Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst ... 31394041
Results 601 to 615 of 615

Thread: The entertainment industry's unstoppable bullshit machine

  1. #601
    worth a million in prizes .chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,036
    The first two segments in this week's On The Media show on NPR addresses the Aziz Ansari situation really well:

    https://www.wnyc.org/story/on-the-media-2018-01-19

  2. #602
    Alt Universe CliqueMember Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Snarkletown
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by .chris View Post
    The first two segments in this week's On The Media show on NPR addresses the Aziz Ansari situation really well:

    https://www.wnyc.org/story/on-the-media-2018-01-19
    Thanks, that was really helpful; it actually mentions many of the exact same stuff that we talked about in here! To the point of bad writing, mentioning the wine choice, saying no to people who need to hear no, "why didnt she leave" and differences between assault, intimidation etc. Gives me some peace of mind that this time it wasnt "us dudes" saying those things though, I wonder how "disgusting" Perky would find it to hear others having a conversation about it.
    "Replies are a combination of nonsense, unrelated comments and inside jokes"‎

  3. #603
    Senior Member uncanny hats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    Thanks, that was really helpful; it actually mentions many of the exact same stuff that we talked about in here! To the point of bad writing, mentioning the wine choice, saying no to people who need to hear no, "why didnt she leave" and differences between assault, intimidation etc. Gives me some peace of mind that this time it wasnt "us dudes" saying those things though, I wonder how "disgusting" Perky would find it to hear others having a conversation about it.
    There's been a conversation for a long time. Seriously. That's why phrases like "having a conversation" and "middle-ground" are so off-putting. How the fuck is there middle ground when it comes violating someone's sexual and intimate space? I dunno, man. I know you think my politics are extreme and that's fine. And, an activist group I was in ten years ago was made fun of for instituting the Antioch consent policy in our collective house. We were called sexually frigid and puritans. Never mind, that nearly everyone in the house was poly and into BDSM. And as weird and fringey as all that sounds, we weren't sexual puritans, the opposite was more true.

    And as a bisexual male, who has slept and dated all sorts of identities, it's true that dudes seem to have been socialized to think certain ways about these sorts of encounters. But if a dude gets too aggressive with me, I'm six feet tall and 200 pounds and I can fight back. It's easier for me to say no.

    But here's the weird thing when I try to have conversations with men about consent and we're socialized: isn't it wierd that many pranks boys play on each other is sexual assault? And yet it's treated as good fun. And if you're initimate with someone and you're having a good time, and they don't ask and pull down your pants and start blowing you, you feel super sexy. And so, I think there's a very real problem with the way men (especially straight men) view sexual assault. If you yourself have been assaulted and all you can see your assault as is good fun or that you're super hot, what the fuck does that say about how you might view other people? And society is so weird about this. If a twelve year old boy has a sexual relationship with a female teacher, you'll hear men say, "Way to go!" to the boy as if he's some Adonis, who was so hot the teacher couldn't control herself. And so is it any surprise that so many men are shitty?

    And I want to try to understand your point about a middle ground, but you know, the Antioch consent policy came out in 1990 and feminists have been talking about these forever. It's time for men to catch up and have a genuine conversation about the more toxic aspects of normative masculinity.
    Last edited by uncanny hats; 01-20-2018 at 03:17 PM.

  4. #604
    Alt Universe CliqueMember Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Snarkletown
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    There's been a conversation for a long time. Seriously. That's why phrases like "having a conversation" and "middle-ground" are so off-putting.
    So because other people are possibly talking about it elsewhere that I don't know of, should mean I can't? Why have a forum then. Like, at all. I just read the article posted in here, and reacted to THAT. I'm not a person that goes about Googling stuff that take place in the USA at random, because I don't believe in "internet" knowledge like that. What you expect to read you're bound to find, and you'll remember it better. Anything that counters expectations you are less likely to find and less likely to remember.

    The questions I ask and want to talk about;
    - "was it sexual assault or sexual intimidation?"
    - "from what exact moment on can we call it assault and/or intimidation?"

    Only someone with an abnormally low interest in the subject wouldn't ask him or herself those questions. That radio show seems to confirm this.
    To call that "disgusting" is by all means disgusting.
    To say "you shouldn't talk about that because I think you shouldn't talk about that" is just fucking mind-numbing dumb. Only people with the IQ of a fishfinger talk like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    How the fuck is there middle ground when it comes violating someone's sexual and intimate space?
    Who said middle ground? I just have been talking about the period of time during that date where consent was neither given nor withdrawn, with just a lot of ambiguous cues present. Do you deny that the story contains such a period of time yourself? Do you think the entire evening was one long sexual assault because she said a clear "no" eventually?

