Misogynist meetings to be held across the world

[Arwon]

Like I was saying, people love to be outraged.

http://nevertoolate.biz/2013/03/18/7628-understand-men-mixed-signals/

^ Quick Arwon, somewhere on the internet a woman is advancing the rape narrative trope that men are confusing and send mixed signals.

I. am. literally. shaking. with. fear. My emotional safety is at risk. It is 2016! and people still think ___ are confusing.

Both men and women are confusing to anyone who is trying to date them, to figure out their "signals" without risking rejection. Hetero men find women confusing, hetero women find men confusing, gay men might even find some men confusing.... I don't know.

Signals are confusing because there are literally no fail-safe signals. The only way to know if someone likes you is to first let them know that you are interested, and then ask if they are interested (or something along those lines). But when someone asks about signals they are looking to reduce their odds for rejection... to figure out who is "safe" to approach. Both genders have this difficulty but we all know that men are expected to make the first moves and the ones who don't fall in line will generally not have a satisfying love life. Rejection is not only awkward for the person being rejected, but the person doing the rejection. So fear of rejection is not going anywhere no matter how many "cultural tropes" you change, and talk of mixed signals will remain. Enjoy the angst and outrage.

The issue here is sexual violence, not awkward feels. Except, I suppose, inasmuch as awkward feels get compensated for by sexual violence.

 

[Borachio]

Second post because I also wanted to cover this. I dunno about 50 times, that sounds like hyperbole to me, but it IS a fact that no doesn't always mean no. Communication is more than just verbal, especially with women, who tend to rely on nonverbal communication more than men do. A "no" while she retreats from you to the other end of the couch is not the same as a "no" while she continues passionately snogging you. Depending on the circumstances, depending on the individual woman, depending on other cues, "no" can mean "no", or "no" can mean "not right this minute, but let's keep doing what we're doing and see where I am in 15 minutes" or it can mean "no, but maybe if you try a little harder" or it can mean any number of other things. Every woman is different, and it's just a fact that many do feel pressured to "play hard to get" due to social conditioning, they don't want to be thought of as promiscuous so they put up token resistance even when they fully intend for it to happen.

Golly!

I tell you what: if a woman says no to me, I back away immediately (in fact she doesn't even need to say no - she just needs to act less than 100% enthusiastic).

If she doesn't really mean no, then she either tells me so, or she misses out on the action. (No great loss to either party, if you ask me.)

Spoiler :

Actually, no woman needs to ever say no to me, because it'll never be me (outside of some rare unsuccessful occasions) that's asking. But I don't suppose I'm typical.

All this "playing hard to get" stuff is just nonsense, imo. If they don't want me, they don't get me. If they do want me, then they must make it plain.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd argue that she should instead claim that she gave consent before she got drunk and forgot to text her friend. That should work, right? Agreeing that a person is allowed to have sex with them once they're drunk?

We're not looking for a workaround. I think we're looking for the appropriate way to address what seems like a relatively common occurrence in societies that have vigorously sought to destigmatize both intoxication and casual sex. Mixing the two has perhaps unintended consequences when it comes to consent. It might even be a key facet of rape culture in Western societies. But no need to even break it out in this specific layout. Marital rape is a thing these days. Blitzed wives and husbands will do just fine for the scenario should we decide to make it plausible(and that shouldn't be hard).

 

[Arwon]

An interesting question at that.

Girl goes out to a bar and gets plastered. Guy picks her up and they had back to her place for some hanky panky. They stumble past her roommate to whom Girl had previously admitted that she had regretted past drunken rolls in the hay and asked her roommate for help preventing them in the future. Guy and Girl go up to her room. Roommate calls the police. They bust in and arrest Guy for sexual assault. The next day, Girl heads down to the court and claims that she would have consented to sex with Guy even if she was sober and does not want him prosecuted.

What should be the result?

There is virtually no chance anything like this ever gets prosecuted against the wishes of the would-be victim.

