I know I should have stopped after the last post. I really should have just left it alone. I should have published that post and never gone back to Male Chauvinist Woman's blog, but for some reason I seek out stuff that hurts my brain. Oh boy, did I find some truly brain-breaking material.
These two posts seem to be a reply to yesterday's post. One of them is a PSA informing me that:
If you take off your panties and get into bed with a man, he will conclude that you want to have sex with him. Counterintuitive, I know, but there ya go.
So, anytime a woman not wearing a chastity belt gets in bed with a man she can expect to wake up with his penis in her vagina? Seriously, this has not been the experience of my friends and me.
Two heterosexual people of the opposite sex have been known to sleep in the same bed, sometimes even nude, and not end up having sex. Really it's not magic; it's simply two people agreeing that since one, or both, of them isn't interested in sex tonight that there won't be sex. Unless, of course, you believe that a man's penis completely takes over his brain whenever he see a great pair of tits and ass. (...this, by the way, is from the same mind that concludes women are irrational.)
In a reply to Hex*, MCW brings up many a man's objection to the confusing signals modern women send to men [/sarcasm]:
So if a woman took off her panties, got into your bed and rubbed up against you, meanwhile breathing, "No," into your ear, you claim that wouldn't be a mixed signal? I pity the women who actually want to sleep with you; what do they have to do, put it on a billboard?
Actually, all it really takes is the woman saying "Yes, I want to have sex" and the man feeling sure of her sincerity. Seriously, asking and waiting until she clearly states that she want to have sex isn't difficult. I know it'll completely ruin people's romanticized version of hot, rough sex filled with violence, but frankly I don't care for it unless there's clear consent and a safeword involved.
---
*He now has his own blog. GO. READ. He's a better writer than I am.
4 comments:
He's a better writer than I am.
Awwwww.
Actually, all it really takes is the woman saying "Yes, I want to have sex" and the man feeling sure of her sincerity. Seriously, asking and waiting until she clearly states that she want to have sex isn't difficult. I know it'll completely ruin people's romanticized version of hot, rough sex filled with violence, but frankly I don't care for it unless there's clear consent and a safeword involved.
I tried to say some of that over at MCW's blog, but given recent developments, somehow I don't think it got through.
So if a woman took off her panties, got into your bed and rubbed up against you, meanwhile breathing, "No," into your ear, you claim that wouldn't be a mixed signal? I pity the women who actually want to sleep with you; what do they have to do, put it on a billboard?
"No" is not a mixed signal. That "no" trumps everything else, always. Enthusiastic, sober, and clear consent are necessary and sufficient.
Interested to get your thoughts on this:
When I find myself "blaming the victim", it's because I'm operating under the rules of life that deal with risk reduction. That is, you go though life minimizing risk (or uncompensated risk), and this colors every personal decision, and likewise every judgment about other people's decisions. I think many people tend to do this a lot. Although even my wife scolded me just last night for leaving my cell phone (visibly) on the car seat in a parking garage before a movie. If it had gotten stolen, you could put the blame on either me or the actual criminal (or both), depending on your personality (?, that's probably not the right term-life outlook, maybe?). Some people take more personal responsibility, maybe some people take too much personal responsibility? I don't know.
Anyway, which side you're says a lot about you and how you see the world, and there are tradeoffs. For sure, maximizing risk management minimizes freedom (e.g. no drinking in a mini-skirt at a frat party=outcome good from a risk management perspective but loss of freedom). Here's what I'm wondering. Maybe some groups (women) feel that they've already had to sacrifice too many freedoms, or are not in a free state, and so prefer the outlook on life that doesn't blame the victim, wishing to maximize freedom at any cost. Other groups (men) have plenty of freedom (and thus power), and wish to maximize risk management strategies/outlooks in order to secure their existing freedoms.
?
I actually did decide to comment there, no banning, no response...Hurt my head, so I am not keen on reading more...
Post a Comment