    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    I dunno, man. I know you think my politics are extreme and that's fine. And, an activist group I was in ten years ago was made fun of for instituting the Antioch consent policy in our collective house. We were called sexually frigid and puritans. Never mind, that nearly everyone in the house was poly and into BDSM. And as weird and fringey as all that sounds, we weren't sexual puritans, the opposite was more true. And as a bisexual male, who has slept and dated all sorts of identities, it's true that dudes seem to have been socialized to think certain ways about these sorts of encounters. Indeed if a dude gets too aggressive with me, I'm six feet tall and 200 pounds and I can fight back. It's easier for me to say no.
    Don't know if your politics are extreme, I don't know the first thing about you. I just haven't seen you accepting critique or being self-critical, only being critical of almost everyone here. You usually don't even answer direct questions posed to you. It makes you seem you think your opinion is superior to everyone else's here; females, males, transsexuals, gays, poor people, rich people, people of non-white ethnic origins, social scientists .... why is that? And instead of reacting to what people actually say, you make RASH assumptions about their underlying attitudes and political alignment, and post something borderline irrelevant reacting more to your assumptions than to what people are actually saying - which often enrages folks. For me, that is gaslighting a conversation, making it very hard to converse in a meaningful way whenever you start posting in a thread.

    Example;
    - I noted that the story contains a long build up where no cues were ambiguous.
    - You reacted to that with the story from the point where the cues were no longer ambiguous bolded with a lot of the stuff that was said.

    Those are two different parts of the story, ignoring the first part (and what I said) entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    But here's the weird thing when I try to have conversations with men about consent and we're socialized: isn't it wierd that many pranks boy play on each other is sexual assault? And yet it's treated as good fun. And if you're initimate with someone and you having a good time, and they don't ask and pull down your pants and start blowing you, you feel super sexy. And so, I think there's a very real problem with the way men (especially straight men) view sexual assault. If you yourself have been assaulted and all you can see your assault as is good fun or that you're super hot, what the fuck does that say about how you might view other people? And society is so weird about this. If a twelve year old boy has a sexual relationship with a female teacher, you'll hear men say, "Way to go!" to the boy as if he's some Adonis, who was so hot the teacher couldn't control herself. And so is it any surprise that so many men are shitty?
    Assault good fun? Uhm... no. Anyway, female sex offenders aren't as uncommon as you'd think, show the statistics http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7839361.html. In that college poll 43% of the boys felt coerced into intercourse at one point or another, with 95% of the coercers being female.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    And I want to try to understand your point about a middle ground, but you know, the Antioch consent policy came out in 1990 and feminists have been talking about these forever. It's time for men to catch up and have a genuine conversation about the more toxic aspects of normative masculinity.

    I think that we ARE talking about the toxic aspects of normative masculinity right now.
    I'm not making any points about middle grounds either. A scale that can classify moments during the evening as being "Ambiguous" at zero and being "Sexual assault" at 10 wouldn't even have an ordinal category named "middle ground".
    "Replies are a combination of nonsense, unrelated comments and inside jokes"‎

  5. #605
    generally largely right Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,098
    Why a middle ground? Because not everybody, plenty of women included, wants sex to turn into a clinical act with step by step consent forms and requests for approval reminiscent of Windows Vista User Account Control. "Are you sure you want to empty my recycle bin? This requires administrative privileges! Yes/No". For many, if not most people, sex (or at least good sex) is passionate, animalistic, perverted and depraved; you want that element of surprise and creativity from your partner. Of course certain things should be discussed beforehand (like, for instance, anal), but for more basic stuff, you'd expect an adult to be able to say "don't do that" or "I don't like this" and another adult to understand and adjust. Also, don't act like a set of rules dreamed up by a group of radical feminists at some obscure college in the early 90s (and widely panned at the time from what I've read) is the same thing as a law that has been long approved and implemented and universally known and accepted. And you know, that's precisely the trouble with current far left ideology. There are all these bloggers and theorists who keep saying "oh, we've already said that, why isn't the entire planet complying?" Because it doesn't fucking work like that. Because when you come up with new, seemingly radical ideology, it is on you to convince a majority of the population that you are right. You can't do that by simply demonizing and trying to shut down everyone who has a different opinion, particularly among those who are on the same ideological spectrum as you, even if more moderate. Not everything is as clear cut as, say, reproductive rights or gay marriage or racial equality.

  6. #606
    Senior Member uncanny hats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    I understand your point about the ambiguity, but what's more important is when it isn't ambiguous. But for example if you came to my house and maybe we were intimate, but that doesn't mean you want to continue being intimate. And if you say back off, shouldn't I back off? There couldn't be any multitude of reasons as to why you want me to back off. And so, I'm not interested in the ambiguousness part except that people shouldn't be quite so ambiguous. Being upfront usually leads to better sex, anyway. And people can say, "Well, she back to his house." So, what? If bring someone back to my house, why does that mean sex?

