eom

That has no legal and perhaps limited real world application.

I thought it sounded like a bit of self aggrandizing horseshit

"same writing style and syntax as elsewhere. The similarities are quite striking. It is almost as if they are the same person...

Which is perfectly fine with me.

of "Virtue signalling." And one of the other responders to your post summed it up perfectly.

I think it's a good idea to teach boys and young men these things. And someone who has thought about it and considered what the right thing to do is, well, if that's "signalling virtue," so be it.

There's plenty of "vice signalling" going on out there, with the "pickup artist" and "red pill" braggarts telling boys to push push push because it's their god-given right to have sex when and where and how they want it.

I like to see advice from decent men. What would you prefer.

Then you can have women saying it.

If I were in the socially active age and dating group, what is happening today would terrify me. I would never get close enough to a female person to ask her for a date, let alone precipitating anything more... I would not even have the courage to attempt a conversation with a female person for fear that I would wind up in serious trouble for it.

I used to chat with people in the check out line at the grocery store. Now I only do that if they are male.

I went thru the same thing 20 years ago, post Anita Hill. It got to the point at work that I dared not approach a female for a date.

You know you would be overly aggressive? Or you assume women are just waiting for a chance to lie about you?

1. I'm dating a woman. We enjoy each other's company. I decide I have no long term future with her, and I tell her we need to break up. I tell her politely, say that she 's a great person, and that I have enjoyed our time together, but that we just are not meant for each other. Nonetheless, she considers it a rejection and is angry. She decides to get back at me and accuses me of "sexual misconduct." In today's climate she does not have to prove anything, and my denials will do me no good. I will lose my job and my social standing.

2. I'm standing in the grocery line. I turn and speak to the woman standing in the line next to me. Read the original post. I have no idea what that woman will consider acceptable and what she will not. I am not willing to take that chance today.

or that it is more likely than not?

Misogyny is fear and hatred of women. This is an unreasonable fear. You don't hear women saying they will not ever be alone with a man again because he might assault them. It is pretty much assumed that would be the exceptional occurrence, not the rule. Yet so many men act like it is more likely than not that women will lie and make up something.

Probably not the case. But the fact that it can happen is frightening beyond words. When I was dating, the accusation of rape had to be accompanied by some evidence. It no longer does. The mere accusation ruins a man's life.

And, in fact, you do hear women expressing fear and terror of being alone with a man because she knows, is certain beyond any trace of doubt, that he will rape her. You hear that refrain on college campuses all across the nation constantly.

Still, rape does have to be proven. What happened to Al Franken does not mean that a court of law will not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Few women would be sure a man is going to rape her or think that of every man. Such a woman could not date at all; I'd be surprised if there were that many on college campuses.

Being raped would be a lot worse than being accused falsely and it more likely to happen than a false accusation in that you have to think women are irrational drama queens if you really believe they want to pursue false rape allegations out of spite. Being accuser in such a case is not made easy, either. It is not something normal women would do. Unless you just think we are all crazy.

I'm not talking about the rapes of the women, or the men who did it. I'm not accusing them of false claims and I'm not defending anyone who committed horrible crimes. I'm talking about the media and the chorus of women who "embrace the moment" to express their sense of power.

Of all the accusations that are flying around today, several dozen men, who has suggested that they would like to see any evidence? Who has asked for proof? No. They entire chorus has chimed in with a single cry of, "Hang the bastards, hang all of them."

The accusers are not taking the accused to court. They are not filing suits or asking that they be charged. They are getting their pound of flesh merely by making the accusation.

If these women went to law enforcement and said, "Arrest this man," I would cheer for a moment of justice. If they went to a court of law and sought redress in the venue of the justice system, I would follow the trial and cheer when they were victorious. But they do neither. They go to the media and ruin his life in the press with nothing but an accusation, and he loses his job and his reputation with no opportunity to face his accuser of defend himself, rights which are guaranteed to him in our constitution.

Though strangely, most of those accusations dealt with what he did in public and was photographed will doing it, so never being alone with a woman didn't work!