More generally, if someone you've just met is blackout drunk it's just not a good idea to initiate sex with them. Period. There's just no way adequate or real consent exists there, it can easily be rape, it damn well should feel rapey regardless, and "getting away with it in a legal sense" isn't exactly a great standard to aspire to either ethically or legally. Or in terms of one's own dignity really. There's a lot of people out there who have left someone feeling as though they've been raped in this kind of situation, even though the perpetrator likely doesn't know or understand this.

 

[Farm Boy]

Getting super drunk with somebody is a hell of a lot of fun. Can't say I've never done it. Can't say it seems at all uncommon.

 

[Arwon]

I don't believe I've ever suggested rape and sexual assault are uncommon. The victim survey stats from Australia, the EU, USA suggest somewhere just under 1% of women in the Western world are victims of rape (defined as having experienced forced intercourse in a survey) in a given year, which is about 1.5 million European women, maybe around 1.1 million in the USA. And in terms of ever having been victim, somewhere around 5% or 1 in 20.

This kind of rape forms part of that (though still smaller than sexual violence by partners and ex partners).

 

[Farm Boy]

Well right, I don't think you have. But it would be dumb of me to think you had. So perhaps instead I was laying out what I thought would potentially be a different situation?

You would find them indistinguishable? That would be more to my point of interest in this line of discussion.

 

[Arwon]

I can't personally say any sex I've had while very drunk has been particularly fun, and yeah, none of my partners have ever been blackout/non-cognisant drunk. Like we're not talking "could go a kebab you'd politely decline in the daylight but still in control" drunk here. We're talking memory erasing, brain damaging, very very impaired level drunk. If someone is having trouble walking, talking, etc, that's fair sign they're actually incapable of consent.

 

[sophie]

I know you're just a kid but that's still super naive. Special snowflake, omg. People aren't snowflakes, they change massively over time and you don't really know someone for at least a few years.

That was more a comment on the fact that people are individuals and you have to take them as individuals. If you click you click and if you don't then trying to mold them in your image or condition them to get a response you like is not going to help things. PUA is not good as a "relationship trainer" or "self-confidence booster" or "sociability builder" because it's not concerned with teaching you how to be sociable. It's teaching you to misrepresent yourself and your intentions and manipulate situations to achieve a desired result: not a lasting and fruitful companionship with someone, but a personal selfish satisfaction at which the person can be tossed by the wayside. Where in all of that does it sound like productive or helpful education in how to socialize with people. I don't think there's anything wrong with hooking up or having purely sexual interactions with people. If they want sex and you want sex and neither of you want anything more: great! But that's not necessarily what PUA is about.

Yes people change. People obviously change. As I said, relationships are about finding someone whose views and values, as well as the circumstances of their respective lives, coincide. It's not a one time Thing. It's not a "you like apples? I like apples!" and then you live happily ever after. Obviously not. It's a continuous process. In successful relationships people grow together. Views may change but the values you place in a partner continue to coincide with attributes you ascribe to your current partner. When those values don't - be it because of some emerged gap in goals: you want to travel and experience new places while she wants to stay home; she's looking for someone focused, motivated, and established while he's content to sit at home and goof off on the computer all day; or whether it's a change in circumstances: a demanding job is requiring more hours so that they are unable to provide the SO with as much attention as they would like; one of them gets a job opportunity on the other side of the country and the other is unwilling to leave - whatever it is relationships are ultimately a matter of individuals making individual decisions in the moment on the basis of what they hold as important or relevant. It's not some hellish evolutionary landscape of women callously tossing men in the dumpster because this man only makes 40k a year and that one makes 50. That's a really bleak view of the world, not the least because it frames men as these hapless undiscerning penises who will take any and every vagina that presents itself to them. Yes it's a problematic characterization because it portrays women as cold, calculating emotionless monsters looking to latch on to the highest standard of life possible, but it's just as problematic because it deprives men of any suggestion of agency or decision-making.

Maybe I am naïve or idealistic, or maybe not. I can only speak to my own experiences and the post-mortis of my own relationships. Same as you, same as anybody else. That's why we're here. To share our own lens with those of others and, in the process, perhaps achieve a greater understanding of ourselves and the world around us. I think dismissing someone's viewpoint on the basis of what is essentially a "No True Scotsman" argument is kind of a silly thing to do on an internet forum though.

 

[jackelgull]

However, sexual contact with somebody who is only playing hard to get may result in extremely kinky sex. I am not sure if you really don't understand that but... some women actually like that. I know, I know... blows your mind, doesn't it? I will repeat this: Some women like it when a man they like pushes the limits aggressively. The fact that pushing ahead can hold a reward and that it's not always easy to differentiate between a women who is playing hard to get and a woman who is not aggressively turning down a man who she thinks is going to far does of course lead to situations where the man goes to far because he thought she would react positively.

I'm looking forward for the hate I'll get for this. Some women like insistent men. What a preposterous thing to say!


Oh, in many cases it certainly is. From what I know about Roosh V - and that's not much tbh - he seems like the guy who would totally push as far as he can, even if it's clear to him that the woman feels uncomfortable. But at the same time less experienced men - and probably more so men with false information provided by people like Roosh V - will certainly not push "too far" out of entitlement, but rather because of a misunderstanding of signals.

I'm not going to argue that mixed signals aren't a thing, just that people's perception of what a mixed signal could mean is problematic. For example if a woman is interested but says no, there are more potential messages than just "I'm playing hard to get". They could have a serious hangup with sex, you know come from a religiously conservative back ground. They might be worried about any potential STD's you have. There are a host of other meanings those signals could have. Sure some gals might be playing a mind game. Maybe. But it's kind of egotistical to assume all mixed signals involve you.

 

[Ryika]

We're not looking for a workaround.

I know, I just wanted to be an annoyance. And at the same I'm actually curious if giving consent to having sex in a situation where consent cannot be revoked would work legally.

I'm not going to argue that mixed signals aren't a thing, just that people's perception of what a mixed signal could mean is problematic. For example if a woman is interested but says no, there are more potential messages than just "I'm playing hard to get". They could have a serious hangup with sex, you know come from a religiously conservative back ground. They might be worried about any potential STD's you have. There are a host of other meanings those signals could have. Sure some gals might be playing a mind game. Maybe. But it's kind of egotistical to assume all mixed signals involve you.

Sure, but half of these would still leave open the possibility of to changing her mind if you are somewhat persistent and say the right thing. I don't think that changes much, the inherent problem would still be to figure out where to stop to not miss out on an opportunity while not just making her feel horrible and yourself look like a jerky fool.

 

[BvBPL]

More generally, if someone you've just met is blackout drunk it's just not a good idea to initiate sex with them.

That's not a useful standard because there's no way of knowing what the consequences of another's party inebriation will be on their memory. I, for example, have never blacked out from being drunk. My brother has. Damned if I know the reason for the difference.

I share your distaste for sex while severely drunk (and I share Farmboy's enjoyment of sex while moderately intoxicated). However, drawing the line at the aftereffects of inebriation isn't a useful standard because it provides no guidance to the other party.

I realize that you are likely using "blackout drunk" as a synonym for severe inebriation on and above being merely tipsy. That said, the usage of terms that refer to the consequences of drinking rather than focusing on immediate state of the party does not establish a useful standard by which people can determine their behavior.

 

[caketastydelish]

Some of the PUA's out there are not only misogynistic but also con-men to the men that pay for their advice. Example: A woman will not have sex with you within the first 15 minutes of meeting you unless she's a nymphomaniac.

There could be a million reasons why a woman isn't interested in you, with the possibility that she's already in a relationship being only one of which. If she isn't interested in you, she isn't interested. No "seduction" will change that.

The way I see it, PUA comes in handy to guys that are so nieve that even when a woman actually IS interested (and gives signals) the guy is oblivious to them. Like I said. Is there date rape going on where overly aggressive guys interpret the most subtle thing as in invitation to sex? Sure there is. But that's not what I'm talking about... in fact Neil Strauss (who is halfway respectable, especially compared to Roosh) tries to make it very easy not to be too aggressive, not to offend women or make them uncomfortable, as doing those would obviously this opposite of what any 'seduction' person would want to achieve in the first place.