    And I'm not suggesting that female sexual offenders are all that uncommon.

    But I'll bite
    was it sexual assault or sexual intimidation?
    The moment he pressured her with the joke where a second glass of wine was a second date was definitely intimidation.And maybe he meant is a joke, except when he said, "It doesn't look like you hate me" is classic abuser rhetoric. She gave her boundaries and he didn't respect them.

    - "from what exact moment on can we call it assault and/or intimidation?"
    IMO it's the exact moment you act and don't have consent. At work, when I see men hit on random strangers, I ask them if they have the consent to do that. They always look at me weird, but no, you don't get to hit on random people in the library, that's gross and it's definitely intimidation, and harassment.

  7. #607
    Alt Universe CliqueMember Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Snarkletown
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    I understand your point about the ambiguity, but what's more important is when it isn't ambiguous. But for example if you came to my house and maybe we were intimate, but that doesn't mean you want to continue being intimate. And if you say back off, shouldn't I back off? There couldn't be any multitude of reasons as to why you want me to back off. And so, I'm not interested in the ambiguousness part except that people shouldn't be quite so ambiguous. Being upfront usually leads to better sex, anyway. And people can say, "Well, she back to his house." So, what? If bring someone back to my house, why does that mean sex?
    You are absolutely right; that is why I said too that the story should have focussed more on the non-ambiguous part, and explain exactly at what point the sexual violence started - I think it was one of the forceful kisses.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    And I'm not suggesting that female sexual offenders are all that uncommon.

    But I'll bite
    OK, fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    The moment he pressured her with the joke where a second glass of wine was a second date was definitely intimidation.And maybe he meant is a joke, except when he said, "It doesn't look like you hate me" is classic abuser rhetoric. She gave her boundaries and he didn't respect them.
    Didn't mean it as a yes or no question btw, I mean, I guess after it was "no" it was at the very least intimidation. So did the intimidation start with that glass, or was it before that? And that forceful kiss afterwards, was that part to be classified as assault? - if I remember this correctly at this point even.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    IMO it's the exact moment you act and don't have consent. At work, when I see men hit on random strangers, I ask them if they have the consent to do that. They always look at me weird, but no, you don't get to hit on random people in the library, that's gross and it's definitely intimidation, and harassment.
    Okay, that is clear, you think people shouldn't even touch each other or perhaps say stuff hinting at sexual stuff without clearly asking "do you want us to take it in this direction?" ?
    I guess at work is where the "toxic aspects of normative masculinity" really shows for me as well, I think. When there is no females, the way the men talk about women is just... well. Horrendous. I always say something about it.
    "Replies are a combination of nonsense, unrelated comments and inside jokes"‎

  8. #608
    generally largely right Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    I guess at work is where the "toxic aspects of normative masculinity" really shows for me as well, I think. When there is no females, the way the men talk about women is just... well. Horrendous. I always say something about it.
    Yes! It's funny because in real life I'm always the one who is considered the crazy feminazi pinko. But still, this is true: the way straight men talk about women when they think they're "safe" is absolutely mind-boggling. Sure, it's not about their wives or female friends or sisters or mothers or whatever (they are somehow exempt), but "women" in general, women as sex objects and the perceived failure of some women to be sex objects. Of course, when women are present, they are chivalrous and respectful and all that shit. But in their absence, they feel completely at ease behaving like that because they know that there is this unshakeable omertà to which all other (straight) men abide, and this is regardless of class, education or income level. As this is something that women generally don't get to see, some tend to be more... optimistic about men in general. I think it's important for these things to be known and understood. The woke/feminist men thing is extremely new and quite untested, and I don't even know to what extent it can be trusted, if at all. But for the most part, toxic masculinity is still sadly the norm. As much as I'd like to see it overthrown and shattered, it's so deeply ingrained that this isn't likely to happen any time soon. Until we get there, we need to look at how things can be improved now, and as unfair as this may sound, this involves women being assertive and vocal about what they want and what they don't want. Believe it or not, when this happens, men take notice.

  9. #609
    Senior Member uncanny hats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post

    Okay, that is clear, you think people shouldn't even touch each other or perhaps say stuff hinting at sexual stuff without clearly asking "do you want us to take it in this direction?"
    I mostly refer to it as "being careful with each other." Some of this can look like, when you make it to bedroom and say, "What are you into?" I mean that's often how great sex begins, in my experience. And that's a lot easier than trying to figure out blindly what a person wants. It's also a good way to measure of whether someone is down or not, as well. "Enthusiastic yes" is what we should look for and enthusiastic yes is going to be better sex, anyway. Who wants to have sex with people who aren't enthusiastic? Apparently, some people.