I think those were false accusations. There is a political/power motive there; it actually in a way makes it more likely that the more famous and rich or powerful the man, the more likely it is false.

who demanded that he resign from his Senate seat. My point exactly.

Everything in your post is bullshit myth promoted by the likes of misogynistic Men’s Rights Activists.

No other crime victims are treated with such suspicion and skepticism. The false reporting rates for every other crime are the same, but they don’t make for very scary headlines. Yes, there are rare cases where a defendant is falsely accused, and it’s appalling to think of innocent people sent to prison or having their life upturned on false charges. Fabricated reports only make it more harder for real victims to find justice. However, false allegations are absolutely not this widespread problem that people make them out to be.

Meanwhile, we know one in five women will experience rape/sexual assault.

See my response to treestar in post #76. I'm talking more about the media and the "women's movement" that is embracing the moment to express their power. I'm talking about an issue in which there is no justice system, in which one merely has to be accused of a crime to be found guilty of it and have your life ruined for it whether you did it or not.

If you commit murder in the most horrible way possible you cannot be ruined for it unless a court of law finds you guilty, and you will be entitled to a defense. If you commit rape you are not entitled to a defense, you are fired from your job as soon as you are accused, and the media sees to it that you no longer have anyone to speak publicly in your defense. The victim does not ask that the perpetrator be arrested, tried in court and jailed. She does not go to court and sue him. She merely ruins his life by announcing his crime to the media who puts his name in the headlines based on nothing more than her word that he did it.

The public, women certainly, fully embrace this total abrogation of our system of justice. If men think it is wrong, they do not have the courage to say so.

"If you commit rape you are not entitled to a defense, you are fired from your job as soon as you are accused, and the media sees to it that you no longer have anyone to speak publicly in your defense..."

I have zero pity for anyone who commits rape.

That being said, your argument and generalizations are completely hyperbolic and misogynistic. She merely ruins his life and all women fully embrace this? I can't take you serious.

By the way, OJ was not convicted of murder, yet his life and reputation were pretty much ruined weren't they?

where political points are to be made. Al Franken did the alleged things in public, so refusing to ever be alone with women or even speak to them as you have deemed necessary, would not help. Your stance is along the lines of refusing to ever fly or even go outside or drive a car.

Unless the victim is a child under 12 or it was a stranger rape, judges and cops don't give a shit. They blow their own cases by sloppy investigation because they don't believe anyone except "perfect" victims are "real victims". They talk about how much it's going damage a man's future even when two people had to pull the man off an unconscious woman!

No, what that person whose being accused was described as doing doesn't equal rape or sexual assault under my state's laws. It was a bad date.

But if we HAD a justice system that actually investigated what IS rape or sexual assault, perhaps the #MeToo movement would never have had to happen.

The solution to one wrong is not to replace it with a wrong in the opposite direction. It is to right the wrong.

You do not solve a failure to prosecute rape, which I agree has long been a problem, by ditching the justice system and punishing a suspect without any pretense of due process under the law. You correct the administration of due process to include crimes that are being overlooked because they pose difficulty and the system prefers to spend time on easier cases.

You make the legal system do its job; you do not bypass it.

If not, then why would *you* be afraid of a false allegation?

I don't think Aziz is going to go to jail for having his rude behavior on a date exposed, either. He's probably just gotten a ton of free publicity. She said she felt pressured, but hasn't gone pressing charges or calling him a rapist. Considering forced oral is rape, and she's not claiming forcible coercion, just pressure that is unbecoming of anyone...you think this is going to ruin him?

I don't think so.

But we have a very real problem with the fact that had this not been a celebrity and an actual rape HAD occurred, the same prejudices that make you paranoid of a false allegation being made against you have made people essentially say if you go to someone's place you're consenting to sex. You'd probably vote not guilty for the same reason you're so afraid getting accused yourself.

And I've seen that shit all over this thread. And it makes me irate as hell.

Edit: FFS, the proof is in the very fact she's NOT claiming he forced her to go down. If you were gonna try to ruin someone and had DNA in your throat, surely you'd claim actual force. False accusations are so rare it's insane for you to be frightened of them.

