Without going into too much detail... Sometimes "no" doesn't mean "no."

[LAS14]

I'm distressed at seeing our society try to legislate the subtleties of communication. Does "no" always mean "no?" Do you have to be "affirmative?" Do you have to be "enthusiastic?" I'm so glad my son is way past the time of needing guidance in these matters.

Instead, I think girls should be taught early and clearly that they can stop sexual behavior whenever they wish, and if they are unable to, then "force" is being used, and it becomes a criminal matter. Like thievery, if it rises to a certain level, it should to be taken to the police, not the school or employer.

When I was in kindergarten, I walked to school alone after the first day. I had been clearly taught not to go close to a car if someone stops with a question, and to run to the nearest house if the person got out of the car. I felt empowered, not frightened.

The event that brought this to my attention again was this... At around 3 a.m. hubby and I both happened to wake up, in the course of things I said "No! No!" in a sort of silly chastising voice. I never said "yes," but did giggle a lot, and had a very good time. If he had been in doubt about my mood (was that a nervous giggle?), I shudder to think what would happen if he couldn't have tested the situation by attempting to proceed. I could have cleared it up very quickly by not letting him proceed. It sure would have thrown cold water on the situation if he had had to ask "Are you sure you want to?"

This is just an example of how human relationships are complex, and legislation that requires certain kinds of verbal behavior in the most intimate of situations.

[hlthe2b]

1. way to make light of the attempt to warn kids off "stranger danger"

Not to mention, TMI!

[MrsCoffee]

2. +1

[Laffy Kat]

23. +2

[Texasgal]

48. Geez...no kidding!

[LAS14]

73. I don't see this as making light. It was a strong....

... idea for me. I remembered what to do if I were ever approached. Actually someone did once stop to ask me something (maybe with bad motives, I don't know), and I stayed far away. I really, really think girls need to be raised with a sense of control over their lives.

[niyad]

11. victim blaming is never good. PERIOD.

[demmiblue]

13. +1

[Kaleva]

16. And using the jury system in an effort to squash differing views is never good either.

There's no rule against "victim blaming" in the SOP which explains why the jury voted against hiding. Simple enough to understand.

If one has an issue with the OP, then they ought to speak up. They shouldn't resort to underhanded tactics that makes DU suck.

I have no idea if you submitted the alert or not so my comment isn't directed at you.

[niyad]

17. rigghhhhht

are you being deliberately obtuse about the problems with the OP. I notice you have not yet addressed the victim blaming, instead, attacking whoever sent the alert.

[Kaleva]

22. For what reason did you think the OP deserved being alerted on?

Which rule does this post break? If one cannot provide a good answer, then one must assume the alert was sent in bad faith and was an attempt to disrupt.

[niyad]

24. you are, of course, free to assume whatever you wish.

and I am still awaiting your response to the victim blaming of the OP.

[Kaleva]

26. So you don't know what rule the OP broke?

But you do know that it had been sent to a jury. That's interesting.

Your comment in post #3:

"you are victim blaming? on this board? sadly, I see this survived the jury."

[Kaleva]

28. Caliman73 in post #20 articulated what I think.

[LanternWaste]

32. You are unable or unwilling to consider additional possibilities beyond the one?

"hen one must assume the alert was sent in bad faith and was an attempt to disrupt."

You are unable or unwilling to consider additional possibilities beyond the one?

[Kaleva]

34. What rule did the OP violate?

It's one thing to disagree with an OP by commenting and quite another to alert just because one disagrees with it.

[LanternWaste]

35. Odd, that's what you're indicting others for.

You appear unable to answer the question.... which is odd (not odd, bemusingly ironic), because that's what you're indicting others for.

Again, unable or unwilling to consider other possibilities beyond the one?

[Kaleva]

38. So no one can articulate the rule the OP supposedly violated.

It was alerted on and the jury voted to keep which probably isn't surprising as nobody active in this thread seems to knows what rule the OP allegedly broke.