  10. #610
    ancient savageries Andreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    IMO it's the exact moment you act and don't have consent. At work, when I see men hit on random strangers, I ask them if they have the consent to do that. They always look at me weird, but no, you don't get to hit on random people in the library, that's gross and it's definitely intimidation, and harassment.
    Wait, how is hitting on a stranger intimidation and harassment? I agree that the library is an odd venue for hitting, and if the person persists after being rebuffed it can definitely be harassment, but is hitting on someone inherently problematic and an act that requires prior consent?

  11. #611
    Alt Universe CliqueMember Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Snarkletown
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by uncanny hats View Post
    I mostly refer to it as "being careful with each other." Some of this can look like, when you make it to bedroom and say, "What are you into?" I mean that's often how great sex begins, in my experience. And that's a lot easier than trying to figure out blindly what a person wants. It's also a good way to measure of whether someone is down or not, as well. "Enthusiastic yes" is what we should look for and enthusiastic yes is going to be better sex, anyway. Who wants to have sex with people who aren't enthusiastic? Apparently, some people.
    At the point you're in the bedroom asking "what are you into?" you are already in the bedroom assuming you're going to have sex, right. That would then be just to make sure that the sexual acts themselves are aligned. There has to be a point somewhere before that where you both decide you want to have sex and let the other know. For me personally that has never been verbal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    Wait, how is hitting on a stranger intimidation and harassment? I agree that the library is an odd venue for hitting, and if the person persists after being rebuffed it can definitely be harassment, but is hitting on someone inherently problematic and an act that requires prior consent?
    Something that wasn't intended as intimidation can still be intimidating to another. Especially so in a place where you wouldn't expect it. For example, in a singles bar, you are more probably more prepared for getting unwanted attention like that, and it will be that much easier to deal with it if you are prepared. May not require prior consent, but possibly just heightened awareness of the surroundings and the other person should you try? Idk.
    "Replies are a combination of nonsense, unrelated comments and inside jokes"‎

  12. #612
    Have you guys even noticed that every single woman who has been contributing to this topic is no longer doing so?

  13. #613
    Senior Member uncanny hats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    Quote Originally Posted by JayPeaches View Post
    Have you guys even noticed that every single woman who has been contributing to this topic is no longer doing so?
    Yes.

  14. #614
    Senior Member uncanny hats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    Wait, how is hitting on a stranger intimidation and harassment? I agree that the library is an odd venue for hitting, and if the person persists after being rebuffed it can definitely be harassment, but is hitting on someone inherently problematic and an act that requires prior consent?
    If it's unwanted, it's harassment and intimidation and the only way to know it's wanted is through consent.
    Last edited by uncanny hats; 01-21-2018 at 02:21 PM.

  15. #615
    condemned to wires and hammers ebby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    11,011
    I'm sorry that this thread has come to this.

    Consent isn't something to debate or find a middle ground about. I remember reading The Ethical Slut years ago, after some friends recommended it, and that has a great definition for consent that stuck with me: "an active collaboration for the benefit, well-being and pleasure of all persons concerned."

    This thread has turned into a thread that has no active collaboration from any of the women who had been previously engaging in this conversation.

    The voices of men have drowned them out, and turned them away from a topic in which women's voices are 100% vital. I'm sorry that this has happened.

    For the guys who are looking for "a middle ground", I'd recommend you go look up resources online and deepen your understanding of consent, what it really is, and why it's important (and how it can be sexy as hell... )

    * It's definitely something I had to learn about, and I had a lot of unlearning to do, and I'm blessed that I met some fantastic people over the course of my life so far who have been open and generous with their time and thoughts to help me to understand what I needed to change about what I learned as a young gay man. I'm still learning and listening, and hopefully still growing.

    Here are some to start you off:

    Teen Vogue: Consent 101 (part of the "Not Your Fault" series - every one of those articles is worth reading)

    How Men Are Trained To Think Sexual Assault Is No Big Deal or 7 Reasons So Many Guys Don’t Understand Sexual Consent

    Men Still Don't Know How Consent Works, New Study Suggests (which I doubt shocks anyone who backed away from this thread)

    There's a lot of resources out there from places like Teen Vogue, the Good Men project, and others. I've not read them all, but there's a wealth of stuff you can read up on instead of how this discussion has gone:

    - What I learned about consent from being victim and offender
    - Everyone needs consent, including your significant other
    - Coercion is not consent


    There's even resources out there to help you make sure the unlearning a lot of men have to do right now in our culture, is something that we prepare our children to avoid needing to do: This is how you teach kids about consent

    And for the gay men here:

    Gay Men Need To Start Talking About Consent | The Complexity of Consent as a Gay Man | The Difficult Truths about Gay Men and Sexual Assault


    If we want to continue to talk about the systematic and endemic harassment, abuse, and exploitation within the entertainment industry, I suggest starting a new thread.

    This one is officially shut the fuck down.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •