Shoot the Wall (A.K.A. The Rant Thread)

[Pseudonym]

4 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

So I can't see any good reason for an investigation.  But maybe they'll surprise me.

Do you mean you can't see the point of her coming forward or you think it won't come to anything so there was no point?

[Arcadia]

 

5 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

It has to do with how you trust someone, and I can picture these women trusting him because of his charisma (?), his father figure, his social status, as a friend, a trusted acquaintance and his 'mentor' status. It's not much difference probably with someone trusting another's advice about a health product, something for your anxiety, something that is good for you (although I would agree that this is naive, but the most powerful tool of advertisement is word-of-mouth from someone you trust) and believing them doesn't mean you are to blame, especially  when the other person indeed has the intention to harm you. I think it is very wrong to say that one should blame herself if she thought taking his pill to help her relax would mean she accepts that he would sexually assault her while she was unconscious or couldn't fight back. 

It's not the same, but similar of blaming rape victims for dressing suggestively. While I think some women are indeed idiot to do so in places that are not appropriate and dangerous, don't pay attention or respect culture and social norm if it's foreign places (Oh there are tons and tons of those!) I also think that it is not the right 'excuse' to rape or sexually assault or harass someone.

I agree. Poor judgement on the part of the victim isn't an excuse in fraud cases, I don't think it should be in sexual assault cases either. I suspect this is at the root of any movement to "lower the standards" for conviction in these cases; women are tired of seeing their attackers go free because the woman herself is not perfect. Still, I don't see how just an accusation can be enough for conviction; is that something that's actually being proposed?

At any rate, I just want to reiterate Carol's point; this case isn't a "case", in the sense of a courtroom trial. It's a hearing to determine whether or not someone should be appointed to the highest court in the land, for life. So issues of character are, in fact, rather pertinent, imo. Of course it's political; it's meant to be. Supreme Court justices have the potential to make rulings that will last for generations; the writers of the Constitution wanted "the people's representatives" (aka politicians) to have a say in what kind of person gets to be in that position. The big question there, of course, is whether the politicians actually represent their constituents. But that's a different argument.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

47 minutes ago, Pseudonym said:

Do you mean you can't see the point of her coming forward or you think it won't come to anything so there was no point?

Neither.  I mean I doubt that an investigation could turn up anything useful.

[Carol the Dabbler]

38 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Poor judgement on the part of the victim isn't an excuse in fraud cases, I don't think it should be in sexual assault cases either.

But nobody actually wants to be defrauded, which is why fraud is always illegal.  Sexual activity, on the other hand, is usually welcomed by both parties, and is only illegal when that's not the situation.

The woman in the Cosby case admits to taking some pills that he presented to her as sedatives.  Then she says he started groping her, whereupon she asked him to stop, and then she admits that he stopped.

I can certainly see how he could interpret her knowingly taking the sedatives as an indication that she was willing to engage in foreplay.  I can also see how she might have not have meant that.  But the fact that he stopped when she asked him to sure makes it sound like an honest misunderstanding to me.

 

[Pseudonym]

8 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I can certainly see how a man could interpret her knowingly taking the sedatives as an indication that she was willing to engage in foreplay.  

I can't! If someone I trusted gave me sedatives, and I genuinely trusted him enough to take them, it wouldn't occur to me that he'd be sick enough to make a move once I was drugged! I don't know how sedating myself would be an indication I was willing to engage in foreplay, or what kind of man would be gross enough to want to sleep with someone who was sedated anyway. Grim. Grim all around in my opinion. 

[Van Buren Supernova]

29 minutes ago, Pseudonym said:

I can't! If someone I trusted gave me sedatives, and I genuinely trusted him enough to take them, it wouldn't occur to me that he'd be sick enough to make a move once I was drugged! I don't know how sedating myself would be an indication I was willing to engage in foreplay, or what kind of man would be gross enough to want to sleep with someone who was sedated anyway. Grim. Grim all around in my opinion. 

I can't too. 

It sounds horrifying to me, and I really really really don't think it is an honest misunderstanding.

[Pseudonym]

Nor me.

[Arcadia]

That's the thing, right there. The implication is that every interaction a woman has with a man, no matter the circumstances, no matter the age difference, no matter anything … the woman has to assume the man wants sex, and take precautions accordingly or she's the one at fault. Whereas I think the onus should be on the man to assume that the woman doesn't want sex, and to keep his hands to himself until he confirms otherwise. A simple "do you want to have sex with me?" would probably do the trick, no sedatives required.

I'm saddened by the Cosby case, a lot of us adored and admired him growing up. I can just barely remember watching him on "I Spy" and thinking he was the coolest thing ever. I wish it hadn't turned out this way. 😞 

[Artemis]

56 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Whereas I think the onus should be on the man to assume that the woman doesn't want sex, and to keep his hands to himself until he confirms otherwise.