I can imagine most everyone on the jury rolling their eyes and saying "What the fuck is this?!".

[LanternWaste]

41. So you still can't articulate an answer to a supposedly simple question either.

So you still can't articulate an answer to a supposedly simple question either, regardless of whether I'm petulantly guessing who rolls their eyes.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.


Again, unable or unwilling to consider other possibilities beyond the one?

[Kaleva]

43. If you have no idea as to why the OP was alerted on, then just say so.

[Tipperary]

67. I do not think you are aware of the meaning of the word bemusedly.

I have noticed you using it incorrectly several times.

[jalan48]

19. +1

There seems to be an attempt to enforce a type of "group think" it seems to me. It will only lead to an echo chamber IMHO.

[Kaleva]

25. An unpopular opinion will get blowback. Like what is happenening to this OP.

But that's normal and expected in a discussion forum. What is underhanded is using the jury system in an effort to squelch opposing views.

[jalan48]

64. I agree-it feels like a form of censorship to me.

[LAS14]

79. Thanks. See my reply #69. And no, I don't take...

...it from your posts that you agree with me. Just that you agree that it's a good thing to be able to post differing views.

[pnwmom]

33. What did she say that was victim blaming? She wasn't talking about victims. nt

[niyad]

37. what part of this did you not understand:

**************Instead, I think girls should be taught early and clearly that they can stop sexual behavior whenever they wish,********* and if they are unable to, then "force" is being used, and it becomes a criminal matter. Like thievery, if it rises to a certain level, it should to be taken to the police, not the school or employer.

[pnwmom]

39. You don't think girls should be taught that they have the right to end sexual behavior?

Of course you do.

[niyad]

42. you know I do, but I don't see anything there about teaching males NOT to be sexual

predators. and unless THAT part is included, we are looking at victim blaming.
the girls can stop this whenever they wish" is pure BS, and you know it.)

[pnwmom]

46. I'm sure LAS14 would agree on teaching sons not to be predators. But I didn't see

you explain that to her. Did you?

[LAS14]

82. I agree that males should be taught...

... not to be sexual predators, but I don't think that should mean that if a girl utters one word or doesn't utter another word that that dictates behavior. Males should be taught to care about their partners and to interact with them in a wholesome way. Some males won't be good at subtle signals, and should be taught to err on the side of backing off. But they shouldn't be taught that verbal rules are the way to conduct intimate relationships. As I said in my OP, I'm glad I don't have young children. I'd have to teach my sons to be afraid, be very afraid of misreading anything.

[LAS14]

80. Thanks.

[LAS14]

78. I certainly don't want to blame the victim....

We should absolutely start with a neutral attitude about believing both parties. The #MeToo movement is doing good things to get rid of automatically disbelieving the plaintiff in sexual assault cases.

But we need to be careful about what constitutes "victim." Does miscommunication with no physical pressure constitute someone's being a victim? I do require the woman to stop the interaction if she doesn't want it. If she doesn't, then I don't think she's a victim.

This does not apply to situations where someone is in a power situation, like a boss or a teacher. Any unwanted sexual advance there is grounds for some kind of consequences.

Certainly "He made me feel uncomfortable" (heard about Louis CK on PBS tonight) does not create a victim.

[jalan48]

15. I'm seeing this more often on DU. Not sure if these aren't trolls trying to cause dissension.

[niyad]

18. no question we have had, and continue to have, trolls here. we certainly saw them

during the last campaign.

[LanternWaste]

4. Projecting your own pillow-talk onto national legislation is flawed.

Seems little more than simply another justification that places all the responsibilities and consequences of men's actions onto women.

Projecting your own pillow-talk onto national legislation is flawed.

[Hortensis]

59. Flawed, simplistic projection to the point of...irrelevancy.

Appropriate, normal behaviors inside a consenting marriage somehow reflective of others up to and including between complete strangers? Ridiculous.