It discusses the justice system and the right of an accused to face his accuser, a right which is enshrined in the constitution.

"You'd probably vote not guilty for the same reason you're so afraid getting accused yourself." If I were on a jury, I would listen to evidence and weigh the claims made by both sides before I voted at all.

In any case, I did not say I was frightened of the false claims, I said I was frightened by the absence of a justice system

Frankly, if you honestly don't think you know how to behave politely in a grocery store...

Then maybe you SHOULD emulate Pence.

So there were at least 70,395 rapists that year.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one who reported, with evidence of him admitting it, then had the "justice system" drop the ball.

Do tell.

The FBI 2012 data says over 84,000 cases of forcible rape were reported in 2012, but only an estimated 18,098 were arrested for forcible rape.

Maybe some old rape kits came back to make the 2012 conviction rate they found be from past years.

fake rape reports. I've never gotten an answer about what percentage were fake from anyone who thinks that.

While there are fake reports from time to time, they are far from common.

... to act in a grocery store around a woman.

Seriously, the only thing ANYONE has done to weird me out in the grocery store was standing too close and trying to talk to me while I was using the ATM.

And the weirded out part wasn't sexual at all -- it was that you just don't talk to people while they're accessing that machine.

Somehow I've never been fearful that anyone would see me as threatening for that. Now, at the ATM, I'm very wary of people nearby, and make it a point to keep my distance if someone is ahead of me using the machine. But not in the supermarket in general.

Heck, I even make faces at kids in shopping carts to get them to smile at me. Their moms always smile when I succeed.

Being fearful of normal interactions with people you don't know is strange, I think.

I'm 37. I missed the "sexual revolution" and my Dad's AIDS diagnosis certainly made me very cautious about casual sex. Plus, I'm one of those who gets feels when I'm that intimate with someone.

But we do need to somehow address the dynamic that has contributed to the "virtue game" that almost all women used to play, and some women still do -- that made it where boys were taught they had to push to get sex and girls were taught they wouldn't be respected if they "gave in".

And it may be that only the generation growing up now will actually be able to "grok" the idea that sex isn't supposed to be a conquest but a highly intimate, mutual sharing of affection and of self.

"Tread girls with respect," and "I don't want to hear about you knocking up some girl." First from my mother, second from my father.

Later, though, my father did tell me that I should do anything with girls that they weren't excited to do.

I learned the rest from my first high school girlfriend, who I dated for two years, starting as 15-year-old sophomores. She let me know early that being pushy about sex was never going to work. She told me, "We'll probably do all kinds of stuff, but not until I'm ready for it."

Best girlfriend, ever. She was smart, assertive, and curious. We adored each other. Sadly, I went off to one college and she went off to another and other people were also interesting, so...

We still exchange the occasional email about our lives.

I've witnessed a lot of irrational behavior between people and realize there are a lot of unbalanced and vindictive folks running around in the world. The small city I live in seems to be chock full of people with untreated mental health issues.

The things I've witnessed and heard about are enough to shake anyone's trust in their fellow man.

The amount of spite sometimes makes we wonder that people have children when they are so immature.

But then the way women are traditionally treated when making rape accusations would tend to discourage false accusations (where she knows it is false). And of course the defendant will claim it is false and thus play the victim, even if guilty.

and having oral sex-that is participatory and general 'making out'....(Aziz Ansari). She ended up going home in a cab and then later decided it was sexual assault. No it wasn't. And it shows the foolishness of a "me too" movement run amok. And yes, I have known women to make up stuff up. I am a woman. and I consider we have reached witch hunt territory. But even if every word out of her mouth is true...it is not sexual assault. In fact her claims and other such claims will eventually end the me too movement because they are ridiculous. She was free to leave at any time and eventually did without having intercourse. And of course she is anonymous. I don't believe or trust anonymous allegations.

The police were so lazy that instead of going to his apartment to question him (I explained he worked nights) or scheduling a controlled phone call between me and him to gather more evidence than the emails and texts where he admitted that I was unconscious, they called him FROM the police departments without blocking the caller-ID -- it's in the report of the "investigation" I got after learning there would be no charges.