About 2 years ago I said this to a group of guys on another forum who were having a similar discussion, and their response was essentially, "That's not what women really want."

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Please note, I'm not saying I think it was her fault, just that maybe it wasn't exactly his fault either.

Cosby is from a much earlier generation, and judging by what you guys are saying, attitudes (at least women's attitudes) have changed a lot even since I was a young adult, let alone since he was.

Back in my day, I would have been horrified if a man asked flat out if I wanted to have sex with him.  If I wasn't interested in him in that way, so I said no, it would  have been awkward staying friends after that.  Even if I definitely wanted to have sex, I'd have been mortified to say yes (it would have made me feel like a brazen hussy).

Instead, we just gradually went through a sort of ritual which either party (though usually the woman) could break off at any stage.  Offering the other person an alcoholic beverage (or accepting said beverage) could be taken as a sign of interest.  Things could occasionally get awkward, but in general the process was very, very enjoyable.

Do young people nowadays just say do you want to have sex, like asking do you want to go to the movies?  Where's the romance?  Sounds kinda clinical to me!  I hope I misunderstood.

[Pseudonym]

No, if someone flat out said to me 'do you want to have sex?' I'd be supremely unimpressed and would let them know it. It's not a case of just asking flat out. The drinks, flirting, dating etc would be similar. 

However if I was on a date with someone and had gone back to his flat I don't think it would be out of order for him to check we were both on board before things got too far. I'm thinking more of an 'is this okay?' rather than a blunt 'do you want to have sex?' If anything someone checking things are okay is a turn-on rather than a turn-off.

Of course I'm not someone who is into Tinder and am not likely to randomly hook-up with someone for sex. But in that case I imagine the expectation would have been set through messages before meeting up as to whether it was a date or just a hook-up. I'm also not backwards in making sure people aren't expecting more than I'm willing to offer. The last guy I dated had social anxiety and as such the dates were mainly me going to his house, and I made sure straight off the bat that he knew I was coming over for a date but was not going to be leaping into bed with him. 

[Arcadia]

Precisely. 

I was being a trifle tongue-in-cheek, but not really … I think if a guy's not sure what a girl wants, I'd far rather he find a way of asking her instead of forcing himself on her, hoping (or assuming) that's what she wants too. Word choice is up to him, as long as it's clear.

I remember in college that guys would say things to me, and I was expected to understand "the code." But I didn't, because I was an innocent little naif who'd never encountered such things before. Fortunately for me, I had zero interest in any of them, and routinely said no to any request. Then a friend or sibling or someone would tell me later that they'd been asking me for sex, basically. (I definitely turned down any requests I didn't understand after that! ) It might have been couched in terms that implied some kind of party or date or something, but those "in the know" understood that the real goal was sex. Sort of like Irene's "Let's have dinner." If she meant that literally I'm a hog's foot, but a younger me would have missed the subtext completely. I remember one guy in particular chiding me: "Oh come on, you know exactly what I mean," and me genuinely protesting that no I didn't. Although I probably figured it out at that point, I don't remember. But what troubles me now was his assumption that I had the same thing on my mind that he did. As if no other thoughts were possible in his glorious presence. Ugh, creepy.

Anyway, I was lucky … I never got into a situation I couldn't get out of. But if I'd been more interested in boys and/or romance, I can see how I might have easily gotten into real trouble real fast … just by being genuinely innocent/ignorant. But when the time was right for that step, a decent man (or boy) would have made sure I understood what I was getting into first, imo, by using plain language. That's what I really meant.

And I'm not younger. Alas.  

[Arcadia]

9 hours ago, Artemis said:

About 2 years ago I said this to a group of guys on another forum who were having a similar discussion, and their response was essentially, "That's not what women really want."

Wow. I've heard that kind of thing before, although I don't think any guy's ever had the nerve to say so to me directly. But to me that represents either a spectacular failure of imagination, or a spectacular example of narcissism. Both at once, maybe. How dare they make that assumption, that we don't know what we want, or that we're lying about it, just because we're women? Just … wow.

Okay, for the record: No, I am not "playing" hard to get … I AM hard to get. No, when I say no it does not mean yes. No, I don't think about sex all the time or see sexual connotations in every word, phrase or object. No, I am not interested in casual sex, or even in sex much at all. No, I do not enjoy physical contact with strangers. No, I am not amused by sexual word play. No, I do not get turned on by your manly attributes. No, I do not want to see more of your manly attributes. No, I am not impressed by your physical strength.

Have I made myself clear, potential pursuers? Or do I need to go on?  (I'd put a grumpy face here but I can't find one. 😛 )

[Pseudonym]

2 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Okay, for the record: No, I am not "playing" hard to get … I AM hard to get.

😁😁😁 Bravo!