Some of the other PUA stuff will seem like extreme common sense to those that the material isn't marketed towards. Neil Strauss and Mystery both make 'getting out of the house' a huge factor. If you are a typical person, you will roll your eyes at that advice and say "well duh"... But this is the 21st century where so many people (especially dudes) have grown up in front of a computer screen.

PUA's range from those like Roosh on one extreme to those on another which are surprisingly feminist-friendly. Overgeneralizations about PUA's one way or another should be avoided.

It's also worth noting that much (most) of the PUA stuff is exclusively for the nightclub scene, (they even admit to as much) and it wouldn't even relevant to say, chatting up a woman at a bookstore.

 

[caketastydelish]

That's not a useful standard because there's no way of knowing what the consequences of another's party inebriation will be on their memory. I, for example, have never blacked out from being drunk. My brother has. Damned if I know the reason for the difference.

I share your distaste for sex while severely drunk (and I share Farmboy's enjoyment of sex while moderately intoxicated). However, drawing the line at the aftereffects of inebriation isn't a useful standard because it provides no guidance to the other party.

I realize that you are likely using "blackout drunk" as a synonym for severe inebriation on and above being merely tipsy. That said, the usage of terms that refer to the consequences of drinking rather than focusing on immediate state of the party does not establish a useful standard by which people can determine their behavior.

Yeah. If someone is so drunk they literally can't stand up, I'd say they can't consent to sex. If they are just a bit tipsy then they can.

Someone that is simply drunk (although nowhere near passed out stage) can certainly consent to sex.

If I've had a few beers and then go to amazon.com and order a bunch of crap I don't need, can I change my mind later and say "I was drunk"?
If I'm a little tipsy and I drink and drive, get pulled over by a cop can I say "You can't charge me, I'm drunk" or would I indeed be held accountable for my actions?
If I'm drunk and I shoot someone or commit another serious crime, will they let me off just because I was intoxicated?

Again. Just because someone's had a few drinks doesn't mean they can't consent to sex. Although, there is a fine line between "had a few drinks" and someone drunk out of their mind. I would say if they have no problem standing up and they can still speak proper English, they should be able to consent to sex.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah. If someone is so drunk they literally can't stand up, I'd say they can't consent to sex. If they are just a bit tipsy then they can.

Someone that is simply drunk (although nowhere near passed out stage) can certainly consent to sex.

If I've had a few beers and then go to amazon.com and order a bunch of crap I don't need, can I change my mind later and say "I was drunk"?
If I'm a little tipsy and I drink and drive, get pulled over by a cop can I say "You can't charge me, I'm drunk" or would I indeed be held accountable for my actions?
If I'm drunk and I shoot someone or commit another serious crime, will they let me off just because I was intoxicated?

Again. Just because someone's had a few drinks doesn't mean they can't consent to sex. Although, there is a fine line between "had a few drinks" and someone drunk out of their mind. I would say if they have no problem standing up and they can still speak proper English, they should be able to consent to sex.

I'm not sure it's that easy. I can, and have(if my friends are to be believed, which I do), remained on my feet and functional for hours of my life that I do not remember while I was drunk. Which is part of the reason I used to drink with friends. They never let me do anything that would actually get me arrested, though I have certainly done things which I do not remember that I would never have done were I only moderately rather than severely intoxicated.

I would think that I was definitely drunk enough that I could not have consented to something as meaningful as sexual intercourse should somebody have taken advantage of me.

 

[Narz]

That was more a comment on the fact that people are individuals and you have to take them as individuals. If you click you click and if you don't then trying to mold them in your image or condition them to get a response you like is not going to help things. PUA is not good as a "relationship trainer" or "self-confidence booster" or "sociability builder" because it's not concerned with teaching you how to be sociable.

Most pua stuff actually Dore tell you to be socilable, at least what I've seen/read.

It's teaching you to misrepresent yourself and your intentions and manipulate situations to achieve a desired result: not a lasting and fruitful companionship with someone, but a personal selfish satisfaction at which the person can be tossed by the wayside.

