How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? (WARNING: could trigger old wounds)

How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? (WARNING: could trigger old wounds) Florian 9/9/12 4:28 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/4/12 12:44 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Florian 9/4/12 1:22 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/5/12 12:37 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Florian 9/5/12 1:50 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/6/12 5:36 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Florian 9/7/12 4:53 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Some Guy 9/7/12 10:10 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/7/12 5:36 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Florian 9/9/12 3:46 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/7/12 7:33 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/7/12 7:02 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Some Guy 9/7/12 10:02 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/8/12 8:09 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Jasmine Marie Engler 1/25/13 12:15 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Bruno Loff 9/5/12 10:32 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Heather MacDonald 9/9/12 2:56 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Florian 9/9/12 4:26 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Some Guy 9/9/12 8:31 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Florian 9/9/12 11:10 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/11/12 5:47 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/11/12 5:35 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Some Guy 9/18/12 5:22 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/19/12 10:02 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/19/12 2:45 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/19/12 5:01 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/19/12 5:08 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/19/12 5:23 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/19/12 7:14 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 10:20 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 10:31 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/19/12 3:24 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/19/12 5:22 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/19/12 5:59 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 9:34 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/20/12 11:43 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 4:07 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Jasmine Marie Engler 1/25/13 12:46 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 4:13 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/20/12 4:33 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 4:54 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 9/21/12 7:06 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/21/12 9:28 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 4:19 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Jasmine Marie Engler 1/25/13 12:38 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 4:23 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 4:32 PM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 9:38 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 9:51 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 9:58 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Tom M A 9/20/12 10:13 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Jasmine Marie Engler 1/25/13 1:08 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? Jasmine Marie Engler 1/25/13 1:17 AM
RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? (WARNING: could trigger The Xzanth 1/16/13 6:25 PM
thumbnail
Florian, modified 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 4:28 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/4/12 7:38 AM

How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? (WARNING: could trigger old wounds)

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
Very nice - and funny! - article.

How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?.

Not implying that any DhOers might be confused about this. It's just a very well-written and easy to understand article, in case you are ever in the unfortunate situation of having to explain it to someone who doesn't get it.

Do pass it on!

Cheers,
Florian
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/4/12 12:44 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/4/12 12:39 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
The case against Assange is extemely muddy to say the least. The case concerning George Galloway's remarks is not so muddy.

If a woman or a man says no to any form of sex, that should be that - no further action in that direction.

If a woman or man agrees to sex, generally that does mean - until we go our separate ways in the morning or whenever.

In the latter senario, initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established, and many people do enjoy being awoken by sexual stimulation, including full penetration.

So I'd agree with Galloway, at worst it is "bad sexual etiquette". At best, a pleasant suprise.

The problem with the Assange case seems to revolve around the lack of use of a condom rather than actual forced sex. Both women agreed to sex, but not without the use of a condom. Whether it split or slipped off is extremely difficult to prove (unless Mr Assange has a little problem that he's not publicly revealed so faremoticon ).

The basic problem surrounding sexual ettiquete is one of knowing what a person enjoys or is likely to enjoy without having to ask directly. Good sex is about the element of surprise, spontaneity, exploration, etc. If we had/have to ask "can I touch you there", "would this be alright", "can I screw you while you sleep", it just becomes to absurd to bother with - use your own hand it will always consent.

The article comes over as written by someone very smug as she assumes that the sexual act between the woman and Assange was merely for Assange's own gratification rather than both. Assange has not been found guilty of rape but Kate Smugthwaite is guilty of superficial presumption.

Almost all adults know that sex is about mutual pleasure. Okay, I'm not denying there is still a great way to go before men completely accept that a female has every right to sexual satisfaction, but that article is not an aid. If a man can't tell want is pleasing a woman I think he'd soon find out when next time his advances are rejected. A woman shouldn't have to say "Oh yeah, touch me there, touch me that way". That sounds like something out of a porn film where every aspect is exaggerated for the feeble minded audience who are just out for quick self gratification.
thumbnail
Florian, modified 9 Years ago at 9/4/12 1:22 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/4/12 1:22 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
Hi Tom.

Interesting reaction.

Tom M A:
In the latter senario, initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established, and many people do enjoy being awoken by sexual stimulation, including full penetration.

So I'd agree with Galloway, at worst it is "bad sexual etiquette". At best, a pleasant suprise.


Those are best case scenarios both.

Think of a real worst-case scenario. Hint: it's not necessarily the male's worst-case scenario.

The basic problem surrounding sexual ettiquete is one of knowing what a person enjoys or is likely to enjoy without having to ask directly.


This is not about sexual etiquette, though. It's about respecting another human being's integrity.

Good sex is about the element of surprise, spontaneity, exploration, etc. If we had/have to ask "can I touch you there", "would this be alright", "can I screw you while you sleep", it just becomes to absurd to bother with - use your own hand it will always consent.


I for one can easily spot how "can I screw you while you sleep" doesn't fit in with that enumeration. That's definitely something to be sure of in advance.

Unpleasant surprises are Things That Really Exist.

They can Really Damage a human being, too.

Good to keep that in mind.

The article comes over as written by someone very smug as she assumes that the sexual act between the woman and Assange was merely for Assange's own gratification rather than both.


Just as it's not about "sexual etiquette", it's not about Assange fandom either.

Almost all adults know that sex is about mutual pleasure. Okay, I'm not denying there is still a great way to go before men completely accept that a female has every right to sexual satisfaction, but that article is not an aid. If a man can't tell want is pleasing a woman I think he'd soon find out when next time his advances are rejected.


By then it's far too late.

Take the woman's point of view for a moment, because that's what it's all about.

This is great insight practice, too, taking the other point of view.

In addition to being, you know, a generally nice thing to do.

Cheers,
Florian
thumbnail
Bruno Loff, modified 9 Years ago at 9/5/12 10:32 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/5/12 10:32 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1094 Join Date: 8/30/09 Recent Posts
I do find it well written and simple to understand. Though I think the content which can be so simply understood is rather poor.

I find it hard to believe that she talks about Asange as if his guilt was a fact, rather than a hypothesis. That she decides to write in this way, on a public news site - despite the issue being full of possibly quite serious political implications - makes me think she is superficial and dumb, and that she then puts herself in a posture of moral superiority makes me think she is self-righteous on top of that.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/5/12 12:37 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/5/12 12:28 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
Sorry Florian, maybe I never got the humour of the article, maybe we’re getting our wires crossed, maybe I'm just not that worldly wise, maybe I should have written a reply when I wasn’t tired out after a hard days work(hence all the typo’s).

A worst case scenario? I can think of none in relation to consensual sex, unless you’re hinting at something really weird. So yeah, more than a little hint would be welcome.

What I was referring too was; when there’s an agreement, when does the agreement cease to be applicable. Generally most would agree that it is when the deed is done and the partners decide to go their separate ways. If they stay together in bed, the likelihood of more action is obviously a strong possibility. If one or both partners fell asleep, the man or woman may wake up horny and get frisky with the other, naturally expecting them to still be attracted to the idea of sex as they are still in bed and by implication - still a willing partner.

It would be just a bit strange to agree to a 30 minute bonk and once the alarm goes, that is that. Sex is sex and its own momentum takes over, also its own actions. I’m not suggesting that sex becomes some kind of monster, but that the situation can be full of surprises and unexplored/unknown desires coming into consciousness and acted upon.

Obviously there are some people who are completely screwed up in a dark way, but that’s why we have introductions, the chat up process. That should be enough to assess the mental stability of a potential partner (even for a one night stand).

Many people do find the one night stand attractive for that reason, they don't know the other person very well and there’s a dangerous element involved... alternatively they can do or have done things they normally would not do or have done. That’s why a lot of people cheat on their partners as they need the thrill of someone new or something dangerous, the attention is exceptional for the ego!

When it's someone famous, obviously other factors come into play too.

So there are many factors to consider.

To me rape is force, it is uninvited, unwelcome. Can a husband or partner rape? Of course. If a woman says no - no means no. Same applies for males too.

But a real worst case scenario after agreeing to a night of lustful fun, I cannot think of, apart from getting a disease down there. For a male it may be awakening to find something up his rear end that he'd rather not have. But even then, he should be understanding enough and simply manoeuvre the action in another direction which is pleasing to both rather than scream rape.

It's like when I wrote... The basic problem surrounding sexual etiquette is one of knowing what a person enjoys or is likely to enjoy without having to ask directly. Good sex is about the element of surprise, spontaneity, exploration, etc. If we had/have to ask "can I touch you there", "would this be alright", "can I screw you while you sleep", it just becomes too absurd to bother with - use your own hand it will always consent.

What I meant was, if you’re sensitive to another then you won't need to ask permission, nor ask directions, it is part of the interaction, the nonverbal sexual communication. If you began an act that the other did not find pleasing you should quickly realise that and change course. Their body would retract, tense up, they may push your hand away, etc.

Sex is about opening up, about giving as much as receiving. To have to think about asking permission would just interrupt the flow. And the author of that article was suggesting thought/verbalisation should be the key of control. If she’s not saying “Yes there”, her partner gets into a flurry of failure asking if she’s ok. Pathetic, poor guy will have performance anxiety after a few months of that. Plus a sensitive lover does not “try to please”, he/she does give pleasure.

I've said, some people do enjoy being wakened from sleep to find their partner giving them oral sex, playing around or actually having full intercourse (this could apply to a woman being on top of a sleeping man).

So yeah, of course it is about respecting one another, as I thought I made clear with various points. The problem with etiquette of any kind though is it takes away sensitivity, takes away responsiveness, takes away spontaneity. It puts you in thinking mode rather than free flowing action mode. It is conformity at it most invasive.

Obviously there are unpleasant surprises, but these can be quite accidental too. When my wife began nursing she was based in the casualty dept and has some stories to tell concerning the sexual mishaps of both sexes – very bizarre stuff.

But sex is sex, that is the point. It's not just about sticking a penis into a vagina nor slipping a vagina onto a penis, there are psychological aspects at play too, reasons for certain behaviours which cannot be judged too quickly nor superficially.

So I’d still say she’s not on using Assange as an example of a rapist, nor can sexual activity with a sleeping but willing partner be construed as rape. Okay the guy or gal may get slapped down for trying such behaviour, but surely it is easily forgiven and forgotten if the intent was to give pleasure rather than to take. Intent is everything in life, isn’t it?

I mean I just re-read the article and it still smacks of... I’m right, they’re wrong. There are no exceptions to the rule that penile insertion is rape if a woman does not firstly say aloud, ‘yes, fuck me’.

I hope that sounds as crude to you as it does too me, because that’s what sex will become if these extremists get their way. Just as religions have made sex dirty, nasty, corrupting, etc. My point here is, not all consent is verbal. My wife and I have always lead one another on, without drawing up contracts, without getting our parents to witness that we’re in full agreement that we’re about to have sexual intercourse and exactly what that should consist of. Some things just don’t need to be said, just as religions and laws have no right to set boundaries as to what is acceptable or not.

When I re-read the article I noticed the comments, and there’s a guy saying the same thing… “I did hear a woman on the radio recently say that waking up to an orgasm always put a smile on her face for the rest of the day”.

The reason I said; "The article comes over as written by someone very smug as she assumes that the sexual act between the woman and Assange was merely for Assange's own gratification rather than both", is quite simply due to the tone of the overall piece. It is simply very superficial and flippant. As the comment above clearly shows, some women obviously enjoy being awoken to orgasm.

The whole article is insinuating that Assange is a rapist, which is totally unjustified until we know for sure that he did rape these or another woman. She presents no real content in her article to give us any idea of what she’s referring too.

Rape is too serious a matter to be treated with such flippancy and sex is too natural to be controlled by such repressive ideas concerning the nature of consent.

Sex is about doing, both partners in partnership… the partnership of pleasing one another, not just one. Why confuse such a simple action by unnecessary intellectualism?

Her piece reads simply as more propaganda against Assange, and men in general. Why use Assange as an example? Why not just use a convicted rapist? Why not pick on the legal system? The penal system? The causes of rape? Why target a man whom the press have already declared guilty – that is guilty without trial.

Personally, I’m more concerned with the allegations that it is the Assange case is a CIA smear campaign, of which there is some evidence. And I’d add that no, I’m not an Assange fan as such, I have little interest in what he’s revealed. Everyone knows that politics and most politicians are completely and utterly corrupt.

I do not find it a funny article, just a piece of trash which takes a low aimed swipe using biased opinion without reflecting upon others, and that is simply not a nice thing to do.
thumbnail
Florian, modified 9 Years ago at 9/5/12 1:50 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/5/12 1:50 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
Hi Tom

no problem. We don't need to find the same things funny. Thanks for your reply.

When I read that article, I don't see an article about Assange, but an article about male strategies for rationalizing lots of BS about rape. Assange is mentioned only three times. Rape BS rationalization strategies are mentioned all the time.

The worst case scenario is the one where there is no consent.