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I think if a guy's not sure what a girl wants, I'd far rather he find a way of asking her instead of forcing himself on her....

My point was, we did that back in the day too, but our way of asking and answering was nonverbal, just a very gradual escalation of physical activity, unless one party opted out at some point. 

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

How dare they make that assumption, that we don't know what we want, or that we're lying about it, just because we're women?

I assume they do that because what we want is in some ways quite different from what they want.  I'm pretty sure that women make analogous assumptions about men -- like "Oh, my brother/ friend/ sweetheart doesn't think about sex all the time -- he's a nice, intelligent guy!"  Whereas by female standards, men really *do* think about sex all the time, or about 50 times a day, according to some studies. So when we say we're not that interested, they're bewildered and the only explanation they can think of is that we're just pretending not to be interested, because nice girls aren't supposed to be interested.

[Van Buren Supernova]

6 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Please note, I'm not saying I think it was her fault, just that maybe it wasn't exactly his fault either

I can't for my life justify that he is not aware about what he was doing and actually believe what he did can be categorized as consensual in any shape and form, except saying that as an attempt to rebuke accusation and thinking that he could get away with it, as what he had done for years. Or that he believes women who failed to get their accusations heard or failed to make effort means they didn't really mind.

If it's consensual, why did he use drugs or attempted to on almost every single incident, it's not possible the he didn't know what those drugs do. More disturbingly, he also used drugs on women who were actually in relationship with him and claimed they didn't have problem sleeping with him consensually, yet he preferred them drugged and did it unknowingly to them. (The fact that he likes them 'unconscious' is really disturbing to me and how is that consensual? I'm sure that our primal instinct still applies that people would want to willingly do something only when they are able to enjoy it, or forced to, how do you enjoy something or giving your consent while you are unconscious?) And for most of the claims, it's not exactly that he disclosed I'm giving you sedative, but he secretly spiked their drink, offering them as coffee, alcoholic beverage and even as 'medication', some of the claims even stated that he used the act of drinking something as part of audition while it was spiked. And the settings are various too, from professional to private setting, from work to friend hookups.

6 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

Of course I'm not someone who is into Tinder and am not likely to randomly hook-up with someone for sex. But in that case I imagine the expectation would have been set through messages before meeting up as to whether it was a date or just a hook-up. I'm also not backwards in making sure people aren't expecting more than I'm willing to offer. The last guy I dated had social anxiety and as such the dates were mainly me going to his house, and I made sure straight off the bat that he knew I was coming over for a date but was not going to be leaping into bed with him. 

 

5 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Anyway, I was lucky … I never got into a situation I couldn't get out of. But if I'd been more interested in boys and/or romance, I can see how I might have easily gotten into real trouble real fast … just by being genuinely innocent/ignorant. But when the time was right for that step, a decent man (or boy) would have made sure I understood what I was getting into first, imo, by using plain language. That's what I really meant.

Agreed.

I would say that meeting as date probably has more inclination to  hope that they 'get lucky', but decent men, eventhough statistically most do think about sex all the time (I read that before as well and some guy testified that they do as well, well their thingy is located outside..), would not act haphazardly to their mating needs and assuming others want what they want. And certainly, the judgement has to be magnified when the setting is outside romantic hookup; friendship, events, works, casual settings.

I have to admit I would have easily gotten into trouble too had I trusted wrong people. I had traveled with guys and shared bunks or space with them, most with other girls in presence but we were always in very minority because of activities that we took. I had gone on trip with only two best guy friends of mine and we were sharing room, I had also shared bed space with one of this guys when we went on other trip just by two of us who was and still my best friend. Three of us cooked and prepared drinks (mostly just regular drinks) for each other although it was more like relaxing adventurous trip compared to partying kind. We even had the big part of remote island by ourselves. Look, I was and not a flirt, I'm clueless, and I'm interested only in friendship and activity, there were limited choices of where, how and who your companions are. But still, I'd rather don't go than going with people I was not comfortable with. I don't trust easily but when I do, I trust genuinely. They didn't treat my willingness to be with them in this kind of settings and opportunities that I might be interested in anything intimate. We respected each other's trust and do not assume. One could think that maybe I am not appealing to them so that they behave gentlemanly and uninterested in pursuing that, but it's not the case as they admitted it otherwise. (sadly, the truth is this is not uncommon assumption just like the remark T made on one of his accusers, something about she is not attractive enough, or people looking at victim and think "really"?)

So, making sure and not a mere assumption is really needed, even when it seems that the other party is 'willing'.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Let me make it clear that I'm not saying I'm convinced Cosby is innocent, merely that I think it's possible a case could be made for his innocence in the one case where we have both his sworn statement and her sworn statement.

Of course the recent jury found otherwise, and they presumably had more info than I've seen, but the prior jury couldn't agree on a verdict, and Cosby's lawyer is going to appeal the recent verdict.