But the OP's right that it is complex. Some people -- for instance -- are very vulnerable to victimization specifically because they cannot react in a normally self-assertive manner. Their inability to protect themselves in NO way diminishes malfeasance by abusers. In fact, it can increase it, sometimes dramatically.

As I recall from my days in property and casualty insurance, English common law, from which most of our codes are derived, defined a principle that has been applied and lives on in our federal and state justice systems to this day: You take your victim as you find him. Maliciously startle a person with an unknown heart condition who dies as a result, the charge can be some version of manslaughter. A woman who does not say no at all because she's fundamentally too timid or is seriously intellectually challenged has no more duty to become more functional than the person with the heart condition has to not be startled into a heart attack.

[leftstreet]

5. Ewwww n/t

[Skittles]

66. I know

it is presented as cutesy but is is disturbing

[demmiblue]

6. ...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. What the fuck is this shit right here.

I'm distressed at seeing our society try to legislate the subtleties of communication.

Please provide examples of communication being "legislated."

Does "no" always mean "no?" Do you have to be "affirmative?" Do you have to be "enthusiastic?" I'm so glad my son is way past the time of needing guidance in these matters.

Why? It's not hard to talk about the idea of consent at all.

Instead, I think girls should be taught early and clearly that they can stop sexual behavior whenever they wish,

It's like you don't think that this is the message society gives them every single day.

and if they are unable to, then "force" is being used, and it becomes a criminal matter. Like thievery, if it rises to a certain level, it should to be taken to the police, not the school or employer.

Please describe how teaching girls and women that they can stop sexual behavior will decrease the incidents of assault and harassment if boys and men don't listen to them.

When I was in kindergarten, I walked to school alone after the first day. I had been clearly taught not to go close to a car if someone stops with a question, and to run to the nearest house if the person got out of the car. I felt empowered, not frightened.

If only all kidnapped children had been told to run to the nearest house.

The event that brought this to my attention again was this... At around 3 a.m. hubby and I both happened to wake up, in the course of things I said "No! No!" in a sort of silly chastising voice. I never said "yes," but did giggle a lot, and had a very good time. If he had been in doubt about my mood (was that a nervous giggle?), I shudder to think what would happen if he couldn't have tested the situation by attempting to proceed. I could have cleared it up very quickly by not letting him proceed. It sure would have thrown cold water on the situation if he had had to ask "Are you sure you want to?"

TMI, but it does sound like you have a warm, respectful relationship wherein you both understand each other's limits and how you communicate. Pretttttty sure, though, that this is something you developed over time. Many harassment and assault issues, especially the ones getting all the attention right now, are between people who work together and don't have a sexual relationship, or are new couples in new situations (college campuses, early 20s dating scene, etc.), when respectful communication is a must. "Are you sure you want to" doesn't have to be a cold-water mood-killer. It's all in the delivery, the listening, and the excitement that happens when everyone involved is totally into what's going on.

This is just an example of how human relationships are complex, and legislation that requires certain kinds of verbal behavior in the most intimate of situations.

Anecdotes are not data. We all know human relationships are complex. More communication to ensure everyone is on the same page seems like a good thing, no?

[Phentex]

84. Good post. Nt

[LAS14]

85. My responses

I'm distressed at seeing our society try to legislate the subtleties of communication.


Please provide examples of communication being "legislated."

I don't have links at the moment, but I'm sure you've read about college campuses making rules about "No means no," or, more recently, "An affirmation is required." MineralMan, in DU, proposed that men not proceed unless there is "enthusiastic consent." I don't know if any campus has put this into a rule book or not, but he's suggesting it as guidance.


Does "no" always mean "no?" Do you have to be "affirmative?" Do you have to be "enthusiastic?" I'm so glad my son is way past the time of needing guidance in these matters.


Why? It's not hard to talk about the idea of consent at all.

It's not "hard", but it can take a relationship to an awkward, unproductive place if it is a requirement.