What she mainly makes fun of, beginning with the title, is the male strategy for rationalizing BS about rape which goes like this: "But what does it MEEEEAN for her to consent?". That I find funny, the way she makes fun of this non-issue. "How bad must the sex of these people (who ask this question) be if they can't even tell when their partner is consenting?" That's the funny bit. The way she makes it obvious, by not overstating it a bit, just stating it plainly. That I find hilarious.

Often humor is a good way to make people aware of things that are not funny at all.

Here's something DhO-esque to think about, if you like: You're at a mixed meditation retreat in a retreat center out in some remote place. The sleeping room doors can not be locked. How do you feel about this as a man? How do you feel about this as a woman? Make it a silent retreat - all communication goes via glances given and received. How will a man feel about this? A woman? The retreat is led by a looming, physically strong man, giving one-on-one interviews once a day in his room - how is this for a man? A woman? And so on.

Cheers,
Florian

PS: Politics: I think Wikileaks sparked important discussions. Julian Assange's personality is another story entirely
.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/6/12 5:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/6/12 5:36 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
Hey Florain, I think our sense of humour must be poles apart, or at least our dialogue is getting seriously mixed up, but as you said, that’s okay, not a problem at all. Clarification clears up all misunderstandings.

I can sort of see where the humour aspect comes into now that I realise she is a comedian (I never knew that the first time I read her article!). But her humour is pretty shallow to say the least.

I mean, I could easily say… how bad IS the sex some women are having when they have to tell their partner “that feels great”, “do that some more” and “let me go on top – oh please let me go on top.” Just how BAD can it if a woman needs to “consent enthusiastically – prior, during and after the act.”

To me, it’s an insult to her partner’s sensitivity and general level of awareness. It also insults herself by suggesting she's too incompetent to teach her partner via subtle means.

Alternatively, I could also put it this way… how bad IS the sex some men are having when their partners feel the need to say “that feels great”, “do that some more” and “let me go on top – let me be boss.” Just how BAD can it be if a woman needs to “consent enthusiastically – prior, during and after the act.” What the hell is wrong with her, does she feel so inferior, so incapable of receiving pleasure, is she faking it, hasn’t she had an orgasm, does she think I'm a complete idiot? WHAT?

You said… "But what does it MEEEEAN for her to consent?". That I find funny, the way she makes fun of this non-issue”.

I don’t think she thinks of consent as a “non-issue”, quite the opposite. To quote Kate Smurthwaite… “George Galloway is no stranger to saying stupid things. Last year live on his radio show he tried to explain to me why women don't make good comedians. Ooops.

Now he insists, despite a botched attempt at "clarifying" his remarks, that Assange is guilty only of "bad sexual etiquette". He refers to having sex with a woman who is asleep. Passing the lubricant to the right during group sex is "bad sexual etiquette". Having sex with someone who is asleep is rape. It simply is not possible to consent while sleeping”.

My interpretation of the latter two sentences tells me what she thinks… “Having sex with someone who is asleep is rape. It simply is not possible to consent while sleeping”, or am I reading that wrongly?

You also said… “The worst case scenario is the one where there is no consent”.

That’s why I thought we were talking at cross purposes. I was addressing a time when consent had been established.

The article directly suggests that Assange raped. Why does it suggest that? By implication, by inclusion, by revolving her whole piece around, Galloway and O’Neill referring to the Assange case and the link is clear… Assange is a rapist.

Again to copy from the article… “While Julian Assange stares forlornly out of the front window of the Ecuadorian embassy like a bed and breakfast guest regretting ordering the full English the media is in disarray. How, they wonder, can someone who does something good (Wikileaks) also do something bad (rape)?

She is directly implying that he has done "something bad (rape)". I know she’s not directly saying it herself, as she’s saying “the media are wondering”, but the reader is not picking that up because rape is a very emotive word and the media are saying he has raped. She is confirming it in her own article.

Any journalist should know that to use Assange in an article on rape/bad sex is not only playing with fire but adding gallons of fuel to the red hot embers. That’s why I see the use of Assange as a cheap poke at men in general. One which distracts from the seriousness of his predicament, and from the seriousness of those who really have been raped.

My whole point is that rape can only be deemed as rape when it is clearly established that there was no consent whatsoever. If consent was clearly indicated, whether verbally or non-verbally, then there is no rape.

This leads to a question of why someone would initiate sex while their consenting (due to prior agreement) partner sleeps, the answers are many and varied.

The answer can never be a simple “she’s sleeping therefore she’s in no state to consent”… therefore “it is rape”. Or, “she’s not on top instructing – “touch me here, touch me there, touch me this way, touch me that way”…therefore “it’s rape”.

It may well be in some cases, but not in all, especially when consent for sex is established. Kate Smugthwaite does not consider this possibly at all. Unless a woman is verbally saying “let’s fuck”, Ms Smugthwaite implies that it is rape. That is just so superficial, and deeply ignorant of the actual way in which consent can be recognised by either sex, by both partners.

I don’t see the article as an attack or an exposé of “Rape BS rationalization” as I see valid points within the content and context of what Galloway and O’Neill are saying.

Clarification is simple.

You keep asking me to look from the female perspective. I assure you I’m doing my best to see all sides - without taking sides. What of Ms Smugthwaite? Is she putting herself in the mind of a rapist, or of a man who feels the article undermines his sexual confidence?

Everyone knows that sex without agreement is rape, even most rapists know that. Rape is a social problem as much as an individual one. And rather than just say, all men are potential rapists or all men endorse rape, it is more helpful to tackle the underlying issues – such as abusive parenting, low self esteem, low sociability, ideas such as the number of sexual conquests as a symbol of status, as transition to adulthood, etc, etc, etc.

Obviously rapists need prolonged counselling and emotional release. They ought to be locked up for a time, but what’s the point in locking them up for a few years or months and them letting them out with the same mindset, the same urges, etc. That system needs attacking not those who are working to protect women, to protect men and women’s rights via clarification of concepts, of actions, of the law.

Again, maybe it’s just me, reading too much into it all, but really, if someone wants to make a point about rape and/or bad sex why involve those who are as yet innocent of such crimes? Their lives may be trivial to those who would poke fun at all and sundry, but it is not so trivial if you do have to seek refuge from those who assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

And now to finish up (yes at long last), if I may be so bold to say your retreat scenario exercise, it’s meaningless. Fantasy is fantasy, not reality. I cannot put myself into a woman’s shoes as there are too many women, all different - differing experiences and/or perceptions. Same applies to men.

That is my basic point, we cannot standardise anything when it comes to human psychology or behaviours without encompassing every variation possible. Limited perspectives give us only illusions of understanding. Filters such as Feminism, Buddhism or whatever ism, simply distort simple truth.
thumbnail
Florian, modified 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 4:53 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 4:53 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
Tom M A:
Hey Florain, I think our sense of humour must be poles apart, or at least our dialogue is getting seriously mixed up, but as you said, that’s okay, not a problem at all. Clarification clears up all misunderstandings.


Cheers, Tom!

I mean, I could easily say… how bad IS the sex some women are having when they have to tell their partner “that feels great”, “do that some more” and “let me go on top – oh please let me go on top.” Just how BAD can it if a woman needs to “consent enthusiastically – prior, during and after the act.”

To me, it’s an insult to her partner’s sensitivity and general level of awareness. It also insults herself by suggesting she's too incompetent to teach her partner via subtle means.


I don't think this needs to be verbal at all, and I didn't read her article that way either. The examples she gave didn't seem exhaustive.

Of course, more subtle means of communication than speech will require more subtle antenna. All in all, this is the punch line of her joke: The corollary of "How could I possibly have known that she didn't consent" is "I can't tell if she's enjoying it". If that's the baseline for people's sex lives, how bad is that?

It's funny because it's so sad and true. So yeah, not deeply happily funny, shallow in that sense.

Snipping many interesting points you make, because I'm in a bit of a hurry...

And now to finish up (yes at long last), if I may be so bold to say your retreat scenario exercise, it’s meaningless. Fantasy is fantasy, not reality. I cannot put myself into a woman’s shoes as there are too many women, all different - differing experiences and/or perceptions. Same applies to men.


Yeah... you don't have to indulge in fantasy at all. Just ask a few women about this scenario. Like you say, people are different, so there's no shame in getting help with the exercise of putting on the other person's shoes.

That is my basic point, we cannot standardise anything when it comes to human psychology or behaviours without encompassing every variation possible. Limited perspectives give us only illusions of understanding. Filters such as Feminism, Buddhism or whatever ism, simply distort simple truth.


That's exactly why I find expanding my perspective is such a great thing to do. Talking to actual real living breathing women about the experience of living as a woman in a society designed by males for males is a Good Thing to do, and it doesn't automatically turn you into a feminist (unless you want to become one ;) ).

Look, it's not our fault the world is as it is. It's only our fault if it stays that way.

Cheers,
Florian
Some Guy, modified 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 10:10 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 10:10 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 343 Join Date: 8/9/11 Recent Posts
I don't have an opinion on the Assange case. It sounds like it needs to be hashed out in court.

But this notion that if you have sex with someone you then have carte blanche until the sun comes up is bizarre and disturbing. Initiating sex during sleep is exactly the kind of scenario that clearly requires explicit prior consent in any kind of relationship. If
that isn't clear to you, why equivocate, knowing there is a controversy? Why not err on the side of too much respect instead of too little?

Here's Louis C.K. (a comedian) on the question of ambiguous consent:


Louis CK - Rape
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 5:36 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 5:36 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Awesome Louis CK clip, Jason B. That chick: crazy.

Thanks for this thread, Florian and gents.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 7:02 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 7:01 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
Hello again Florain, we’ll begin with… “Of course, more subtle means of communication than speech will require more subtle antenna”. Of course, and that ought to be the point of a relationship, even a one night relationship. Help them evolve a little in a fun way;)

Next… “Yeah... you don't have to indulge in fantasy at all. Just ask a few women about this scenario. Like you say, people are different, so there's no shame in getting help with the exercise of putting on the other person's shoes”.

I understand the concept, it just doesn’t seem necessary as it rarely works out in real life as there as too many variables. Real empathy comes from insight not outsight.

With your retreat out in the back of nowhere scenario, why would a woman feel any more unsafe, or even more safe, if it was lead big guy? I would suggest that again is dealing with superficial stereotypes rather than realities. And a meditation on such is just meaningless.

If a person did feel unsafe, it’s a personal problem and us sitting here meditating on the possible causes will change nothing, only they can uproot the cause within themselves by firstly knowing the cause.

Most people I know who have been on retreats have had an enhancing experience. Obviously “the spiritual scene” is not free from predators of various forms. I mean, even Buddhist monks have abused children, women and men in every way possible. That is not exclusive to Catholic monks or priests.

Why does such go on, stupidity. People give others status, authority and they question their own worth to question such actions. So they silence themselves and others, and this conspiracy of silence continues the tradition of abuse.

And then perfectly… “Look, it's not our fault the world is as it is. It's only our fault if it stays that way”.

Totally agree, totally agree, and that’s why I don’t think articles such as that one really help as it is grounding people in a conditioned state, keeping alive the old stereotypes, etc. It’s not expanding their perspective, just pushing the same old biased limited points of view.

It would help if she could comprehend where Galloway and O’Neill are coming from. Neither of whom I would say are endorsing rape (nor bad sex) in any way. And that’s why as piece of humour her article failed me.

One sex should not have dominance. That is so obvious to so many of us, and yet it is exactly due to rationality that dominance exists, wouldn’t you agree? So let’s take different view of every situation, not through the eyes of rationality but through simplicity. Only by allowing all falsehood the opportunity to slip away will truth be revealed.

P.S. I do talk with women all the time; my wife, our two grown up daughters, my sisters, our female friends, aunts, cousins, etc. Basically I can’t escape them, but I’m cool with that and their views.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 7:33 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 7:33 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
Jason B:
I don't have an opinion on the Assange case. It sounds like it needs to be hashed out in court.

But this notion that if you have sex with someone you then have carte blanche until the sun comes up is bizarre and disturbing. Initiating sex during sleep is exactly the kind of scenario that clearly requires explicit prior consent in any kind of relationship. If
that isn't clear to you, why equivocate, knowing there is a controversy? Why not err on the side of too much respect instead of too little?

Here's Louis C.K. (a comedian) on the question of ambiguous consent:


Louis CK - Rape


I agree with you, obviously none of us know what took place, and that ‘s how it should be left to stand. Why form opinions when we simply don’t know? And worse still, why do some journalists propagate complete lies as truth until the truth is actually out? Let’s face it, truth is something of a rarity in this world.

I ‘ve tried to explain my meaning here, obviously not too well. I am defending those who have established an agreement for sexual intercourse to go all the way, to do whatever within an act of love. I don’t care about societies standards, nor any other standards. If people wish to initiate sex with a willing partner, even while that partner is asleep, big deal. Look at the motive, at the intent, at the interaction between the partners.

Where I’m coming from is considering the fact that sex involves varying degrees of surrender. Admittedly, surrender is a problem for those who wish complete control. However there are those, and great number of women and men, for whom complete surrender is the way to go, it is a doorway to their spiritual side if you like.

I am not nor have been I been ambiguous in any way. I’m just saying what I feel in as clear a way as I can. I am giving space to this dialogue to open up, indeed to surrender to understanding rather than paddle down the stream of standardisation or stick with some preconceived idea.

I think I’ve made it fairly clear that I do not in any way condone rape. I just see many cases, such as the one Louis C.K. brings up, as not the problem of the woman, but the fear of the man, the insensitivity of the man (just how Bad sex is this guy providing his groupies?).

Surely he should be able to read the signals, it doesn’t take much. If he misinterpreted those signals the woman would let him know in no uncertain terms and therefore he would have to back off, or take another route. Some women, as with some men, enjoy “rough sex”. Who are we, or comedians, or religions, or politicians or whoever to say no to that. If it is taking place within an agreement, then it is none of our business what these people get up to in the privacy of their abode.

You see, “erring on the side of too much respect”, is not what the woman wanted is it? She wanted a man man enough to take her as she wanted taken. If that sounds strange I’d suggest you ought to have more sex and really let go. Because really letting go does allow sex to become a vehicle for transcendence. And no, really letting go doesn’t mean getting weird or getting into something like S&M, but it may do, who cares so long as it is between two or more consenting adults and so long as it is something you know within yourself that is your path.

But wait a minute you may say, wait a god damn minute... the woman didn't consent, how can a sleeping woman consent???

If you put yourself in a vulnerable position, you have to take responsibilty. So go off with a stranger, no matter how nice they may appear, Bad sex can happen for real. Obviously you don't know their kinks, their self behind the public persona. So this is now becoming a matter of self rather than other. If self is so stupid, stupid will do.

Is that just too blunt, too real?

It's a revelation to me.

We can try to blame others, and we can come up with justifications, but at the end of the day, we put our self in the situation that we find our self in. That's why laws ultimately do not help. The deed is done, it is too late. So rather than accept responsibility we seek vegeance.

So if the guy thinks it is a good idea to insert his penis while his sexual partner sleeps that is part of his sexuality. Shouldn't we have questioned him rather than assume he's just a straight, wham bam thank mam regular guy? Our ignorance is an excuse. If we fail to establish a relationship, we fail our own integrity.

Of course part of this is due to society's reluctance to be open about sex, and that is why all conformity leads to stupidity, to suffering.
Some Guy, modified 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 10:02 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/7/12 10:02 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 343 Join Date: 8/9/11 Recent Posts
And no, really letting go doesn’t mean getting weird or getting into something like S&M, but it may do, who cares so long as it is between two or more consenting adults and so long as it is something you know within yourself that is your path.


From what I understand, as a devoted fan of Dan Savages writing, people who are into S+M put a great deal of emphasis on communication, consent, safe words. You need these things to create an environment where surrender is safe. People who don't play by those rules are considered dangerous and shunned.

If you're sleeping with someone you only know a little, and you start having sex with them, and they don't wake up, that's ok with you? Nothing strikes you as odd there?

Tom, your posts sound like naive pretzel logic to me. You don't get the vulnerability and genuine sense of danger a woman might feel on retreat with a bunch of strange men? It doesn't seem necessary to ask women about this scenario because there are too many variables?

You have to realize the backdrop of the conversation is the fact that reported rapes are routinely ignored by law enforcement. Women are used to being told "it's not rape." Is that a stereotype? According to human rights watch, "in the United States today there are an estimated 400,000-500,000 untested rape kits sitting in police evidence storage facilities and crime labs across the country...."

You say, "If a person did feel unsafe, it’s a personal problem and us sitting here meditating on the possible causes will change nothing, only they can uproot the cause within themselves by firstly knowing the cause." I'm sorry, you're just uninformed here. According to the CDC, here are some possible causes:

Nearly 1 in 5 women has been raped at some time in her life.
One in 4 women has been a victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in her lifetime.
One in 6 women has experienced stalking victimization during her lifetime in which she felt very fearful or believed that she or someone close to her would be harmed or killed. Much of stalking victimization was facilitated by technology, such as unwanted phone calls and text messages.

Almost 70 percent of female victims experienced some form of intimate partner violence for the first time before the age of 25.
Approximately 80 percent of female victims of rape were first raped before age 25.
Female victims of violence (sexual violence, stalking, intimate partner violence) were significantly more likely to report physical and mental health problems than female non–victims.


I'm sorry you feel stereotyped as a man by all this. But equivocating about consent is only fulfulling the stereotype you fear. Perhaps you should "uproot its cause within yourself."
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/8/12 8:09 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/8/12 8:07 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
Jason, let’s look at what I’ve said to see whether I am deranged and dangerous before you lock me up and throw away the key or banish me to the Ecuadorian Embassy for practising pretzelian equivocative clarity.

• I understand rape as an act of forced non consensual sex
• When consent has been established no sexual act can be rape
• If one partner indicates that they do not wish to continue with whatever action, stop/change or it is rape
• In all matters the person is ultimately responsible for their choices
• In all matters the person is ultimately responsible for their reactions
• In all matters trauma need not occur if there is no adverse reaction

There is a quote from someone who posted in the comments section below the article we are discussing... “I did hear a woman on the radio recently say that waking up to an orgasm always put a smile on her face for the rest of the day”.

You also posted a link to another failed attempt at humour from Louis CK concerning a woman who wanted to be "forcefully taken".

So here are a few people (women), who understand their sexuality more than those who wish to keep it in a social straightjacket. They do not fear what they are, and they will move beyond what they are without fear.

Have you ever considered that Louis C.K. could just be saying that as he knows people find “weirdo’s” funny. It’s like little kids who laugh at their friend because he has big ears, or she has ginger hair, or whatever difference they can differentiate. I find people like that Louis C.K. or Kate Smugthwaite pathetically superficial as they can’t comprehend anything beyond their own little self. They feel threatened by it, so they attack.



You said “If you're sleeping with someone you only know a little, and you start having sex with them, and they don't wake up, that's ok with you?”

Well obviously I’d find that one a little strange, having sex with a dead body, not for me. I prefer the living, they’re warm, responsive and can lead you to a place you’ve never been. But seriously you’re taking it way out of context. Keep it simple, read it as it's written.

Emotions distort facts don’t they? Read without any emotion.

That’s why I reject Florain’s kindly advice about looking from a female’s point of view. There are some tough females out there, just as there are many who are way too soft.

So, you're going to get many degrees of reaction or response concerning rape from every woman who has been raped. Just as you are going to get many varying reactions or responses concerning initiating sex with a sleeping partner. Which reaction or response is the right one?

Every aspect of our life is about our ability to clearly interpret or discern. We cannot do that if we are so wrapped up in emotion, in fear.

And yes, some of the women I know have been through it, they were raped. Some were teenage girls when it happened, by boys their own age or by older men, others were attacked by apparent male friends. I am not being unsympathetic nor am I ignorant of what we are discussing. I do happen to live in the real world and know it pretty well.

Working with women who have been raped is the same as working with those who have suffered any form of trauma – all traumas are emotional. Even those who have problems getting over broken bones due to falling off a mountain are reacting from an emotional centre, wouldn’t you agree?

So where lies the problem, the cause of the problem? Is it out there… big men leading retreats, remote settings, big snow covered mountains, guys who are power crazed and take what they want via brute force? Where is the problem?



What have I been saying… people do enjoy sexual acts, just as people will assume that others will enjoy their brand of sex in the same way that they themselves enjoy it.

Let me put it this way.

Let’s say you went off with a Dungeon Master or Mistress, but you had no idea that they were such. So you were attracted to the person, got chatting, he/she say’s “let’s go back to mine for some fun, you know FUN”. You say, “Oh you mean sex don’t you?”, “well can you think of any better fun at this time of night?” says your potential victim. “Okay, I’m horny, let’s go” you say.

Nowhere did they reveal that sex to them means whipping, leather outfits, masks, whatever they get up to. You assumed that “fun” meant, getting naked, fumbling around, ending with penetration and (for the ladies) hopefully orgasm. Just as they thought you meant “fun” as in getting tied up, whipped, and whatever else it takes to get them off or to take them to that place called heaven.

So who is at fault? Why didn’t you ask what they were into? Are you so inexperienced or lacking knowledge that you thought all Dungeon Masters/Mistresses just wore black leather and had a tattoo on their forehead saying “who’s for S&M”? Are you so socially conditioned that you think sex is just about creating babies, cocks and cunts?

There is no normality. Normality is a myth perpetrated by marketing people who just want your money so that you can feel normal, part of society, cared for, blah, blah, blah.

I’m addressing scenarios where both male and female are in full control of their choices, they are making agreements. Which leads us to, what is it to be in full control?



There is nothing much to say about rape is there? It’s so obvious what rape is. The discussion of rape is a problem for the intellectually inferior. They have to make something more than it actually is simply to boast their own sense of self worth, their belief that they know far more than others.

If you do wish to discuss rape, then fair enough, but include facts about men who have been raped too. Or do men not count as they are too big and tough? Plus they frighten poor little ladies at retreats don’t they?

Do you know why the police routinely ignore claims of rape? Lack of evidence. Lack actual concrete proof. If it’s one persons word against another, that is useless in a courtroom. Semen stains prove nothing. Bruises prove nothing. It is difficult to get to the bottom of these claims, but they do occasionally manage to get the guy.

There are in all probability far more unreported than reported rapes. Why do the females/males not report it? For so many obvious reasons… lack of real evidence, fear of being suspected of false reporting, fear of violence from the rapist, class issues, embarrassment, etc, et, etc.

Now let’s get to the bigger problem… child abuse. 99.99% of children suffer abuse by parents, relatives, friends, etc. It’s like Florain said, “it's not our fault the world is as it is. It's only our fault if it stays that way”.

The problem of all forms of violence and suffering can all be traced back. Namby pamby cotton wool idealism isn’t changing the real problem… the way we treat one another, the way we bring our kids up, the way we interact as adults. But more importantly, the way we understand the world and the way we make the world as it is.

Personal safety is a personal issue. Responsibility lies solely with us.
thumbnail
Heather MacDonald, modified 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 2:56 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 2:48 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 31 Join Date: 3/31/11 Recent Posts
Florian Weps:
Very nice - and funny! - article.

How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?.

Not implying that any DhOers might be confused about this. It's just a very well-written and easy to understand article, in case you are ever in the unfortunate situation of having to explain it to someone who doesn't get it.

Do pass it on!

Cheers,
Florian


As a female I find the article just a little silly. In itself, demeaning to both sexes, and achieving nothing really. There is so much wrong with this article. The title doesn’t fit anyway. It would be more appropriate to be:- How bad IS the sex everyone is giving? Or even:- How bad IS the sex everyone is taking?

If you are raped you are not having sex. If someone has sex with you while you are asleep you are not having sex. It’s just a silly title misleading the seriousness of rape.

This paragraph in the article just doesn’t make sense (to me anyway!):-
O'Neill claims that in order for rape to occur we must prove "the man knows she did not consent, or was utterly reckless as to the question of her consent".


I can see what O’Neill is getting at here; there is a lot of sex that takes place under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Was the man blind drunk or so out of it to understand she was pushing him off and not feeling his pecs as he slabbered all over her lips making speech incapable? Is he mentally challenged?

We do have to weigh up both sides of a claim when a woman says she’s been raped. There are regrettably too many proven cases of false rape claims!

But it’s her interpretation of what O’Neill has just said that baffles me:-
The implication is that as long as you pause long enough for her to shout "no" or punch you in the face, it's no longer your problem.


That is extremism taking it to the extreme.

During foreplay, a woman and a man are reading one another’s body language, intents, responding to the signals each are giving off. This is usually done by gesture rather than intellectual communication, as speech is simply unnecessary.

In a rape case, there is either no or little foreplay. The rapist has no interest in kissing, caressing, taking time, etc. The man just forces himself upon the woman with little or no warning.

When a couple are getting it on, the continuation of foreplay is the consent. If a woman didn’t want to go the full way, she’d indicate that by stopping kissing, hold his arms down or make an excuse to use the bathroom or simply say “no further”. She’d end it and most men would live with their disappointment or live in hope for better progress next time.

She’s taken O’Neill’s statement out of context and manipulated it for her own end, as O’Neill said:-
Feminists always focus on the state of mind of the woman or women involved in an alleged rape and disregard the state of mind of the man.

This is a terrible error, because in order for rape to have occurred, it is not enough to prove that the woman did not consent; we must also surely prove that the man knows she did not consent, or was utterly reckless as to the question of her consent, and carried on regardless.

That is, rape must involve an intention on the part of the man to commit rape. The man must have a guilty mind - or what is referred to in law as mens rea - in the sense that he knows he is committing rape.