Regardless of how this ends up, though, I'm just as disappointed in the man as Arcadia is.  He's clearly a slimeball, even judging him solely by his own testimony.  Heck of a deal. 

 

[Arcadia]

3 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

My point was, we did that back in the day too, but our way of asking and answering was nonverbal, just a very gradual escalation of physical activity, unless one party opted out at some point. 

I doubt if that's changed much. But that doesn't exactly sound like an assault situation to me. 

Quote

I assume they do that because what we want is in some ways quite different from what they want.  I'm pretty sure that women make analogous assumptions about men -- like "Oh, my brother/ friend/ sweetheart doesn't think about sex all the time -- he's a nice, intelligent guy!"  Whereas by female standards, men really *do* think about sex all the time, or about 50 times a day, according to some studies. So when we say we're not that interested, they're bewildered and the only explanation they can think of is that we're just pretending not to be interested, because nice girls aren't supposed to be interested.

But that's what I find so presumptuous … the assumption that just because they don't understand it, that means we're lying. That just by virtue of being male, they know better than we do. Etc.

I want to make it clear that I don't think this describes all men, or even (I hope) most men. Out of all the men I've encountered in my life, only about a dozen or so have, er, transgressed. So whether they're thinking about sex or not, most of them know where the lines are that shouldn't be crossed. And there's simply something wrong with the rest of them, imo.

I'll tell you one of my favorite stories … I was at the landfill, tossing my bags of garbage into the bins, when this truck with 2 or 3 seedy looking guys pulled up next to me. The driver said something … I couldn't make it out, and asked him to repeat it. We went through this 2-3 times, with me stepping nearer to their truck so I could hear better, when they noticed one of the landfill employees approaching, and abruptly took off. That's when it dawned on me that they'd been, uh, propositioning me. My jaw must've dropped twenty feet … in a landfill???? I turned to my savior, who turned out to be a scrawny, grimy, gum-chewing 20-something kid in filthy overalls; and boy, if looks could kill, those guys in the truck would have been part of the landfill. "God, how I hate smartasses," he said. And I thought, you know what, this world's mostly an okay place.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Cross posted again, I see. Well, now that we're both absolutely clear, I'm off to bed. In the morning I'll probably discover that someone's managed to take what I said the wrong way.  

[Pseudonym]

Yup, they can think about sex all they want, just don't go assuming because you're thinking about it means someone else wants it. 

[Pseudonym]

Eurgh, I haven't been on Tumblr for months but I'm running out of things to read so I just went sloping back and remembered why I hate it so much. It's the self-righteous PSAs that irritate me the most, and the smug little 'real' stories that get reposted thousands of times but just smack of being entirely fabricated. 

[Artemis]

Do you have an example?  I'm just curious.  I don't think I get many of those on my dash, but I tend to stay clear of blogs that engage in 'the discourse' (if it's still called that) or show signs of being political or 'social justice' oriented.  I can read the news if I want that type of thing, I don't need that kind of annoyance in my happy place.

 

[Pseudonym]

I'll keep an eye out and post next time I see one. I've got to the point now that I skim read the first line, see that it's going to get preachy, and skip the rest. I wish I could figure out how to block the rest of her posts and just keep the fic recs. 

Do you what else irritates me? (I'm on a roll) That fake laugh people do when you're talking. I don't even know if I can describe it properly, not a full on laugh, more like an 'amused grunt' I guess, whilst not actually amused nor have I said anything amusing.  It tells me you're not interested in what I'm saying, you can't be arsed to engage with a response, and as such this is a pointless conversation. My mother was just doing it on the phone and I was tempted to just hang up.

[Artemis]

Ugh, fanfic and fandom blogs... they can be the worst sometimes.  I only follow fandom blogs if they post mostly nonsexual art, gifs, and funny pictures.  Does she use a consistent tag on the posts you don’t like?  If so, you could try blocking that tag.  If not, you may be out of luck, though I’m by no means a Tumblr wiz.  There may be a way to only follow certain posts from her, especially if they’re tagged a certain way.  I’ve seen people talking about that, but never looked into it myself.

Speaking of weird laughs, I wish there were a prettier synonym for “chuckle”.  As a writer it’s not an uncommon thing I’m describing, but it almost always sounds wrong, especially when the situation I’m writing about is supposed to be more serious.  Just doesn’t fit right.  So then I have to try and find a fitting descriptor, like “grim chuckle” or “sinister chuckle” or “smug chuckle” or something.  Actually I wish there were more words for different types of laughter in general.

 

[Pseudonym]

I block the tagged ones fine, but she doesn't tag the PSAs annoyingly. I literally just want to find new stories. 🤨

Giggle? Chortle? Titter? Guffaw? I won't go on I'm sure you know how to use a thesaurus. 😋