Which was giving him all the advanced warning in the world for when they DID attempt a controlled call.

We must live in totally different worlds.

I don't spend very much time in places where people are afraid to speak to each other.

But then again, I don't see anything wrong with the original post and live my life by similar standards.

If you behave, the odds of being falsely accused are pretty slim in my experience.

Look at it like an interaction with the police. If the police pull you over and ask to search your vehicle how would you respond? Let's assume you don't want them to search your vehicle just for the sake of argument. If you respond with a "Gee I guess so or Oh, go ahead" you've just consented.

Yes or no is probably the simplest response. I agree that in many cases that you can detect enthusiasm or lack there of but maybe not every case especially if it's a person you haven't known for a longtime. The stakes are pretty high here and it's in everyone's best interest that consent is clearly given and not implied or given but not really given or some other variation that muddies the water.

Or, you could slow down and wait a little until you know the other person better. If you don't, though, then simple Yes and No will probably work, as long at the other person knows that.

Still, once you get to the serious making out stage with someone, a little conversation can make things a lot clearer and help both people understand the ground rules for moving on to more intimate behavior. I like conversation. It can help people understand each other and learn more about each other before things move to seriously intimate sexual behavior. It can also prevent misunderstandings, since not everyone has the same sense of what's OK and what's not.

Sexual intimacy is a process. It's for both people involved to understand each other before that process creates conflicts. Talking is good.

In today's climate anything the woman says is gold, and anything the man says is disregarded.

If both people who are having sex are enthusiastic about having sex, where is the conflict? I don't remember any relationship I've been in where the other person has been pissed off after having sex. Because both of us were enthusiastic participants every time, no conflict existed. Nobody did anything the other person didn't want to do. Both people were participating in intimacy that was wanted.

When one of us was interested, but the other wasn't, no sex took place. When both people actively want to have sex and to participate in particular activities, there shouldn't be any problem. If one person isn't in the mood for some particular thing, that person might be very happy with some other activity. I'm not going to go into detail about that, because anyone can think of situations.

Sex between two people is always mutually consensual, or should be. And that means not just any sex, but the actual things that the two people are doing together. Sex is a negotiation, in many ways. If one person wants to do one thing, but the other person doesn't want to do that, then something else is probably a better idea and won't cause any conflict.

I do not understand how sex that leads to conflict is pleasurable for anyone. Sex is fun. Sex is pleasurable. If it's neither, then someone is not going to be happy. I don't remember any time in my life when making someone else happy wasn't part of the reason for having sex. I don't get why anyone would want to continue if the other person is unhappy with what's going on.

To live in a world where all relationships last forever. A world where two people dating more than once means that they will inevitably marry and live in loving harmony for the rest of their lives. There may be a world like that somewhere, but this world is not it.

Back when I was working, one of the nurses who was trying to get pregnant came into the department. She was complaining of bloat and cramps. The other women said it could be this or that. I said "or maybe?". The nurse punched me in the gut and rolled her eyes...
For what reason I don't know...
I got a "talking to" and she got away scot free for punching a fellow employee... I needed the job so I did not protest..
You guys are on your own. I don't play that yes/no/good/bad/he said/she said game any more... I'm out of the loop. The benefits ain't worth the trouble.. uggh
m

Never suggest to a woman you think she might be pregnant unless you see a baby emerging from her at that moment...

avoid hurting other people's feelings by asserting their own rights or demands. Especially in a situation in which the woman is still hoping to maintain a pleasant relationship, she might well use less forceful or direct ways of saying she is not willing.

In English, and most especially in American English, the subjunctive mood has almost completely disappeared, because we Americans tend toward direct, blunt assertions rather than polite circumlocutions, but in many other languages the subjunctive is far more common in polite discourse.

When Americans say in a Spanish restaurant, "Quiero una Coca-Cola," they sound rude and demanding. The polite way is to say, "Quisiera una Coca-Cola"-- i.e., "I should like a Coca-Cola."