The “man must have a guilty mind”, got me. I was like, what? But then there are the mentally impaired or challenged. I know elsewhere you’ve said this article is about "the male strategy for rationalizing BS about rape", but there are some strange mental states that people get into and we do have to consider all possibilities before concluding with a final judgement.
There was a case of a woman who went sleep walking. This was going on for sometime before her husband realized and followed her. She was caught having sex with a stranger, and had been doing this many times with many men, here’s the link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6540-sleepwalking-woman-had-sex-with-strangers.html

Do we just laugh that off, prosecute the men for rape, or understand it for what it is?

Really, we do have to weigh up all factors to establish whether it was or was not rape. Rape is a serious charge for any man to face, or even as someone pointed out, a woman to face. And as silly as that sounds it is on the increase, not just a woman raping a man, but there have been too many cases of a woman raping a child.

So we do have to approach it with a balanced mind and know the “male BS rationalization” from what is not male justification.

Yes, we all have a slightly different sense of humour but to suggest that this article be passed around is strangely funny. Just not in a, ha-ha-ha, way, especially when you seem to be attempting to support a feminine point of view. Feminists are not really representative of females in general, many of us view them with suspicion and as extremists.

This paragraph, I also found funny in a non-funny way:-
After all why do we have sex? There can only be two reasons: reproduction and pleasure. Sex for reproductive purposes requires a great deal of consideration and discussion around consent. Presumably no-one thinks "well she's asleep, she's not moving, that probably means she wants to have a baby with me".


Just how deluded is this woman? The vast majority of children are not planned, not born out of love’s embrace. It simply reflects her obsession with an unnatural form of consent. Obviously planning a child takes discussion but the implication is “Yes, I want us to have a baby”. It would be somewhat extreme for me to lie down and say to my man, “Ok, I now consent”. It is laughable alright. Just how complicated does she think the issue of consent is? Or, just how mentally deficient does she think we all are that we don’t know when someone is or is not consenting?

And what pleasure are we getting from sex? Is it just our own sexual gratification? Are we simply using the other person as a human rag to masturbate on/in/against? That paints a deeply sad picture of human relations in the twenty-first century.


That again seems funny, whoever claimed that romance is dead? Of course it is for our own gratification. We can try to justify it otherwise but really it is for our own pleasure if we are honest. Consensual sex is mutual masturbation in many forms no matter how you look at it (unless it is done exclusively for reproduction and then a few seconds later off to sleep).

One aspect of the ongoing replies which strikes me is the unnecessary confusion. It is as if some are not reading what is written, but reacting to what they think the other person is saying. One person refers to scenario’s of consensual sex, another turns that into a non consensual sex scenario. If we take time to read it makes all the difference.
thumbnail
Florian, modified 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 3:46 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 3:46 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
Hi Katy

thanks for chiming in!

Cheers,
Florian
thumbnail
Florian, modified 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 4:26 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 4:26 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
Hi Heather,

Heather MacDonald:
As a female I find the article just a little silly. In itself, demeaning to both sexes, and achieving nothing really. There is so much wrong with this article. The title doesn’t fit anyway. It would be more appropriate to be:- How bad IS the sex everyone is giving? Or even:- How bad IS the sex everyone is taking?


Well, it was written by a comedian, which puts the silliness and understatement in perspective (for me, at least).

If you are raped you are not having sex. If someone has sex with you while you are asleep you are not having sex. It’s just a silly title misleading the seriousness of rape.


Abuse is abuse regardless of what it's called. Talking about abuse can trigger horrible memories in people, and I'm sorry I didn't mark it clearly in the thread title - I'll try to edit it after posting this response.

Actuall, I understand the article to be saying pretty much the same thing you wrote: rape and other forms of abuse are very serious, and strategies to rationalize not taking it seriously (such as blaming the victim, or joking inappropriately about it, or...) are obnoxious.

This paragraph in the article just doesn’t make sense (to me anyway!):-
O'Neill claims that in order for rape to occur we must prove "the man knows she did not consent, or was utterly reckless as to the question of her consent".


I can see what O’Neill is getting at here; there is a lot of sex that takes place under the influence of alcohol or drugs.


He's blaming the victim, it's that simple. It's a time-honored and very ugly strategy, and it doesn't get prettier when drugs or alcohol or mental conditions are instrumentalized for it.

During foreplay, a woman and a man are reading one another’s body language, intents, responding to the signals each are giving off. This is usually done by gesture rather than intellectual communication, as speech is simply unnecessary.

In a rape case, there is either no or little foreplay. The rapist has no interest in kissing, caressing, taking time, etc. The man just forces himself upon the woman with little or no warning.


How about forcing kisses or caresses on someone? It's not rape, but it's still abusive behavior.


The “man must have a guilty mind”, got me. I was like, what? But then there are the mentally impaired or challenged. I know elsewhere you’ve said this article is about "the male strategy for rationalizing BS about rape", but there are some strange mental states that people get into and we do have to consider all possibilities before concluding with a final judgement.
There was a case of a woman who went sleep walking. This was going on for sometime before her husband realized and followed her. She was caught having sex with a stranger, and had been doing this many times with many men, here’s the link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6540-sleepwalking-woman-had-sex-with-strangers.html

Do we just laugh that off, prosecute the men for rape, or understand it for what it is?


Valid points. They concern border-line situations. Well inside, so to speak, of the border at which these interesting cases occur, there is this immense heartland of male obliviousness to male privilege. I posted the link to this article here, aiming squarely at that large target. This is, after all, the "Morality and Daily Life" sub-forum, and there is an entire Buddhist Precept devoted to the subject of sexual mis-behavior.

(Snipping a good point, I hope someone picks up on it)

One aspect of the ongoing replies which strikes me is the unnecessary confusion. It is as if some are not reading what is written, but reacting to what they think the other person is saying. One person refers to scenario’s of consensual sex, another turns that into a non consensual sex scenario. If we take time to read it makes all the difference.


Weird how the self-image inserts itself between what's written on the screen and what reaches the eyes, isn't it? Anything which challenges the assumptions upon which said self-image is based, is filtered out...

So yes, that was very interesting to observe, that fiercley serious tug-of-war with definitions - as if that has any bearing on the actual suffering of actual feeling human beings. It's so easy to forget that it's actually the victim who got injured, no matter how much the perpetrator may be whining how their pride got hurt when everybody is talking about the victim instead of them.

Cheers,
Florian
Some Guy, modified 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 8:31 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 8:20 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 343 Join Date: 8/9/11 Recent Posts
Heather MacDonald:

One aspect of the ongoing replies which strikes me is the unnecessary confusion. It is as if some are not reading what is written, but reacting to what they think the other person is saying. One person refers to scenario’s of consensual sex, another turns that into a non consensual sex scenario. If we take time to read it makes all the difference.


Florian:
Weird how the self-image inserts itself between what's written on the screen and what reaches the eyes, isn't it? Anything which challenges the assumptions upon which said self-image is based, is filtered out...

So yes, that was very interesting to observe, that fiercely serious tug-of-war with definitions - as if that has any bearing on the actual suffering of actual feeling human beings. It's so easy to forget that it's actually the victim who got injured, no matter how much the perpetrator may be whining how their pride got hurt when everybody is talking about the victim instead of them.


I thought these comments may have been directed at me, so I went back and reread the article, and this thread. I can see that my remarks might seem unforgiving of Tom, who has made many protestations that he understands the need for consent. Of course, I don't question that, Tom. The problematic kernel as I see it is found here:

Tom:
initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established


...which seems to me a gross assumption. I did not "turn it into a non-consensual sex scenario," but I certainly recognize that it could be one. I never suggested that every sleep/sex scenario precludes consent, nor does every one include it. It is a scenario where consent needs to be explicit. That's my point. (By the way, there cases where someone might not wake up: on meds, blackout drunk, unusually heavy sleeper.)

Tom
If a woman or man agrees to sex, generally that does mean - until we go our separate ways in the morning or whenever.


This is what I call equivocating. The same can be said about Tom's remarks on Louis CK. She said no. Like Katy said, she's crazy. If she's into rough sex, she's going about it in the wrong way, putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position. Like I said, responsible people who play those games take the guidelines very seriously. Guidelines make freedom possible. They're what differentiate games - sex games, violence games - from terrible realities.

These definitions do matter, and do have a direct impact on actual suffering human beings. I guess I agree with Kate "Smugthwaite", and, I think, the OP: if there is confusion about consent, you have a problem. Is that so hard? A "social straight-jacket?" "Namby pamby cotton wool idealism?" Am I reading this right?

Anyway, Florian and Heather, I hope I'm addressing your concern.

(Edited for detail.)
thumbnail
Florian, modified 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 11:10 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/9/12 11:00 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
Hi Jason

Jason B:
I thought these comments may have been directed at me, so I went back and reread the article, and this thread.


Actually, I was making a general comment about the stuff discussed in this thread and how it has been discussed. I didn't have anybody in particular in mind.

Yes, the definitions matter, as they do have an impact on suffering, so it's good they are discussed.

However, those who cause this kind of suffering have a great interest in endlessly debating the definitions, since this binds up resources, creates doubt and confusion, and draws attention away from what was done to the victims.

Always interesting how the kilesas work, subtly altering perception.

These last three paragraphs were not directed at anybody personally either, just a general observation.

Cheers,
Florian
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/11/12 5:35 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/11/12 5:35 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
Jason B:
I thought these comments may have been directed at me, so I went back and reread the article, and this thread. I can see that my remarks might seem unforgiving of Tom, who has made many protestations that he understands the need for consent. Of course, I don't question that, Tom. The problematic kernel as I see it is found here:

Tom:
initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established


...which seems to me a gross assumption. I did not "turn it into a non-consensual sex scenario," but I certainly recognize that it could be one. I never suggested that every sleep/sex scenario precludes consent, nor does every one include it. It is a scenario where consent needs to be explicit. That's my point. (By the way, there cases where someone might not wake up: on meds, blackout drunk, unusually heavy sleeper.)

Tom
If a woman or man agrees to sex, generally that does mean - until we go our separate ways in the morning or whenever.


This is what I call equivocating. The same can be said about Tom's remarks on Louis CK. She said no. Like Katy said, she's crazy. If she's into rough sex, she's going about it in the wrong way, putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position. Like I said, responsible people who play those games take the guidelines very seriously. Guidelines make freedom possible. They're what differentiate games - sex games, violence games - from terrible realities.

These definitions do matter, and do have a direct impact on actual suffering human beings. I guess I agree with Kate "Smugthwaite", and, I think, the OP: if there is confusion about consent, you have a problem. Is that so hard? A "social straight-jacket?" "Namby pamby cotton wool idealism?" Am I reading this right?


Jason, let’s look at this “problematic kernel” a little more. To me, it really is a soft centre, once chewed - easily digested. But please do be unforgiving in your replies as I feel you’ve been holding back somewhat and I’m open to a full on dialogue.

I have stated, and you have challenged the statement… “Initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established”.

However, your replies so far have failed to satisfy me as they appear to be reactionary. Obviously you could say that about what I’ve written but I am expanding upon catchphrase answers such as “bizarre and disturbing”. You have to give us more meat, the why of it.

So, an agreement has been established between two people that they will spend the night together in the throes of passion, no strings attached full blown sex. That agreement holds good until they separate or dissolved the said agreement.

Sex for a night, is sex for a night. It’s about sharing, surrendering your body and mind with the other just as they surrender their body and mind to you.

So why, if they follow exactly what the words mean, why describe that as “bizarre and disturbing”?

Let’s take another scenario. These two consensual sex maniacs are going at it like olympians about to hit the zone. The guy gets the idea that he’d like to try anal sex. So he pulls out and begins rubbing against her butt, then without warning tries to thrust inside her butt. “What the fuck, she screams”, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry” says the now deflated macho man. “I thought”, “Well, don’t think, next time see if I want to do that”, the woman says with rightful indignation.

So there are ways to go about doing whatever you want to do. If he approached in a different way, it may have been alright. She may have allowed him to express his scatological desire.

Does he have to expressly and explicitly ask permission? I’d say no. Done in a gentle loving manner the woman may allow entry into that “unnatural domain” (a quote from a Christian minister on homosexual sex which obviously has a parallel here). If she’s not into that, she would simply move his penis elsewhere, with nothing more mentioned about the attempted buggery.

So consent isn’t necessarily about either partner verbally agreeing, but implying, allowing, surrendering. Just as non consent isn’t necessarily about voicing “No”, it can come via a silent gesture or manoeuvre.

This isn’t “stereotypical BS male justification rationale”. It’s what it can only be. Agreeing to sex is agreeing to be permissive. An agreement which is taken as “use my body as you will.”


“initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established.”

So the agreement is in place, no one can possibly dispute what consensual sex is. The problem may arise from the acts which constitute sex, but why?

Jason you said… “It is a scenario where consent needs to be explicit. That's my point.”