Instead, I think girls should be taught early and clearly that they can stop sexual behavior whenever they wish,

It's like you don't think that this is the message society gives them every single day.

I don't think it's the message that's being sent out these days. We're certainly encouraging them to speak out, and when there's a situation of abuse of power, then You go, girl! But if a girl/woman is made to feel uncomfortable in a peer relationship, she should just say something or leave. We're in danger of infantalizing girls and women.

and if they are unable to, then "force" is being used, and it becomes a criminal matter. Like thievery, if it rises to a certain level, it should to be taken to the police, not the school or employer.


Please describe how teaching girls and women that they can stop sexual behavior will decrease the incidents of assault and harassment if boys and men don't listen to them.

I'm saying that women should be willing to respond with verbal force and then physically. If misunderstanding is afoot, that will work. If it doesn't, then, yes, fight with everything you've got and call the police when you get a chance.

When I was in kindergarten, I walked to school alone after the first day. I had been clearly taught not to go close to a car if someone stops with a question, and to run to the nearest house if the person got out of the car. I felt empowered, not frightened.


If only all kidnapped children had been told to run to the nearest house.

I agree. It wouldn't have been the solution in every situation, but I bet it would have reduced the numbers. And this isn't "blaming the victim." I don't "blame" a woman who is raped or a child who is kidnapped. But I do want to empower them as much as possible.

The event that brought this to my attention again was this... At around 3 a.m. hubby and I both happened to wake up, in the course of things I said "No! No!" in a sort of silly chastising voice. I never said "yes," but did giggle a lot, and had a very good time. If he had been in doubt about my mood (was that a nervous giggle?), I shudder to think what would happen if he couldn't have tested the situation by attempting to proceed. I could have cleared it up very quickly by not letting him proceed. It sure would have thrown cold water on the situation if he had had to ask "Are you sure you want to?"


TMI, but it does sound like you have a warm, respectful relationship wherein you both understand each other's limits and how you communicate. Pretttttty sure, though, that this is something you developed over time. Many harassment and assault issues, especially the ones getting all the attention right now, are between people who work together and don't have a sexual relationship, or are new couples in new situations (college campuses, early 20s dating scene, etc.), when respectful communication is a must. "Are you sure you want to" doesn't have to be a cold-water mood-killer. It's all in the delivery, the listening, and the excitement that happens when everyone involved is totally into what's going on.

I do think the male (usually) should "think" is she sure she wants to. But to prescribe that he ask it, some college campuses have done, doesn't respect the complexity of human relationships.

This is just an example of how human relationships are complex, and legislation that requires certain kinds of verbal behavior in the most intimate of situations.


Anecdotes are not data. We all know human relationships are complex. More communication to ensure everyone is on the same page seems like a good thing, no?

Certainly more communication is a good thing, and kids should be taught that sex is not for people who have no deeper relationship. I'm all for that.

[Aristus]

9. Wow. The tone-deafness of that post was mind-boggling.

Sounds a lot like victim-blaming.

Sounds like: 'Girls these days. They just don't know how to say 'no' in the right tone of voice.'

[dewsgirl]

12. Without going into to much detail...wow I shudder to think how much more you may

Have told us.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. I'm sorry I keep kicking this garbage but this post actually boils down to an excellent example of

the mixed messages society gives girls and women when it comes to protecting their own boundaries.

"If only women were taught that they're the ones who can shut it down if they communicate clearly!"

and

"Sometimes no doesn't mean no!"

[TheFrenchRazor]

61. word. nt

[Caliman73]

20. Human behavior is complex, but your post misses some obvious notes.

You are in a presumably intimate and trusting relationship with your husband and therefore there is room for the "gray". You presumably know each other well enough to navigate your sexual relationship. Your personal experience is only applicable to your situation with your husband.

As you said, human relationships are complex. Your scenario is one of any millions of iterations of sexual encounters that take place with varying degrees of intimacy, consent, desire, etc...

If one person says "No" then that needs to be accepted and explored.