When interacting with men, many women find it hard to say directly, "I want/don't want ***." Instead, they use a more "polite" way of expressing their own wishes or needs, sort of like the use of the subjunctive in polite discourse in other languages.

Also, it is very common for someone who feels weaker or in a more vulnerable position to avoid direct challenges to the demands of a stronger person who has demonstrated a willingness to aggressively push boundaries.

This is true in all social situations, not just sexual ones. If one's boss says, "I assume you don't mind coming in on Saturday," a vulnerable employee is likely to indicate unwillingness indirectly, in a way similar to the way many women try to indicate that they don't want men to keep putting moves on them.

I'm uncomfortable in relationships where communication is difficult. I can't imagine staying in such a relationship very long. For me, relationships are all about communication. All kinds of communication. Until that is established, I'm unlikely to get involved in any kind of intimate behavior with another person.

I'm a believer in making friends with people before moving on to intimacy. I guess that's why casual sex has never been all that interesting to me, even though it has happened a number of times. However, even in a casual situation, I've always tried to establish some ground rules before things got too intimate. That was usually possible. If not, then, I walked away from the situation. That rarely happened, though.

People who want to engage in sex that casual have to take the risks and quit complaining about the risks and find a way to ascertain the true consent of the other individual.

It would rate the reply and tell the man how to proceed.

Just tap "Reciprocity."

Last edited Tue Jan 16, 2018, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

From http://www.businessinsider.com/legalflings-blockchain-based-app-for-sexual-consent-2018-1


LegalFlings

Always be mindful of the other person. Look for subtle but clear ways to express what you feel and what you expect, and you will be surprised at how naturally things unfold. Most (single) men and women out there are open to having a good time and possibly more if the opportunity is there. You are prone to problems if you are self-centered and focus only on what you are hoping or what you want.

If you wouldn’t try your move on Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, you shouldn’t try it on your girlfriend.

of their boss, but utterly fail when it comes to their dates. ( , just in case.)

"I suppose so" when I ask if we're having sex tonight, you're saying she doesnt really want it?

That works better than asking some guy on the Internet, I think.

This "some guy" is claiming to be a pro in the OP. How does one become a pro at rejection, anyway?

I've never felt rejected in any relationship.

for real, that sounds like you have problems.

See. It’s all about context. What I posted is absolutely true.

I learned the rules I described from my first serious girlfriend in high school. Right away. She was her own person, always. It didn't take long before she explained that to me. Not long at all. She explained it all very clearly. I listened.

We were a couple for two years, starting with my sophomore year. We figured it all out during that time.

sex with someone just so he will just stop pestering them.

That's the reason for relying on enthusiastic consent. It's lots more fun, too.

Men are always ready for sex at any time. Men can't be raped by women. Men need to be trained not to rape. I've heard it all. Fuck this thread.

That'd be pretty sad to do that.

Plenty of fish in the sea..
m

I thought that was "consent" according to republican family values.

It's a pretty crude strategy. A lot of men, I think, have the opinion that women don't actually want to have sex. While I've met a few women who felt that way about it, most women do want to have sex, but only in the right circumstances. Here's what has worked for me in understanding a particular person's point of view:

Once some minimal intimacy has occurred, like making out, a conversation about where things are headed works really well in helping both people understand expectations and reservations. It can start with something like, "We seem to be headed toward increased intimacy. Maybe we should talk about that, so we understand each other better. I don't want to do anything that makes you uncomfortable or apprehensive."

Then, talk about it, sometime when you're not actively involved in intimacy. If you're already moving in that direction, it shouldn't be an uncomfortable conversation. Clearly there's stuff happening, so why not discuss it? That has worked for me, again and again. It has helped to avoid issues, understand where things are and where they are going, and how to communicate clearly without misunderstandings.

Guys don't communicate very well. I know I didn't when I was younger. There are some guys who refuse to learn to communicate because it means letting their guards down somewhat. But gals take some of the blame, too. I've found that a lot of women are afraid to speak their minds because it might negatively affect the relationship (my mother in law told my wife when we first met that she shouldn't tell me everything about her. That did not go over well.) All of this is why relationship/marriage counselors make the big bucks.