For that particular act? It’s just inserting a penis into a vagina which a few minutes prior was completely welcoming. Do you get that? It’s not assault, it’s not rape. The guy is under the impression that the woman still wants him, that the initial agreement is on-going. It may be a wrong assumption (as most assumptions are), but it is based on their sexual relationship thus far. Which is in all fairness is very superficial and entirely open to interpretation by either person.

Obviously we have to be realistic here and include the fact that some women will do the same to a man. He’s asleep but fully erect, she gets on top, slips his penis inside, gently awakening him to what… rape, pleasure, fear, a nice surprise?

I would still say that it is a completely natural and loving act. To call it rape is to be an extremist, a killjoy, a person in need of clarity concerning human sexuality.

And twisting it to… “where someone might not wake up: on meds, blackout drunk, unusually heavy sleeper.” Only a desperate idiot would attempt sex under such conditions – apart from the heavy sleeper, all of which would be non-consensual – i.e. rape.

Can’t you see the contradictions within your thoughts? I’ve been talking of consent, implicit and explicit consent to sex. Obviously if someone wants to have sex with a blackout drunk or whatever they have a desperation problem, a confidence issue that needs looking at. You are blowing what I’m saying way out of proportion, twisting it saying into something entirely different. Why?

Arousing a sleeping partner by a sexual act is not attack. Superficial judgements such as “disturbing” mean nothing. A full moon is disturbing to some. Should we blow up the moon or help the person get over their problem?

It’s like nowadays, little boys aren’t allowed to play fights, to pretend. It’s so pathetic and a complete infringement upon their right as a human being – denying them survival skills, instilling fear of spontaneous action, breaking confidence, etc.

We’ve got too many people trying their best to implement their own agenda. Soon if a man even looks at a woman, it will be classified as a form of rape. Understand where your ideals are leading, look at how they are distorting a simple truth.

Society wants performing monkeys who obey the social norms of the day, but these norms are mostly not normal to a rational balanced person who leaves conformity to the cretins who deserve it... "go on off to war, be patriotic", "here try this new super drug", "GM food will save the planet", "Sex is just for procreation and remember, only one child per family"... blah, blah, blah.

Seriously Jason, lighten up… “This is what I call equivocating. The same can be said about Tom's remarks on Louis CK. She said no. Like Katy said, she's crazy. If she's into rough sex, she's going about it in the wrong way, putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position. Like I said, responsible people who play those games take the guidelines very seriously. Guidelines make freedom possible. They're what differentiate games - sex games, violence games - from terrible realities”.

She said “No”, because she wanted the guy to do something for her, something she feels would get her off – out of her mind. If she said, “Ok, here’s what I want you to do… Step 1: be rough. Step 2: be masterful. Step 3: tear my clothes off. Step 4: bring my clit to life. Step 5: ravage me with your throbbing cock. Oh, by the way, remember to surprise me”.

Well sorry, but game over. She’d know what was coming as she’s had to instruct the guy. If he read her body language he’d know she wanted it rough, she wanted domination, she wanted to completely surrender to her sexual impulse. Sexual interaction isn’t about the guy leading. Firstly it’s about assessing the situation, getting a feel of your partners needs on that particular occasion. Predictability become sterile, breeds boredom, stupidity, death. A real danger to any relationship.

But really, why twist it? Why blow it all up, way out of proportion. There’s no need to enter unnecessary scenarios which are just a figment of your imagination.

Let it go, be simple about what sex is, about what rape is.

“Oh but she could get hurt”. “She needs to apply guidelines”. “She needs to think of others”. Why is she “putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position?” She just wants to play and play hard. Why spread the implications of that simple lust outward, into universal proportions?

That to me is BS rationale. She wanted what she wanted, knew the risk involved but was willing to dive in headfirst. Who cares if she lacks social etiquette or isn’t nicely polished around the edge. The guy chickened out in her eye’s, he just didn’t get the joke.

“She’s crazy”. No, she’s just sex crazed, big difference. Satisfaction is all she asks, but everyone judges her, calls her names, would have her locked in jail so that they can play within the safety of thier preset guidelines and padded rooms. Bunch of namby pamby, conformist fools who don’t have an inkling of their own true nature. And that isn’t name calling – that’s the scientific definition.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/11/12 5:47 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/11/12 5:47 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
Florian Weps:
Hi Jason

Jason B:
I thought these comments may have been directed at me, so I went back and reread the article, and this thread.


Actually, I was making a general comment about the stuff discussed in this thread and how it has been discussed. I didn't have anybody in particular in mind.

Yes, the definitions matter, as they do have an impact on suffering, so it's good they are discussed.

However, those who cause this kind of suffering have a great interest in endlessly debating the definitions, since this binds up resources, creates doubt and confusion, and draws attention away from what was done to the victims.

Always interesting how the kilesas work, subtly altering perception.

These last three paragraphs were not directed at anybody personally either, just a general observation.

Cheers,
Florian


I'd have to disagree there Florain. When there is a matter of uncertainty or a lack of clarity, these issues have to be openly discussed or more importantly looked into by self, then the kilesas shall disperse. Then we see there are no victims just deluded actions. So the likes of Smurthwaite, Galloway, O'Neill, Us, we're all just trying to clear the cobwebs so that clarity may be and we see suffering for what it is.
Some Guy, modified 9 Years ago at 9/18/12 5:22 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/18/12 5:22 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 343 Join Date: 8/9/11 Recent Posts
And twisting it to… “where someone might not wake up: on meds, blackout drunk, unusually heavy sleeper.” Only a desperate idiot would attempt sex under such conditions – apart from the heavy sleeper, all of which would be non-consensual – i.e. rape.


That is the alleged scenario. Assange was accused of having sex with someone who was asleep. That's what I'm referring to. No twisting, or blowing out of proportion. That was the original subject, my friend. I see now you're talking about something else entirely.

From the article:

...He refers to having sex with a woman who is asleep.


I'm glad you and I and Kate Smurthwaite all agree that that would be rape if it indeed happened that way.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 10:02 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 9:59 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
Sure Jason, we know what the allegations are, but what I mean is, if someone consents to sex, they consent until they say or imply “no more”, or simply break the bond by going away.

What I’m trying to clarify is the timespan that consent lasts. To me it’s not rape if one falls asleep and the other initiates sex or even full intercourse as the consent has been granted – it is on-going until one says “No, that’s it over”.

It may indeed be poor behaviour to initiate sex with a sleeping partner, but it is not a crime and cannot possibly become so without serious implications for all relationships.

The reason I said “twisting it to, or blowing it out of proportion” was simply that you took what I said way out of context. The context being - consent has been clearly established and that consent continues until one says it’s over. By staying in bed suggests it is not over. That would be quite a natural assumption to make.

I was really poking fun at the whole scenario of one or both sexual partners having to get some form of on-going acknowledgement/consent and that such has to be verbally voiced at every given movement. That is just so ridiculous and superficial that obviously every sexual partner could cry rape at any given moment. So why would anyone bother with a partner when they’ve got their trusted non complaining hand!

That’s why I say rape is too serious to be so lightly treated. If certain women or men think they should be continually consenting they don’t understand the nature of sex nor human relationships (no matter how temporal). So their problem is their lack of understanding, not what the other does or does not do.

I mean, I don’t have to begin every post by writing... “Jason can I please reply to your comment?” Just as you don’t have to ask my permission. Permission has been established by the fact we are on this public forum and understand what we're getting into.

So to clarify my point… once consent has been established, it is on-going. Once either person says that’s it over - that is it, it is over. If neither says it is over – it is on-going.
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 2:45 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 2:21 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
if someone consents to sex, they consent until they say or imply “no more”, or simply break the bond by going away.
This renders a sleeping person - clearly showing their personal volition for rest - an object of the other person's volition, a living, sentient, albeit sleeping object to use for personal volition. This reads that if one person stays up later, then their waking volition trumps the other person's sleeping volition.

(edit)
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 3:24 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 3:20 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Obviously we have to be realistic here and include the fact that some women will do the same to a man. He’s asleep but fully erect, she gets on top, slips his penis inside, gently awakening him to what… rape, pleasure, fear, a nice surprise?

If accuracy is valuable in discussion, then it's worth noting that the comparison of an erect penis of a sleeping male to a vagina of a sleeping female is not an accurate one. The comparison is to the male anus: both are simply there and nothing can be determined about either body part's sexual arousal. To view these orifices as "accessible" for the awake party's sexual gratification goes to Florian's original point and then further: what's going on in the awake person's head and heart that the chance at one single orgasm is worth risking frightening/transgressing/harming a sleeping person with an object being moved in their body (vagina, anus, mouth, etc)


I would still say that it is a completely natural and loving act. To call it rape is to be an extremist, a killjoy, a person in need of clarity concerning human sexuality.

What should the effected party call it? They have every right to call it exactly as they experienced that unconsented-to object being placed in them without their consent: welcome or violation.

For North American and EU courts, this is fairly easy to decide: a sleeping person is showing their explicit volition for sleep.

The sleeping person can be said to be showing no other consent: there is no "continuous present" in consent unless the context is emergency medical treatment.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:01 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:01 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
if someone consents to sex, they consent until they say or imply “no more”, or simply break the bond by going away.
This renders a sleeping person - clearly showing their personal volition for rest - an object of the other person's volition, a living, sentient, albeit sleeping object to use for personal volition. This reads that if one person stays up later, then their waking volition trumps the other person's sleeping volition.

(edit)



You’ve left it wide open, so let’s go through this.

It’s not a violation of will if you understand the facts of human sexuality. You can make anything a violation if you are ignorant concerning the basic facts.

I mean, why eat, because you are violating a plant, an animal, a seed, or even a mineral. I could scientifically demonstrate that you are denying them their natural life, or in the case of a mineral - altering their basic volition. How dare you, what kind of an ignorant beast are you to commit such a monstrous act of domination?

However, being a rational human being, I’ll just say that a reaction is just that - a reaction according to a conditioning which does not take into account the actuality of the situation - the agreement for sex… the volition of sexual activity in accord with human desire and inevitable expression of such. Every act is an act of volition, however behind every act of volition is intent.

Sex means many things to many people. Surely your responsibility is to find out about the other first of all and then decide whether you wish to partake of their sense of delights.

So the volition for sexual experience encompasses domination, playful or otherwise. Big deal. Why comment on others chosen behaviour? The only problem we see is a problem of our own making.
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:08 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:08 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
It’s not a violation of will if you understand the facts of human sexuality
What are "the facts of human sexuality"?
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:22 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:22 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Obviously we have to be realistic here and include the fact that some women will do the same to a man. He’s asleep but fully erect, she gets on top, slips his penis inside, gently awakening him to what… rape, pleasure, fear, a nice surprise?

If accuracy is valuable in discussion, then it's worth noting that the comparison of an erect penis of a sleeping male to a vagina of a sleeping female is not an accurate one. The comparison is to the male anus: both are simply there and nothing can be determined about either body part's sexual arousal. To view these orifices as "accessible" for the awake party's sexual gratification goes to Florian's original point and then further: what's going on in the awake person's head and heart that the chance at one single orgasm is worth risking frightening/transgressing/harming a sleeping person with an object being moved in their body (vagina, anus, mouth, etc)


I would still say that it is a completely natural and loving act. To call it rape is to be an extremist, a killjoy, a person in need of clarity concerning human sexuality.

What should the effected party call it? They have every right to call it exactly as they experienced that unconsented-to object being placed in them without their consent: welcome or violation.

For North American and EU courts, this is fairly easy to decide: a sleeping person is showing their explicit volition for sleep.

The sleeping person can be said to be showing no other consent: there is no "continuous present" in consent unless the context is emergency medical treatment.


I agree accuracy is vitally important to a discussion, which is why I tend to stick to what people are saying rather than take it our of context. In no way was I comparing sexual organs, but sexual readiness. A woman having an erotic dream is sexually ready, just as a man being erect is ready. So she is wet and receptive, maybe asleep but to some partner’s she’s ready and they go for it.

Ditto with the sleeping guy scenario.

By the way. The anus is never receptive unless prepared via an external agency. i.e. lubricant. I was merely pointing out that it is not entirely an issue of male domination but that a female can and does mount a male while he sleeps. And within the context of my point, can it be rape if it is done with pure intent when both parties have already agreed to sexual union?

Now many are stressing the point that initiating sex or penetration may cause harm. Why, no one has said why such an action could cause harm. The parties involved both know they are there for one another’s pleasure, so what is the problem?

As I’ve also pointed out, some people do thoroughly enjoy such an action. Now to make judgements or laws against human behaviour is a violation in itself. If people consent to whatever, that is their business. If they try something and find it’s not so great in reality as their fantasy lead them to believe, move on. Let go of the bad experience, it’s over.

Does that sound callous?

To repeat, every scenario I have used is one where consent has been established beyond any shadow of a doubt. Being so, rape cannot take place when consent to use one another is fully given.

That consent may be misconstrued, but as I’ve pointed out, whose responsibility is it to understand the relationship they are entering?