The idea that "girls should be taught" is part of the problem. Not that I disagree with the idea of girls/women being empowered to set boundaries, but EVERYONE should be taught about and empowered to prevent invasion of their privacy and violation of their bodies. The problem with your statement is that Boys, because of the power dynamics in society, must also be taught specifically, not to view girls merely as sexual object who are there to satisfy their urges. Boys/Men need to be taught that they have NO rights to a woman's body, or another man's for argument's sake. We get PERMISSION and CONSENT to be intimate and that should not be assumed.

If you have been with your partner for 5 years, 10, 20, etc... we might be able to infer that there is mutual understanding about consent but that does not mean that you can expect something 100%. Human behavior is about communication, therefore we need to have communication/dialogue about consent and trust, and respect without assuming that "girls should be taught" while boys just go for it.

Laws are basically the bare floor for what might constitute a violation. We need to teach ethics, values, and traditions that far exceed the law with respect to how people treat each other.

[Kaleva]

27. +1

Very good!

[nolabear]

74. Couldnt have said it better.

I’ve been watching this thread but just didn’t have the energy. Thanks for your eloquence.

[mythology]

21. Nice strawman you're putting up

You have tried to compare the continuation of a long term consenting relationship to sexual harassment or assault. Good job on completing not understanding things.

By leaving things up to interpretation you inherently increase the risk of getting it wrong. No you don't need to get a notarized consent form to have sex with someone. But making sure you're on the same page with your partner(s) makes sure you don't misinterpret things.

And you're wrong about your son being too old for this. Nobody is. Because none of us are perfect and because circumstances can change.

[liberalmuse]

29. No.

I’m too exhausted to respond to all the things wrong with this post. This sort of thinking is why victims of sexual assault are so hesitant to speak out.

You were lucky. Very few 5 year olds or older children feel empowered. Many are taught to do the bidding of adults in their lives and sometimes this is not a good thing. So many girls were taught that they need to please, sacrifice, serve and obey. We were taught that saying “no” was not acceptable, but to instead defer to another’s wishes at the expense of our own. I’m hoping this is not the case with younger generations, but in large part it was with mine.

Women have been oppressed, suppressed, demeaned, conditioned, silenced and yes, even groomed for centuries. And “no” does indeed mean “no”. Even if it doesn’t in some cases, let’s just train our boys that it does and to act accordingly instead of pressuring or forcing another human being into sexual acts. The kicker? Sometimes when a woman says “yes” she means “no”, but our society is having a difficult time as it is distinguishing whether or not a sexual assault has occurred even when a woman clearly says “no”.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. I submit that there's a significant difference in informed consent between a long-married couple...

and a frat boy out on a date with a girl he barely knows. Way to not understand the concept of consent there.

[ismnotwasm]

31. No.

You are ignoring the presence systemic sexual assault, as well as the history of women, sexuality and consent.

Also, WTF

[alarimer]

36. It's not fucking complicated, not in the least.

When people say "no sometimes means yes", what they REALLY mean is that the abusive asshole man wears her down until she says yes to get the asshole to LEAVE HER THE FUCK ALONE! and get it over with.

It is coercive, it is abusive and it is pretty much rape.

[Caliman73]

50. I agree with your statement. Human behavior however, is complicated.

I think that the OP was conflating a few different things by discussing her intimate relationship with her husband vs. what happens in the many different situations where people engage in sexual behavior.

Ultimately, as I said in my response. I think that the OP is wrong with regards to the "No doesn't always mean no" message. "No" should always be heard and listened to. What we need to do as a society is to empower "no" and train men to not assume consent or expect sexual activity as a right of courtship or attraction or whatever.

The difficulty with laws as a basis of dictating human behavior is that they are typically a response to repeated failures of other behavior control systems like ethics, morality, values, etc... Some people see them as over controlling, but the reality is that they are a response to lack of control internally.