This is purely your preconceived idea.

Where in all of that does it sound like productive or helpful education in how to socialize with people. I don't think there's anything wrong with hooking up or having purely sexual interactions with people. If they want sex and you want sex and neither of you want anything more: great! But that's not necessarily what PUA is about.

To me, practicing interacting with women is about choice. I've has some crap relationships and I'd like to have more choice. Many men just settle for the first female who will screw em and call it romance and try to demonize guys who want experience before they settle down as players or sex addicts. I've been in a couple bad relationships and I'd like to never be tempted to settle into one again.

Yes people change. People obviously change. As I said, relationships are about finding someone whose views and values, as well as the circumstances of their respective lives, coincide. It's not a one time Thing. It's not a "you like apples? I like apples!" and then you live happily ever after. Obviously not. It's a continuous process. In successful relationships people grow together. Views may change but the values you place in a partner continue to coincide with attributes you ascribe to your current partner. When those values don't - be it because of some emerged gap in goals: you want to travel and experience new places while she wants to stay home; she's looking for someone focused, motivated, and established while he's content to sit at home and goof off on the computer all day; or whether it's a change in circumstances: a demanding job is requiring more hours so that they are unable to provide the SO with as much attention as they would like; one of them gets a job opportunity on the other side of the country and the other is unwilling to leave - whatever it is relationships are ultimately a matter of individuals making individual decisions in the moment on the basis of what they hold as important or relevant. It's not some hellish evolutionary landscape of women callously tossing men in the dumpster because this man only makes 40k a year and that one makes 50. That's a really bleak view of the world, not the least because it frames men as these hapless undiscerning penises who will take any and every vagina that presents itself to them. Yes it's a problematic characterization because it portrays women as cold, calculating emotionless monsters looking to latch on to the highest standard of life possible, but it's just as problematic because it deprives men of any suggestion of agency or decision-making.

Again the point is choice, if you have no skills to get sex you're gonna put up with a bad relationship for a long time or bounce onto the next one you can get. Talking to lots of women is about noticing patterns so you can avoid the same mistakes. A typical guy can't do this and thus is stuck.

Maybe I am naïve or idealistic, or maybe not. I can only speak to my own experiences and the post-mortis of my own relationships. Same as you, same as anybody else. That's why we're here. To share our own lens with those of others and, in the process, perhaps achieve a greater understanding of ourselves and the world around us. I think dismissing someone's viewpoint on the basis of what is essentially a "No True Scotsman" argument is kind of a silly thing to do on an internet forum though.

That was pretty mature actually. I was perhaps out of line but I felt you made some generalizations that were unfair. Roosh hark represents all pua advice anymore than an eco terrorist represents all environmentalists.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm not sure it's that easy. I can, and have(if my friends are to be believed, which I do), remained on my feet and functional for hours of my life that I do not remember while I was drunk. Which is part of the reason I used to drink with friends. They never let me do anything that would actually get me arrested, though I have certainly done things which I do not remember that I would never have done were I only moderately rather than severely intoxicated.

I would think that I was definitely drunk enough that I could not have consented to something as meaningful as sexual intercourse should somebody have taken advantage of me.

Like I said, they should still be able to talk and walk like a normal person, and act at least halfway reasonable. I've never slept with anyone who's drunk so I'm not exactly the expert on the matter. I would say unless you just carry one of those drink detecting machines with you, it is impossible to know whether or not they're over the legal limit. So you just have to kind of go with common sense. Like I said, obviously if they're wobbly or can't even speak proper English than they're a no go. But if they just seem 'frisky' that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

 

[Narz]

I'd really like to sleep with someone on ectasy (both of us), would that make us both rapists?

Interesting question... can two people rape each other at the same time?

 

[Nexlev]

Drunk women are annoying and repugnant. 0/10 WNB

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm not an expert on that drug by any means. Although I would say if you both agree to the act of sex on ecstasy BEFORE either of you have it in your system, and then you go through the act together while you're on it, and she never says no or stop or resists and you're clean all the way through, then no harm no foul.