My first real girlfriend had no trouble at all communicating. We were very young and very new to all of that stuff. Right away, she made it clear that all that stuff was very interesting to her, but that she was uncomfortable with moving too fast in the direction we were heading. Basically, she said, "We'll probably do lots of stuff, but I don't want to be pushed."

We liked each other a lot. So, I heard what she said, and understood it. We were together as a couple for two years, and we did "do lots of stuff." But, only when we were both comfortable with it. Both. It all made perfect sense to me, even as a 15 year old boy. That's when I adopted the "enthusiastic consent" rule. It has always been the rule for me. It has worked out just fine.

My wife has been saying "I suppose so for 15 years..."

Most couples understand each other pretty well after a while, though. Everyone has their own relationship.

I'm talking more about early on in a relationship. Still, even after many years, consent can still continue to be an issue, and it's an important issue, I think.

Was just joking.

I say, "I guess so" to my husband but it's usually, "I guess so. After you move this piece of furniture/take out the trash and recycling/clean the litter box.".

Yeah I'll barter when not really in the mood. Marriage is fun like that.

"Make it quick I need to get up early." LOL.

Of course making it quick is easy for me!

"I guess so but I really want to finish watching this week's GoT so let's get going and get this done.". Being married has really sucked the romance out of life.

things can get pretty murky. The above advice could work if everyone is sober; if they aren't, signals can be missed or misunderstood or ignored.

reduce rational thinking. That problem has never occurred for me, really. I don't like being drunk, and I don't like having sex with people who are drunk. A little intoxicated? That's OK, as long as both people are capable of making reasonable decisions.

I can remember a few times when I've passed on sex with someone who I thought was a little too intoxicated. I have always tried not to get to that point, and when I have, I'm not usually interested in initiating sex anyhow.

back in college, a young woman I really liked but had not quite gotten around to actually dating was really drunk and it got the point where she had pulled up her shirt and showed me that she was bra-less. (We were sitting around talking and boom, she was topless) Since I was not drunk and I liked her a lot, I figured I could wait a little while longer when she had sobered up and just made she got back to her dorm room safely. I would guess that at least some guys would not have said "no" to her.

Of course, I later found out that she had gotten drunk in order to get up the courage to make that first move on me because she knew I was kind of the shy type that would likely wait too long to ask her out. She was definitely not the shy type, but this was back in the late 80s and women making the first move on a guy was still somewhat frowned upon.

We ended up dating a little while several months later, but it didn't last because I graduated and she ended up transferring to another college.

While at college for the second time, after 4 years in the USAF, I lived for a while in a big three-story house that was sort of a co-ed communal living situation. I was actually living there with my girlfriend, who I married later and was with for 17 years. Anyhow, the house was full of an ever-changing bunch of students, ranging in age from 18 to 24 (my age at the time).

There was lots of flirting and general sexual freedom going on in that house, as you can imagine in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But, I was in a relationship, and I'm pretty much a monogamous guy.

Anyhow, there was one young woman who appeared to take a fancy to me. She was extremely uninhibited and occasionally would walk through the living room of that big old house, stark naked after a shower. On one such occasion, she made it clear that she would be interested in a little sex romp. It was more than a little tempting. She was strikingly lovely and more than willing.

I gently told her that I was monogamous and didn't fool around outside of a relationship I was in. She sat down across from me, still naked, and we had a conversation about it. In the end, she said, "I get it. I hope I find someone like you someday. But, are you sure you don't want to mess around?" I told her that, yes, I was sure. She laughed and walked out of the room. She continued to flirt with me and parade through the house naked, but only jokingly after that.

I will say that it was a very, very difficult decision to have to make. Sometimes, a guy has to work from principle, despite challenges to that principle.

It makes it far less likely for there to be any misunderstanding.

I don't remember any conflicts at all. I was a young adult during the "sexual revolution," so I do remember lots of opportunities to apply those rules for myself.

I should share all the ways I’ve had to say “no” to men who apparently think that no means “talk into”—my favorite being the “I’ll be right back” ditch.

I’ve been married a long time and it doesn’t sound any better out there.

I always figured that if you had to talk someone into it, they really weren't into it. Maybe another time. I never got the urgency thing, really. Slow and easy does it better.

Sometimes there isn't an actual one, and that's OK, too.

That way everyone is protected.

I always thought of that as a way to get someone to be more interested in you than a sexual tactic. Sexually, it sounds like an excuse for someone to wheedle and whine to get someone to do something she doesn't want to do. "She was playing hard to get, but I wore her down and she finally gave in."

For me, playing hard to get, in the sense of trying to get me interested, would never work. I'd just look elsewhere. I'm not a big fan of game-playing, really.

Do you think that a person should literally ask before initiating any physical contact on a date?

relationships that are just beginning. It varies, I think. Sometimes, the signals are clear that contact is wanted. Other times, not so much. Asking is fine. It simplifies things. I remember one situation where I was uncertain where things were going with someone who had been a friend for quite a while. Things appeared to be changing, but I was hesitant to initiate contact and didn't want to risk our friendship. Finally, my friend laughingly broke the ice by asking me a question: "Are you ever going to kiss me?" So, I did, and we were off to the races.

Usually, though, early on, there are pretty clear indications that the time is right, I think. There is a distinct "You could kiss me" face presented at an opportune moment. Or you're walking along together and your hands keep brushing against each other somehow, so you know you can take the other person's hand. Hand-holding is more intimate than many people recognize. It's not just for young teenagers.

But, if you're uncertain, asking works just fine. "Would you mind if I kissed you?" In most cases, you should already know that the answer will be that it's OK. If you don't know that, maybe it's not quite the right time. Other times, the other person will simply take the initiative.

I don't think there is any single answer to your question, really. If you're paying attention, though, the answer should be right in front of you, really. But, if you're not sure, asking is a pretty good solution.

The same thing applies to situations where some new step in the progress of a physical relationship is in the offing. Asking is by far the safest way to make sure what you have in mind is OK. Another possibility is to have had a conversation in a different setting about initiating intimacy. I remember one relationship where the other person told me that she would prefer to initiate increased intimacy when she felt ready for it. I said that would be fine with me. In some cases, she did so before I would have asked, anyhow, so it all worked out just fine.

I think the key is in getting to know the other person as well as you can before intimacy issues even arise. Then, communication is much easier. And communication is the key.

Even "not yet" is a no.

The English language is delightfully binary that way. No literally means no. Yes literally means yes. You can dress and gussy it all up with flirtation and ambiguous body language all you want. It can even be fun that way. But no is still no. Yes is the only yes

Asking for consent firmly and clearly is never a bad idea and it is way easier than missinterpreting things will make any interaction.

Sure it’s polite, and some people will think you are weird for it. You may miss out on an opportunity to get laid because of it - and male friends will undoubtedly talk some shit if you explain it to them like this , as I have. But in the end you’ll never wonder about it being unethical and you’ll never hurt a partner by getting her signals wrong.

When I talk about it people assume that means that sex is an extremely formal act in my view. Hence things like the Mike Pence crack above. But that’s not so at all. Once you know a partner well whatever kink you or they might have can be also be better expressed and tried , or not.

The issue a lot of people seem to have with it is that it kills the will we / won’t we dynamic that people do get a thrill out of. Maybe I’m just lucky that that kind of thing never seemed essential to me.

I suppose that if "getting laid" is the primary goal, all of this asking and stuff will sound a little ridiculous. Just "getting laid" has never been a primary goal for me, really. I mean I've had some pretty casual recreational sex in my 72 years, but those instances were very mutual in their nature, and were truly recreational by mutual agreement, rather than relationship-oriented.

Mostly, though, sex has been part of a relationship that went beyond just the physical. That's preferable to me, and once I got out of my early 20s, was even essential if I was going to be doing it at all. Sex, as part of a relationship, has always been better, as far as I'm concerned than even the best recreational sex. More dimensions are involved and it's not just physical, but emotional as well.