Humans are not the greatest at communication, especially with sexual matters. There are so many stupid social taboos and personal issues to take into account, emotional distortion, etc. So yes, mistakes will be made whereby one person’s idea of great sex is completely alien to another’s.

And if that idea is to have sex with a sleeping partner, and if you would feel violated by such behaviour isn’t it your responsibility to find out about such proclivities before stripping off? Why point the finger at the other. You wanted sex, they wanted sex, but sex has many meanings… just don’t believe the romcoms or cosmo or scriptures, whatever fairytale happens to be popular.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:23 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:23 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
It’s not a violation of will if you understand the facts of human sexuality
What are "the facts of human sexuality"?


Seriously? Wide and varied.
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:59 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 5:53 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
And within the context of my point, can it be rape if it is done with pure intent when both parties have already agreed to sexual union?
That is for the receiving party to decide. Did they decide that waking up in this way is welcome or a violation.

Let go of the bad experience, it’s over.
Taking legal action against a violation is part of Western civilization: abuse, patent litigation, traffic violation and so forth. So while a person can just let transgressions go, people in several countries have the option of also seeking redress when they are transgressed.

If people consent to whatever, that is their business.
We agree [on this one sentence]. Personally, however, I disagree that "sleeping" is an extension of any consent. The law at present agrees that sleeping is not consent for anything, but sleep.

To repeat, every scenario I have used is one where consent has been established beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Then you do NOT believe that a sleeping person is also (by sleeping after or not after sex) giving consent to their bedfellow for sexual intercourse?

And if that idea is to have sex with a sleeping partner, and if you would feel violated by such behaviour isn’t it your responsibility to find out about such proclivities before stripping off? Why point the finger at the other. You wanted sex, they wanted sex, but sex has many meanings… just don’t believe the romcoms or cosmo or scriptures, whatever fairytale happens to be popular.
To be clear, for readers whose first language is not English, Tom is using the "understood you" usage of second-person singular, where he means "if [a person] would feel violated by such behaviour..." I don't always know why people use "the understood you" as it can be an affront sometimes, but sometimes people use it to speak.

Okay, back to you Tom: Yeah, if two people are going to get intimate then it's none of my business. I don't really weigh in on whether people know each other or not. That's their freedom as adults. However, no matter what you personally want in this thread and the hypotheticals you've posed, at present when a judge in North America or the EU weighs in on "consent" in a rape accusation, then being asleep is being asleep. It is not consent.

Thankfully, consent must be explicit (and given between adults or with guardians) when it comes to contacting another person, and there are a few medical excepts for "implied consent".

Though you may not like it "implied consent" for sex is NOT what a sleeping person is giving.
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 7:14 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/19/12 6:36 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Tom M A:
katy steger:
It’s not a violation of will if you understand the facts of human sexuality
What are "the facts of human sexuality"?


Seriously? Wide and varied.


Well, Tom, when you wrote:
It’s not a violation of will if you understand the facts of human sexuality. You can make anything a violation if you are ignorant concerning the basic facts.
and you hinge ignorance on not knowing them, it is quite in order that you would list and explain them. If you cannot do this, then by your own words, would you be ignorant and then able to "make anything a violation"?

A female can be moist/wet and not be aroused: the vagina has mucous membranes that are naturally moist and are a fantastic interface between the internal body and the external world: eye lids, inner cheeks, vagina -- mucous membranes. Amazing. And there are humidity changes going on all the time yet no arousal. Therefore, a female can be asleep, having a moist vagina and not be aroused, same as a female is walking in a grocery aisle buying chips, be moist and not be aroused. Same as you and I are probably blinking as we type enjoying nice moist eyelids, no arousal.

A woman having an erotic dream is sexually ready, just as a man being erect is ready. So she is wet and receptive, maybe asleep but to some partner’s she’s ready and they go for it.
Dreaming is also not implied consent.

So, if one adult states that they were raped while they sleep, then the awake party must be aware that they are asking a judge to state that sleeping is implied consent. Now what a legal precedent that would be.


Now if you are getting into an ambiguous case (sleepiness, speaking, uncertainty of what was said), then. yes: how horrifying for BOTH parties - one being called a rapist and the other feeling raped. Gender has nothing to do this. If this is your hypothetical, then I suppose many people could agree, this idea you would propose and consider is filled with misery. Is this what you mean? And yes, both parties will probably wish they had known each other much better, not so easily drawn in by arousal in the first place.


(edited: a giant anatomy image removed, trying to keep focus)
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 9:34 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 9:31 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
And within the context of my point, can it be rape if it is done with pure intent when both parties have already agreed to sexual union?
That is for the receiving party to decide. Did they decide that waking up in this way is welcome or a violation.



The receiving party made the decision to have sex with the other and as I've said... sex is sex, but what does that mean to the other? So it's is about two people, a relationship. Meaning, if the other has a tendency to penetrate or mount a sleeping partner that is an aspect of their sexuality and the expression of such. They will view that behaviour as totally natural and acceptable to both as they believe they are giving pleasure.

It’s like oral sex. Some men and some women find no greater pleasure, some are totally disgusted by that, but they don’t cry rape if their partner tries to go for it. They understand it as part of the other persons sexual preference and decide not to go down that route. They may indeed try it and give up after a few minutes, but their decision is their decision and in no way can it be attributed to a form of violation. The partner was merely presenting an opportunity which he or she thought would be suitable for both.

So either they don’t have sex with that person again or tell them directly that they don’t enjoy such and will nott partake in such action. No big problem, no accusation of rape or violation, nor triumphant will. They may realise that they are not 100% sexually compatible, but that’s all.

Now in such a scenario, without prior discussion neither could have known the others intentions nor intrepretation of what sex is. Both agreed to sex, and neither partner’s intention was to harm in anyway, just explore or express pleasure. Sex isn’t one dimensional; it is possible to switch behaviour to still enjoy sex without having to fulfil every quirk, but many people do have many quirks.

Very little is actually discussed concerning sexual intercourse: prior to, during or even afterwards. It is a given that one understands the others intent and that is why I stress responsibility when consenting to sex because it does mean many different things to many different people.

But really, is it so difficult to find out a little about a person before leaping into bed with them and yes, possibly putting your self into a very vulnerable position. Sex with a stranger is an unknown. Surely the onus is on self responsibility.

Hence the reason we chat up one another, weigh up one another. There is more to communication than mere words, especially when it comes to sexual communication. We can easily get a hint of the others sexual preference from their body language!

So it’s all about keeping it within context. If the other person has whatever form of behaviour as a sexual channel or expression, they will assume that the others consent to sex means that they can indeed channel their expression via their particular behaviour without fear of embarrassment, claims of rape, being branded crazy, etc.

We do have to go with the context of every situation, and consent is consent. That is part of my point. And when you say… “Did they decide that waking up in this way is welcome or a violation”.

That depends on the people involved obviously.

What I’ve been saying is that when people give another consent to use their body as they will, that consent stands as on-going during the duration of sex. To the person who initiates sex, or who penetrates, or who mounts a sleeping consenting sexual partner, it is not abnormal, it is not unloving, it is not taking, it is not raping. They view their behaviour as normal, wholesome, giving and beneficial to both. To the person who initiates sex with a sleeping consenting partner, the sex session is not at an end, it is on-going – so the consent is on-going.

A rapist on the other hand knows that they are doing wrong, that they are violating, taking that which is not given, that they are in control and must be in control.

Initiating sex with a sleeping consenting partner is not about control just as bondage is not necessarily about control either, it can all be very playful!

What is so difficult to understand there? Okay, I know there may be difficulties for those who have a fixed fear based mindset, but to those who are more organic and fluid, consent is consent until it is detracted, withdrawn. For most people, that means when we part ways or when one makes it clear that the end is now. Quite simple really.

So if someone is about to engage in an action and if they know they are easily hurt or offended, make that clear. For most people, the fun of sex is the not knowing what is about to take place. Hence some think it a nice idea to penetrate or mount a sleeping partner who has already consented to sex.

So basically, if someone wants to have sex with a sleeping consenting partner why complicate the matter. Openness, that’s what I’m on about.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 9:38 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 9:38 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Let go of the bad experience, it’s over.
Taking legal action against a violation is part of Western civilization: abuse, patent litigation, traffic violation and so forth. So while a person can just let transgressions go, people in several countries have the option of also seeking redress when they are transgressed.


A bad experience in the sense of poor sex is a transgression?

Western civilisation isn’t very civilised is it? Abuse does not correct abuse. Vengeance does not heal, simply makes matters worse. Fear is a terrible master, absolutely monstrous, for it embodies ignorance, hatred, hypocrisy, justification, confusion, cowardness, etc, etc, etc.

As I’ve tried to point out, no one is transgressed when consent for sex is given and if you enter a darkened room with eyes closed be prepared to fall.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 9:51 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 9:50 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
If people consent to whatever, that is their business.
We agree [on this one sentence]. Personally, however, I disagree that "sleeping" is an extension of any consent. The law at present agrees that sleeping is not consent for anything, but sleep.


Who cares what the law says. It's what is real that matters, not intellectual control nor clever word play. If you make an agreement once and it’s on-going, the agreement is an agreement.

I'm sure I said this to Jason... if I went into business with a partner we would not meet up every morning in the office and say “shall we form a partnership”, “what terms will we operate under”, etc. That is idiotic. The agreement is in place and on-going. Consent is an on-going issue until it is dissolved. Like a marriage, until death or divorse.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 9:58 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 9:58 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
I don't always know why people use "the understood you" as it can be an affront sometimes, but sometimes people use it to speak.


Those who are affronted must have an affront. Ego is such a flimsy little creature, drop the front and see the fore.

Couldn’t resistemoticon
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 10:13 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 10:13 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Thankfully, consent must be explicit (and given between adults or with guardians) when it comes to contacting another person, and there are a few medical excepts for "implied consent".

Though you may not like it "implied consent" for sex is NOT what a sleeping person is giving.


It sounds as if you live under an extremely repressive regime if consent must be give before any form of contact. How pathetic, how fear ridden, how emotionally unbalanced. I’d be questioning my conformity such a society, not to the meaning of consent.


Implied consent is an everyday occurrence within and around so many aspects of our behaviour, not just in regard to sex. The fact is, consent is given by many many many people for all forms of sex which are not sanctioned by religions, governments, whoever/whatever. Many sleeping partners do enjoy being woken to getting their brains fucked out. You know, just like many here are attempting a similar thing by hitting this or that Jhana.

To me, anyone taking consent to the extreme is thereby negating natural human relationships and completely bastardising genuine play, fun.

I’m sorry that my communication style is so poor that I’m not being clear enough for you or others. But no one has as yet succeeded in clarifying why consensual sex is not consensual sex. Probably because consensual sex is consensual.

By putting a time limit on consent, a sexual partner would have to establish that prior to the act. Then and only then would they have a case for forced sex. Otherwise, it is wide open, on-going and quite naturally so.

Complete explicit consent is just unnecessary to an intelligent person. To make implied consent a crime is criminal itself and it is funny to hear such on a Buddhist forum. The ego just loves laws, rules, regulations, due to its inherent fear and stupidity. An intelligent mind is free of all constraints and quite sensitive thereby.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 10:20 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 10:20 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Tom M A:
katy steger:
It’s not a violation of will if you understand the facts of human sexuality
What are "the facts of human sexuality"?


Seriously? Wide and varied.


Well, Tom, when you wrote:
It’s not a violation of will if you understand the facts of human sexuality. You can make anything a violation if you are ignorant concerning the basic facts.
and you hinge ignorance on not knowing them, it is quite in order that you would list and explain them. If you cannot do this, then by your own words, would you be ignorant and then able to "make anything a violation"?


You sure have a wicked sense of humour I’ll say that in your favour. Of course I could list every sexual attribute, but obviously that is not necessary. All I need say is

• sexuality is sensuality
• sensuality takes many forms
• sensuality is not necessarily rational
• sensuality is not necessarily conscious
• sensuality does not necessarily conform to set standards
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 10:31 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 10:31 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
A female can be moist/wet and not be aroused: the vagina has mucous membranes that are naturally moist and are a fantastic interface between the internal body and the external world: eye lids, inner cheeks, vagina -- mucous membranes. Amazing. And there are humidity changes going on all the time yet no arousal. Therefore, a female can be asleep, having a moist vagina and not be aroused, same as a female is walking in a grocery aisle buying chips, be moist and not be aroused. Same as you and I are probably blinking as we type enjoying nice moist eyelids, no arousal.


Surely it is obvious that this again is way out of context, a poor justification to make what I'm saying to be rape. The consent is given before sleep, before dreams, christ - some would say before birth. But seriously, my context is a consensual sex session which is on-going until the people involved part their ways.