[alarimer]

52. I agree and my response was a little intemperate.

It touched a nerve. It just makes me so angry that people dismiss women's concerns with the "no doesn't always mean no" narrative. What that means for some men is they should keep pressuring someone on the chance they don't mean it, when I think it should mean the opposite.

Women are expect to be the gatekeepers but, yet, are ALWAYS judged no matter what they do or say. I've been thinking lately that a comprehensive sex ed course (which of course we don't have at all in most places) should include topics like consent and communication and respecting other peoples' desires or lack thereof.

[Caliman73]

53. It is understandable.

Me being a man, has given me the privilege not to have to deal with being a gatekeeper and being judged on "what you let happen to you".

I agree that there needs to be continuing education and discussion on sexual behavior.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

40. I don't believe your "too much detail" (it was) for an instant.

[Rustyeye77]

44. WOW....YOU GOT GUTS.

if I were you I'd....... RUN !!!!!

[JCanete]

45. Sure, I get what you're saying. And people communicate in a myriad of ways. Thing is, some people

can take in all the signals, body language facial expression, tone etc. and some people either fail at this or choose to see things the way they want to see them, or simply ignore these signals. And the less you know somebody the more likely you are to misinterpret somebody anyway, so sure, no doesn't always have to mean no, but I submit that if somebody is saying no to you, the onus is on you to err on the side of that person actually meaning no.

As to legislated language of permission in the bedroom, well who's going to enforce that? Assuming a person got it right and didn't assault another person, then the specific language of consent will never come up. On the other hand, if a person did assault somebody, then yes, this may be a clearer definition that makes prosecution easier, which is a good thing.

[hueymahl]

47. I appreciate your attempt to discuss the issues

As you can see, many prefer to call you names than discuss something with which they disagree.

[womanofthehills]

49. I think it's because it's an anti "me too" post

In my book club, after many of us talked about our "me too" stories, one woman, a lawyer, said no one ever tried anything sexual with her - and, she felt the movement was going a little to far. She was insinuating to the rest of us - if we were as "empowered" as her - it would not have happened to us.

What's with the 5 yr old walking to school alone story. Any person who would let their five yr old walk to school alone is not dealing with reality. An empowered five yr old - give me a f**king break.

"""""""""She says no but she really wants it"""""""""' Give me another break.

[IluvPitties]

58. I don't think she is making an anti "me too" post.

At least, it was not her intent. I believe we all can have discussions and listen to different perspectives without necessarily compromising our own views.

[womanofthehills]

75. From a past post of hers, I believe it was her intent

She posted: "Anyway, in my mind this is all connected to my irritation at where some people are drawing the #metoo line. In a lot of situations I think girls should be taught to just tell the jerk to bug off."

[LAS14]

86. I'm not anti #MeToo.... I'm just anti the extreme proponents.

I'm appalled at what has been uncovered about workplace harassment. And I'm very, very glad that society seems to be coming around. But yes, I am irritated at where the line is being drawn for some people. Allow for some nuance here?

[LAS14]

87. Thanks. See my reply #86.

[Skittles]

65. discuss what?

how someone attempts to turn a "giggling episode" with her husband into some kind of thoughtful commentary regarding sexual assault?

[shanny]

51. ...

[bettyellen]

54. Good job training your husband not to understand no. Good luck to him if

You break up and he tries this shit with a woman who is not afraid to communicate clearly. Yikes.
Blaming kids and women, too.

[NCTraveler]

71. +1 nt

[Iggo]

55. And sometimes the N-word means we're friends!

[JenniferJuniper]

56. What a disgusting post

[IluvPitties]

57. Thanks for sharing. I know you are being attacked, but it is important to have these conversations.

[TheFrenchRazor]

60. why do you say no, when you mean yes? maybe that's part of the problem. nt

[raccoon]

62. Cool story, bro. Nt

[Ms. Toad]

63. I hope this is sarcasm.

I shudder to think what would happen if he couldn't have tested the situation by attempting to proceed. I could have cleared it up very quickly by not letting him proceed. It sure would have thrown cold water on the situation if he had had to ask "Are you sure you want to?"