There's nothing wrong with two people (or more) getting together sexually. It's quite a popular recreation. However, it may be even more important that people involved in that kind of sexual activity to understand consent issues than for people in a relationship. Relationships usually have some established communication channels, so consent issues don't arise as often, although they do occur. Inn casual sexual encounters, particularly, though, issues of consent often come into play and can lead to unfortunate outcomes.

The other issue that occurs is when one person does develop emotional attachment to another, but when that emotional connection isn't mutual. There are even more opportunities for miscommunication in those circumstances. Some really ugly things can happen in such situations. Again, communication is essential to avoid emotional attachment issues.

Sex is complicated at times, and absolutely simple at other times. The problem is that it can be hard to know exactly what the situation is at any given time. People and their emotions are complex.

they are on line. Fullproof.

One benefit of such contracts, of course, is that you absolutely have to communicate before agreement can be reached. In most cases, though, people can figure that kind of thing out without paper, I think.

" I was drunk"
"He made me do it"
" Hes a sexual predator"
"I didn't want to but he made me"
" He must have slipped me a roofie"
" I trusted him"


Anyway you cut youre screwed.

I have solutions:

Don't have sex with drunk people.
Don't "make" anyone have sex with you.
Don't be a sexual predator.
Pay attention to what the other person wants and doesn't want.
Don't have sex with unconscious people.
Be trustworthy.

Only have sex with people you know and like and communicate with those people. That will eliminate those issues.

but all it takes is one.

a great way to keep yourself out of trouble, but it also limits you. My point was that such things are really rare and are easily avoided. Date nice people and be nice, yourself. Take the time to make sure that both of you want the same thing and you won't ever have any trouble with things like you described.

Don't make having sex the goal, but be open to the possibility if things are right.

Make friends first.

That's my advice for avoiding trouble.

... complexities of human relationships and infantilizes women.

For me, it removes an element of power from my role in the interaction and avoids a lack of concern for my partner's wishes. I see it as an equalizing influence. It's not up to me, alone.

I wouldn't have gone. Also, It didn't happen after one date. I was assaulted and injured after an attempted rape by a stranger. No way, I would go to a stranger's apartment by myself. It is dangerous. But even if every word the anonymous Aziz Ansari accuser wrote in Babe is true...it is not sexual assault. I consider such accusations to be part of a growing witch hunt.

of misunderstandings and poor communication to me. When I read the account, I thought, "I'd have ended that date" at several points during their time in the apartment.

In my college days, places where privacy was available were limited. Many times, dates continued in my apartment or hers. Sometimes, sex occurred, but not always. In fact, there were several situations where overnight stays that didn't involve intercourse occurred. It got late, and nobody went home, but sexual activity only went so far.

A couple of times, all that happened was a continuation of the conversation we were having earlier, but in more comfortable surroundings. On many other occasions, of course, sex did occur, but it wasn't a given just because of the location.

I thought the Ansari situation was very unfortunate, with a lot of missed signals that should have ended the activity. I know that I would never have continued under those circumstances. I'd have said something like, "Well, we don't seem certain where this should go, so let's call it a night and see what happens at some other time." I guarantee I'd have done that.

a cab home and paid for it myself. This is not sexual assault...and I am sure there are misunderstandings about sex. I shudder to think what some could say about me during my misspent youth.

... in having sex in that night up-front, I probably should have left, too. And I started to.

He was an ex who'd invited me over to hang out as friends after work on what was my Friday night (shift work). When I saw he was already drinking and invited me to have some, that's when I said my intent about us not being in bed together. When I nearly left, he said "Okay, okay, I won't try anything", and had invited another friend over too.

I passed out on the couch while both were still there, when I knew I'd had more than enough I went to the couch and said "goodnight".

But I'm still not going to blame myself for *not* leaving, even though of course I wish I had. I was prepared to leave rather than drink with someone who didn't understand and accept I wanted to sleep alone. I didn't get in his bed voluntarily, didn't take off my clothes, didn't apparently even fucking move when he carried me to his bedroom.