What does consent mean to you? State that and maybe we'll get somewhere.
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 11:43 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 11:22 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Meaning, if the other has a tendency to penetrate or mount a sleeping partner that is an aspect of their sexuality and the expression of such.
Okay, well here, Tom, there is law and precedent. In civil and legal matters if a precedent is established over a time, then a court may look to that precedent and call the precedent a sort of "implied consent".

There is no category for "precedent consent" for an agent to declare consent in another person without, for example, a guardianship, a power of attorney, a legal proxy or a medical consent.

There are only a few narrow areas of emergency medical treatment that protect actors on a person under "implied consent".

Thus, if you still think that:

[indent]-- "Good sex is about the element of surprise, spontaneity, exploration, etc." (9/4/12 12:44 PM), and

- that "[t]he problem with etiquette of any kind though is it takes away sensitivity, takes away responsiveness, takes away spontaneity" (9/5/12 12:37 PM), and

- that "sex is too natural to be controlled by such repressive ideas concerning the nature of consent" (9/5/12 12:37 PM), and that

- "But wait a minute you may say, wait a god damn minute... the woman didn't consent, how can a sleeping woman consent??? // If you put yourself in a vulnerable position, you have to take responsibilty. So go off with a stranger, no matter how nice they may appear, Bad sex can happen for real." (9/7/12 7:33 PM), and

- "We can try to blame others, and we can come up with justifications, but at the end of the day, we put our self in the situation that we find our self in. That's why laws ultimately do not help. The deed is done, it is too late. So rather than accept responsibility we seek vegeance. [sic]", and

- "For that particular act? It’s just inserting a penis into a vagina which a few minutes prior was completely welcoming. Do you get that? It’s not assault, it’s not rape." (9/11/12 5:35 PM), and

- "So, an agreement has been established between two people that they will spend the night together in the throes of passion, no strings attached full blown sex. That agreement holds good until they separate or dissolved the said agreement."
[/indent]

...then it is just for you to know that in the US and EU, the condition of being asleep does not create any consent, and in the US, nor does the condition of marriage, nor does the condition of prior sex create consent. The law views one's body as belonging to just one person ultimately and, short of convincing the judge otherwise, courts tends to uphold that a body only belongs to the person. [this autonomy is a fairly recent development in the law]

Therefore, the awake person who takes action upon their sleeping partner remains subject to their partner's own decisions for their own body when they have regained wakefulness.

Or, in your words: "If you put yourself in a vulnerable position, you have to take responsibilty."

You may not like it and you may hold that
"We can try to blame others, and we can come up with justifications, but at the end of the day, we put our self in the situation that we find our self in. That's why laws ultimately do not help. The deed is done, it is too late. So rather than accept responsibility we seek vegeance. [sic]" (9/7/12 7:33 PM)
but laws and a legal system is there for when two or more parties disagree.



[edit: formatting]
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:07 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:07 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Meaning, if the other has a tendency to penetrate or mount a sleeping partner that is an aspect of their sexuality and the expression of such.
Okay, well here, Tom, there is law and precedent. In civil and legal matters if a precedent is established over a time, then a court may look to that precedent and call the precedent a sort of "implied consent".

There is no category for "precedent consent" for an agent to declare consent in another person without, for example, a guardianship, a power of attorney, a legal proxy or a medical consent.


That has no relevance whatsoever to anything I’m saying.

What I’m saying is consent has been clearly established by each party involved for the duration of that sexual session. No one is assuming anything concerning the other involved as they have fully consented to full sexual intercourse until they part ways.

How can I possibly put it any clearer?

People do not act in accord to law. They act in accord to conditioning, to psychological drives, to physical drives, to desires, instincts, etc. So when it comes to sex, it is a simple matter of agreeing or not. It should also include an understanding of what sex means for the other person rather than just assuming you know what they mean by sex.

To help you out, here's a link... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:13 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:11 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
...then it is just for you to know that in the US and EU, the condition of being asleep does not create any consent, and in the US, nor does the condition of marriage, nor does the condition of prior sex create consent.


What have I continually said?

Consent has been established.

It matters not if you do not recognise that or can’t accept that, but that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

I never said anything about the condition of being asleep equalling consent.
I did however say that it would be rape to have sex with someone who is sleeping if there was no consent for sexual intercourse.

I never said the condition of marriage is necessarily a form of consent.
I did say that marriage can be a condition of open on-going consent.

Nor have I ever said that the condition of prior sex creates consent.


Again you introduce unnecessary distractions, and raise irrelevant points.

Why?

What motivates you so?
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:19 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:16 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
The law views one's body as belonging to just one person ultimately and, short of convincing the judge otherwise, courts tends to uphold that a body only belongs to the person.


Now you are joking, right? The law does not view a person’s body as their own. Just ask a doctor to assist you in suicide and you'll soon discover who the law assumes is the rightful owner of the body. The State claims ownership the body.

Do you know why? Due to the fact that you are taxable. That is your only value to the State. At birth you are given a number. In the UK it’s called a National Insurance number. Very fitting.

However in relation to sex. One's body is not one's body it is a shared organ of experience (via consent of course).
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:23 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:23 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Therefore, the awake person who takes action upon their sleeping partner remains subject to their partner's own decisions for their own body when they have regained wakefulness.


Exactly what I've been saying all along. The consent is such that sexual activity will continue until a parting of the ways - end of session.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:32 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:30 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
You may not like it and you may hold that
"We can try to blame others, and we can come up with justifications, but at the end of the day, we put our self in the situation that we find our self in. That's why laws ultimately do not help. The deed is done, it is too late. So rather than accept responsibility we seek vegeance. [sic]" (9/7/12 7:33 PM)
but laws and a legal system is there for when two or more parties disagree.


It's not about like nor dislike. We'd have to be very shallow to rely on others to make our decisions and impose their will upon us, to over rule our intelligence, our sensitivities, our very life.

Laws and the legal system exist for one purpose. It's business. It's not justice, not fairness, not prevention, not recompense. It all boils down to crude cash and control.

Ask most people who have been raped if the law helped... “Obviously it didn't, I was raped”, will be their reply.

And what of the care from the police, wasn’t that a comfort? “Ha, you’ve obviously never reported a rape”.

But the guy got put in jail didn’t he? “For how long, and then what? He’s out doing the same again.”

That’s the fundamental problem with all law. It may be there in a book but those words are useless as they do not prevent any form of crime. To believe that laws are a useful function is complete delusion. I’d go as far to say, an endorsement of evil itself.
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:33 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:33 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Tom 9/20/12
I never said anything about the condition of being asleep equalling consent.


Tom 9/5/12
If one or both partners fell asleep, the man or woman may wake up horny and get frisky with the other, naturally expecting them to still be attracted to the idea of sex as they are still in bed and by implication - still a willing partner.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:54 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/20/12 4:54 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Tom 9/20/12
I never said anything about the condition of being asleep equalling consent.


Tom 9/5/12
If one or both partners fell asleep, the man or woman may wake up horny and get frisky with the other, naturally expecting them to still be attracted to the idea of sex as they are still in bed and by implication - still a willing partner.


Still taking statements out of context. What does it say?

Consent has been given for sex, for the duration of a sex session. Therefore, to the one awake and horny, the sex session is still in full flow, her/his partner merely requires reviving.

Is it really so difficult?
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 9 Years ago at 9/21/12 7:06 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/21/12 7:04 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Tom M A:
katy steger:
Tom 9/20/12
I never said anything about the condition of being asleep equalling consent.


Tom 9/5/12
If one or both partners fell asleep, the man or woman may wake up horny and get frisky with the other, naturally expecting them to still be attracted to the idea of sex as they are still in bed and by implication - still a willing partner.


Still taking statements out of context. What does it say?

Consent has been given for sex, for the duration of a sex session. Therefore, to the one awake and horny, the sex session is still in full flow, her/his partner merely requires reviving.

Is it really so difficult?

Your words are in their contexts. A person has only to read to see.

However, a beneficial use of time would be in actual practice instead.



_______________

Also, as you, Tom, are new --- one month in --- to the DhO, here are the site's guidelines (such as pragmatism over dogmatism, diligent practice over blind faith).

Perhaps in month two you will share the bhavana of your practice as enthusiastically as you share your interest in this thread.
Tom M A, modified 9 Years ago at 9/21/12 9:28 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 9/21/12 9:24 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 67 Join Date: 8/22/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Tom M A:
katy steger:
Tom 9/20/12
I never said anything about the condition of being asleep equalling consent.


Tom 9/5/12
If one or both partners fell asleep, the man or woman may wake up horny and get frisky with the other, naturally expecting them to still be attracted to the idea of sex as they are still in bed and by implication - still a willing partner.


Still taking statements out of context. What does it say?

Consent has been given for sex, for the duration of a sex session. Therefore, to the one awake and horny, the sex session is still in full flow, her/his partner merely requires reviving.

Is it really so difficult?

Your words are in their contexts. A person has only to read to see.

However, a beneficial use of time would be in actual practice instead.



_______________

Also, as you, Tom, are new --- one month in --- to the DhO, here are the site's guidelines (such as pragmatism over dogmatism, diligent practice over blind faith).

Perhaps in month two you will share the bhavana of your practice as enthusiastically as you share your interest in this thread.



You used the following sentence when you were quoting law… “the condition of being asleep does not create any consent”.

That has no context within what I’ve been saying.

My whole point is...
consent is clearly established... consent is very clearly established... consent is very very clearly established.


Obviously a sleeping person cannot consent, as I did say way back. But within the context of what I've been saying, consent was given prior to sleep.

What is so unclear about that?

No one changes their mind during sleep, simply due to the fact that they are not in a conscious state.

So, within the scenario I was using where one of the people involved in a consensual sex session had drifted off, the other partner initiates sex in whatever way, to brand them a rapist is extreme as the other person has already submitted their will and body via the act of consent.

The actual meaning of consent seems very basic and clear to me. And if you keep within the context of this on-going discussion you would understand that I was merely pointing out that in the Assange case it would be more accurate to term it bad sexual etiquette rather than rape.

Context begins with what the person is saying in direct relation to whatever they are addressing. It matters not how others interpret what that person is saying. The context is clearly in relation only to what the person is directly stating.

So if I say, within the context of a consensual sexual session, whereby that agreement is on-going, that it is simply bad manners to engage in sex with the other who has fallen asleep. That seems clear enough to me. If I add… it cannot be construed as rape. That seems very clear.

The facts that we are looking at are: consent was clearly established for the duration of the session. The session ends when one of the partners depart. Therefore whatever takes place within that session is permissible – within reason of course (but that is another aspect which I have covered).

So keeping within context… if someone else drops in: “the law states… the condition of being asleep does not create any consent”. Obviously that person is out of context.

The agreement was in place for the duration of that particular sex session. That is the context.

Anything can be slotted together to make it appear as though someone is saying something other, but that does not make it so. Indeed the media are masters of the art of manipulating words to make it appear as though so and so said “this, that or the other.”

I have clarified my point over and over and over... within a consensual session!

I have requested clarification from others. No one bothered to clarify why after agreeing to a sex session that it could be rape to initiate, penetrate or mount a partner who had fallen asleep.

Clarity is everything in life, absolutely everything. If you’re not clear on simple things, you’ll never be clear concerning anything. Hence, suffering shall continue. The cause of which, shall never be known until there is indeed clarity.

So, this is no idle rant.


katy steger:
However, a beneficial use of time would be in actual practice instead


Are you addressing that to yourself or to me? Neither time nor practice have meaning, both being an unnecessary indulgence.


And as for your footnote, come on. Who do you think you are? Apply to self not others.
thumbnail
The Xzanth, modified 9 Years ago at 1/16/13 6:25 PM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/16/13 6:25 PM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having? (WARNING: could trigger

Posts: 71 Join Date: 12/28/12 Recent Posts
To me it is pretty straightforward... the problem was the absence of a condom. Period. She may or may not have appreciated being woken up to the sex (preference), but she certainly did not appreciate the lack of protection.

With a condom = bad sexual etiquette (should have cleared the sleep sex with her before hand).
Without a condom = sexual assault.

I have also been woken up by a female friend fucking me. While the experience was not particularly traumatic (for me, who knows someone else) I did not appreciate the act as I did not consent to being their lover; we were just friends sleeping in the same bed. The sex was also unprotected which led to some worry on my part. So yeah... it was a sexual assault.

That being said if I was woken up by an established lover having sex with me I would have no particular problem with it. I might be turned on just like I might be annoyed and push her off. It's a risk she would be running.
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 12:15 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 12:15 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Tom M A:
Sorry Florian, maybe I never got the humour of the article, maybe we’re getting our wires crossed, maybe I'm just not that worldly wise, maybe I should have written a reply when I wasn’t tired out after a hard days work(hence all the typo’s).

A worst case scenario? I can think of none in relation to consensual sex, unless you’re hinting at something really weird. So yeah, more than a little hint would be welcome.