In case it's not, I'm sure you and your hubby would have survived just fine if he had had to ask about whether you wanted to proceed, and I seriously doubt it would even put a damper on the mood.

I can't say the same for the emotional and physical health of women who say "No," and whose abusers don't respect it.



And, frankly, no one is going to be hanging out in your bedroom to see you play silly "no" games - and if a woman is upset enough about her "no" being ignored to file a police complaint, that pretty much illustrates why the law may be necessary.

[mercuryblues]

68. Society isn't trying

legislate sexual communication. Except for when a woman says no, she means no. Unfortunately there are far too many people in society that are more than willing to blur even that line of defense, as not really meaning it.

Girls are taught to say no. it just that gets ignored and blurred. Or have you never heard a guy say, aww come on. If you really love me, you will. Or the defense of she didn't say no, ignoring the fact the girl was passed out and/or drugged. Because she didn't IE couldn't say no the default was yes. Which is why enthusiastic yes is a good gauge to judge their consent by. IOW it is not

No...... But honey if you love me, you will
No....... I really want to
No.......I want to show you how much I love you
okay......

^^^ that is giving in to coercion, not a yes. Which is why No must be take seriously and not blur the lines.

What you and your husband do in your bedroom is not an excuse to say because in your situation, you mean yes so other women really mean yes. Just stop it, and I mean exactly that. Stop. Whether you mean it or not, it has the effect of blaming females for being assaulted.

[LAS14]

69. OK, I'll try to answer some of the responses, and...

... add a few new thoughts.

I'll answer selected individuals with specific posts.

1 - DU is a great place to learn about communication. I see a lot of narrow thinking which puts my post in the worst possible light. Thanks to those who put a lot of effort into defending DU as a discussion venue, where people of different opinions can converse, especially Kaleva - not assuming that you agreed with me.

2 - I should have made a distinction between sexual interactions between peers and those involving a person of power and a subordinate. I was thinking about high schools, colleges, and colleagues in the work place. The #MeToo movement has been a real eye opener for me about what's going on in the work place. Certainly no one should have to resort to physical communication when a boss is using his her authority to try to get any kind of sexual favor. That's a whole different story.

So thanks, all for participating. Check out my specific responses.

[Skittles]

81. it is not "narrow thinking" to be nauseated by your post

[LAS14]

70. What does "post removed" mean? Does it mean a jusry voted it out? nt

[Skittles]

77. yes

some objectionable "opinions" get a pass and some do not

[NCTraveler]

72. You should go into more detail.

No, you really should. <~ I did not giggle.

[shenmue]

76. Terrible post. Putting you on Ignore.

[Me.]

83. You Can Teach Them All You Want

But when it down to a determined adult man and a little girl no won't protect her. And yes it is criminal behavior, that which is so often not believed or given a pass like the man who just rec'd probation for brutalizing a child. So yes, they should be taught but that is not the only teaching that should be done and it is not the only solution.

There simply cannot be a comparison/relevance between what goes on between consenting adults/the incident you described and the assault of any type of a woman. Honestly, don't you think a woman being brutalized is screaming NO?

[Sugar Smack]

88. The difference here is between being w/an intimate partner and Rape.

For every woman who says "NO", if there is ANY chance at all she's a predator's quarry, he won't hear her/care. He will be indifferent and do as he pleases, regardless of her social/physical savvy.

Intimate partners have a level of understanding based on exposure & trust. For example, if I call my best friend a giant dumbass, it's affectionate within the context. Context is everything.

[moriah]

89. What, there's legislation in place that would make use of safewords other than "no" illegal?

Please, give me details on said legislation.

If you want to play games with a long-term partner exploring "consensual non-consent", that's between you and your partner. It's best if you have a signal for "I really mean no" and sometimes another for "gentler but don't break character."

If you think those games should be played outside of that context... you've watched too many movies.