someone doesn’t want to be felt up by a person they don’t know does not mean they are “repressed”, and even if they are, it’s none of your fucking business unless they want it to be.
And for all the people saying “it’s workable, it just needs a way to be regulated more carefully”, I haven’t actually heard any concrete, doable suggestions for ways to make such a situation (as it happened, in a PUBLIC SETTING) more safe. Suggestions, please, or shut the fuck up.
Once again, I have to tell people to fuck off and leave my boobs alone on a fairly regular basis, so if you want to ask me, go ahead. But don’t pretend you’re asking for my own good, or you’re asking because you want me to feel respected and safe. If you did you’d at least buy me dinner first.
Also, you actually can be not sexual. It’s called being asexual. It’s rare, but there are quite a few people who identify as such, and it’s considered a viable sexual orientation.
Just so you know.
“Would you be interested in letting your taboo zones felt and in turn feeling other people’s taboo zones? Please, examine the scenario we’ve constructed and decide if it feels safe. And please understand that there are limits to what we’re proposing, for sake of people’s safety and dignity, and the group will be expecting you to abide by those limits or it will take steps to remove you. Also, take a doughnut if you want, but all that’s left are those shit ones with the white frosting.”
No.