What I was referring too was; when there’s an agreement, when does the agreement cease to be applicable. Generally most would agree that it is when the deed is done and the partners decide to go their separate ways. If they stay together in bed, the likelihood of more action is obviously a strong possibility. If one or both partners fell asleep, the man or woman may wake up horny and get frisky with the other, naturally expecting them to still be attracted to the idea of sex as they are still in bed and by implication - still a willing partner.

It would be just a bit strange to agree to a 30 minute bonk and once the alarm goes, that is that. Sex is sex and its own momentum takes over, also its own actions. I’m not suggesting that sex becomes some kind of monster, but that the situation can be full of surprises and unexplored/unknown desires coming into consciousness and acted upon.

Obviously there are some people who are completely screwed up in a dark way, but that’s why we have introductions, the chat up process. That should be enough to assess the mental stability of a potential partner (even for a one night stand).

Many people do find the one night stand attractive for that reason, they don't know the other person very well and there’s a dangerous element involved... alternatively they can do or have done things they normally would not do or have done. That’s why a lot of people cheat on their partners as they need the thrill of someone new or something dangerous, the attention is exceptional for the ego!

When it's someone famous, obviously other factors come into play too.

So there are many factors to consider.

To me rape is force, it is uninvited, unwelcome. Can a husband or partner rape? Of course. If a woman says no - no means no. Same applies for males too.

But a real worst case scenario after agreeing to a night of lustful fun, I cannot think of, apart from getting a disease down there. For a male it may be awakening to find something up his rear end that he'd rather not have. But even then, he should be understanding enough and simply manoeuvre the action in another direction which is pleasing to both rather than scream rape.

It's like when I wrote... The basic problem surrounding sexual etiquette is one of knowing what a person enjoys or is likely to enjoy without having to ask directly. Good sex is about the element of surprise, spontaneity, exploration, etc. If we had/have to ask "can I touch you there", "would this be alright", "can I screw you while you sleep", it just becomes too absurd to bother with - use your own hand it will always consent.

What I meant was, if you’re sensitive to another then you won't need to ask permission, nor ask directions, it is part of the interaction, the nonverbal sexual communication. If you began an act that the other did not find pleasing you should quickly realise that and change course. Their body would retract, tense up, they may push your hand away, etc.

Sex is about opening up, about giving as much as receiving. To have to think about asking permission would just interrupt the flow. And the author of that article was suggesting thought/verbalisation should be the key of control. If she’s not saying “Yes there”, her partner gets into a flurry of failure asking if she’s ok. Pathetic, poor guy will have performance anxiety after a few months of that. Plus a sensitive lover does not “try to please”, he/she does give pleasure.

I've said, some people do enjoy being wakened from sleep to find their partner giving them oral sex, playing around or actually having full intercourse (this could apply to a woman being on top of a sleeping man).

So yeah, of course it is about respecting one another, as I thought I made clear with various points. The problem with etiquette of any kind though is it takes away sensitivity, takes away responsiveness, takes away spontaneity. It puts you in thinking mode rather than free flowing action mode. It is conformity at it most invasive.

Obviously there are unpleasant surprises, but these can be quite accidental too. When my wife began nursing she was based in the casualty dept and has some stories to tell concerning the sexual mishaps of both sexes – very bizarre stuff.

But sex is sex, that is the point. It's not just about sticking a penis into a vagina nor slipping a vagina onto a penis, there are psychological aspects at play too, reasons for certain behaviours which cannot be judged too quickly nor superficially.

So I’d still say she’s not on using Assange as an example of a rapist, nor can sexual activity with a sleeping but willing partner be construed as rape. Okay the guy or gal may get slapped down for trying such behaviour, but surely it is easily forgiven and forgotten if the intent was to give pleasure rather than to take. Intent is everything in life, isn’t it?

I mean I just re-read the article and it still smacks of... I’m right, they’re wrong. There are no exceptions to the rule that penile insertion is rape if a woman does not firstly say aloud, ‘yes, fuck me’.

I hope that sounds as crude to you as it does too me, because that’s what sex will become if these extremists get their way. Just as religions have made sex dirty, nasty, corrupting, etc. My point here is, not all consent is verbal. My wife and I have always lead one another on, without drawing up contracts, without getting our parents to witness that we’re in full agreement that we’re about to have sexual intercourse and exactly what that should consist of. Some things just don’t need to be said, just as religions and laws have no right to set boundaries as to what is acceptable or not.

When I re-read the article I noticed the comments, and there’s a guy saying the same thing… “I did hear a woman on the radio recently say that waking up to an orgasm always put a smile on her face for the rest of the day”.

The reason I said; "The article comes over as written by someone very smug as she assumes that the sexual act between the woman and Assange was merely for Assange's own gratification rather than both", is quite simply due to the tone of the overall piece. It is simply very superficial and flippant. As the comment above clearly shows, some women obviously enjoy being awoken to orgasm.

The whole article is insinuating that Assange is a rapist, which is totally unjustified until we know for sure that he did rape these or another woman. She presents no real content in her article to give us any idea of what she’s referring too.

Rape is too serious a matter to be treated with such flippancy and sex is too natural to be controlled by such repressive ideas concerning the nature of consent.

Sex is about doing, both partners in partnership… the partnership of pleasing one another, not just one. Why confuse such a simple action by unnecessary intellectualism?

Her piece reads simply as more propaganda against Assange, and men in general. Why use Assange as an example? Why not just use a convicted rapist? Why not pick on the legal system? The penal system? The causes of rape? Why target a man whom the press have already declared guilty – that is guilty without trial.

Personally, I’m more concerned with the allegations that it is the Assange case is a CIA smear campaign, of which there is some evidence. And I’d add that no, I’m not an Assange fan as such, I have little interest in what he’s revealed. Everyone knows that politics and most politicians are completely and utterly corrupt.

I do not find it a funny article, just a piece of trash which takes a low aimed swipe using biased opinion without reflecting upon others, and that is simply not a nice thing to do.


Okay, speaking as a female here, who''s been in many situations where men dont listen to directives about how to treat my own body, and thinking that what pleases them will automatically please me, and being forced to simply be an onlooker at someone elsedeciding to use me, i think most of us women would emjoy a few more direct questions. Women are not as suddenly aroused as men. I guarantee that, if youve entered a woman who was sleeping and had no foreplay, and she went along with it, then most likely she was just doing so either out of a sense of obligation or just wanting to get it over with, or maybe in the hopes of turning a negative experience into a positive one. In the end, no means NO, whetherbefore or during coitus. Likewise, though, if she didnt broadcast her displeasure, through either verbal or obvious physical discomfort, which her partner shouldlisten to as well as her words, then one could say it wont stand up in court. But, if a man respects women at all, that request fora yes will stop a lot of nightmares for her possibly later on. Sex can be truly damaging mentally, and its about trusting a man with your body. That is not without its own terror, and, from my experience at least, men dont get that concept very often, or respect their partners enough to care, anyway. Rape is not always violent, but it is always accompanied by a feeling of lack of choice on the victim's part. You may also want to consider that maybe this writer is not as flippant as she seems, but possibly damaged by her own experiences. And, if you sincerely believe that a woman or man should not protest strongly whenever they feel that any orifice has been violated in a way that they find displeasing, then i wonder if you would feel the same if it were you? And you had maybe barely gotten through a semitolerable act, were sleeping it off, and hoping to return home as soon as polite, and found yourself subjected to such treatment? Is it our duty to quietly tolerate it, whilesomeone else uses us unkindly? I think not, and i think at the first sign of a possible NO, the sexual friend should ask a lot of apologetic, hasty questions after immediately stopping their actions. Especially with someone you dont know. At the very least, this will demonstrate that you truly do have their best interests in mind. Sleeping in a bed does not mean anyone gives up their right to object.
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 12:38 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 12:38 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Tom M A:
katy steger:
The law views one's body as belonging to just one person ultimately and, short of convincing the judge otherwise, courts tends to uphold that a body only belongs to the person.


Now you are joking, right? The law does not view a person’s body as their own. Just ask a doctor to assist you in suicide and you'll soon discover who the law assumes is the rightful owner of the body. The State claims ownership the body.

Do you know why? Due to the fact that you are taxable. That is your only value to the State. At birth you are given a number. In the UK it’s called a National Insurance number. Very fitting.

However in relation to sex. One's body is not one's body it is a shared organ of experience (via consent of course).


I am going to guess that you have never had to fully give up your power over your body to another being, and had them use it to bring you pain. During sex, my body is still mine. And i respect and treasure theirs as theirs. I take extra care that they never thinki assume ownership of any sort over them. And, speaking as a person trying to become a doctor, it is actually a question of the morality of the hippocratic oath, and proving, for legal reasons, that it was genuinely not murder. As we also force people who are liable to be incapable of contributing to tax money, and will use all the taxes, to live. And there are quite a few places who will find ways to prove that you are making a good, logical choice, and give you those rights. Just for the record.
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 12:46 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 12:46 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Okay, Tom, this may be a simple miscomprehension due to culture. In the US, it is considered a separate sexual act by most if the parties have ceased sexual relations, even for as short as five minutes, and then begun again. This new sexual experience requires a renewal of some form of consent, and, if using someone else's body, one must follow predetermined guidelines, such as a condom, or they are in a place, like xzanth said, to be considered violating the other being.
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 1:08 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 1:08 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
And within the context of my point, can it be rape if it is done with pure intent when both parties have already agreed to sexual union?
That is for the receiving party to decide. Did they decide that waking up in this way is welcome or a violation.

Let go of the bad experience, it’s over.
Taking legal action against a violation is part of Western civilization: abuse, patent litigation, traffic violation and so forth. So while a person can just let transgressions go, people in several countries have the option of also seeking redress when they are transgressed.

If people consent to whatever, that is their business.
We agree [on this one sentence]. Personally, however, I disagree that "sleeping" is an extension of any consent. The law at present agrees that sleeping is not consent for anything, but sleep.

To repeat, every scenario I have used is one where consent has been established beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Then you do NOT believe that a sleeping person is also (by sleeping after or not after sex) giving consent to their bedfellow for sexual intercourse?

And if that idea is to have sex with a sleeping partner, and if you would feel violated by such behaviour isn’t it your responsibility to find out about such proclivities before stripping off? Why point the finger at the other. You wanted sex, they wanted sex, but sex has many meanings… just don’t believe the romcoms or cosmo or scriptures, whatever fairytale happens to be popular.
To be clear, for readers whose first language is not English, Tom is using the "understood you" usage of second-person singular, where he means "if [a person] would feel violated by such behaviour..." I don't always know why people use "the understood you" as it can be an affront sometimes, but sometimes people use it to speak.

Okay, back to you Tom: Yeah, if two people are going to get intimate then it's none of my business. I don't really weigh in on whether people know each other or not. That's their freedom as adults. However, no matter what you personally want in this thread and the hypotheticals you've posed, at present when a judge in North America or the EU weighs in on "consent" in a rape accusation, then being asleep is being asleep. It is not consent.

Thankfully, consent must be explicit (and given between adults or with guardians) when it comes to contacting another person, and there are a few medical excepts for "implied consent".

Though you may not like it "implied consent" for sex is NOT what a sleeping person is giving.


In case you were confused, Tom, the reason she mentions present guardians is due to her using the full exact definition of implied consent, which is a medical legal term, at least in most contexts. She is stating that, according to that definition of implied consent, there is no realm of consent for the act - that implied consent is negligible.
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 1:17 AM
Created 9 Years ago at 1/25/13 1:17 AM

RE: How Bad Is the Sex Everyone's Having?

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
katy steger:
Obviously we have to be realistic here and include the fact that some women will do the same to a man. He’s asleep but fully erect, she gets on top, slips his penis inside, gently awakening him to what… rape, pleasure, fear, a nice surprise?

If accuracy is valuable in discussion, then it's worth noting that the comparison of an erect penis of a sleeping male to a vagina of a sleeping female is not an accurate one. The comparison is to the male anus: both are simply there and nothing can be determined about either body part's sexual arousal. To view these orifices as "accessible" for the awake party's sexual gratification goes to Florian's original point and then further: what's going on in the awake person's head and heart that the chance at one single orgasm is worth risking frightening/transgressing/harming a sleeping person with an object being moved in their body (vagina, anus, mouth, etc)


I would still say that it is a completely natural and loving act. To call it rape is to be an extremist, a killjoy, a person in need of clarity concerning human sexuality.

What should the effected party call it? They have every right to call it exactly as they experienced that unconsented-to object being placed in them without their consent: welcome or violation.

For North American and EU courts, this is fairly easy to decide: a sleeping person is showing their explicit volition for sleep.

The sleeping person can be said to be showing no other consent: there is no "continuous present" in consent unless the context is emergency medical treatment.


I must disagree with you, Katy, although i do agree with your main point. But a sleeping man is not necessarily aroused due to penile function during sleep. I've readsomewhere that it is not uncommon for a male to have up to ten unconscious erections per night, possibly more. It is no more an implication of desire than one of fear. For that matter, females supposedly get wet due to fear, as well. So they deserve the same respect in such an unconscious case.

Breadcrumb