How 'MeToo' is exposing the scale of sexual abuse

[Raelbo]

The original poster to which we are responding made it very clear that in his scenario this was not a mistake or an accident.

I traced back to the poster you were responding to (@Daneman). While he seemed to imply that it may have been intentional I didn't read that as a given.

Anyhow, even if it's not accidental, I still wouldn't call it necessarily assault. And no, that doesn't mean I automatically condone doing such a thing. What I am saying is that sex is far more complicated than simply placing constraints on what is and what isn't acceptable.

In any sexual relationship, it is basically a requirement that there is a certain amount of exploration, and trying things to see what works and what doesn't. Sure, one has to be careful not to go overboard, but at the same time sometimes pushing the boundaries a bit can lead to mutual benefit. Try to remember that consensual sex is largely about trust, trusting that your partner won't harm you, and allowing him/her to express him/herself sexually during a very intimate act.

Looking at the scenario under discussion, I would argue that dictating to a guy "you are not to cum inside me" is unreasonable to start with (unless it's part of some kinky S&M roleplay - but that's an entirely different scenario). It's something that both partners need to have a say in and a proper compromise met (eg, why is this a requirement? Are there alternatives? How long is this status quo going to be there? What will she do in return for his compliance?). If a guy has decided he's going to cum inside her in spite of her instructing him not to, then clearly they didn't reach a proper agreement, and to play devil's advocate, one could argue that the guy is a victim of sexual abuse if he is expected to go along with her way even though he doesn't want to. This idea that he cums and suddenly it's sexual assault is a bit ridiculous. It might be time to reconsider the relationship, and I could even agree that it's a breach of the trust that is necessary for the continuation of the sexual relationship, but it's on both parties, not just him.

Of course if he's hammering away and she tells him to stop, but he carries on even though she's actively trying to get him off her, then I would agree that it's crossing over into sexual assault territory.

[Deleted]

if you are surprised that hollywood/entertainment industry is fucking sleazy as all hell then you have been very fucking naive

At least that fact has been made even more well known now. Hopefully something can be done to correct the situation too.

[Total Crica]

even if it's not accidental, I still wouldn't call it necessarily assault

It is assault. Anyone who decides FOR you AGAINST YOUR WILL what happens to YOUR body IS assaulting you.

There is justified assault, like when being restrained by a cop because you won't stop breaking the law, and there is unjustified assault, like when you break the law.

Ejaculating on purpose inside a woman who DOESN'T want you to do so IS assaulting her with your ejaculation.

Yes, it can happen on accident due to biology during the course of consensual sex.

Yes, it can be hard for anyone but the man himself to verify if it WAS an accident during the course of consensual sex.

[Raelbo]

It is assault. Anyone who decides FOR you AGAINST YOUR WILL what happens to YOUR body IS assaulting you.

So, applying your own logic, if a woman decides that a man will have unprotected vaginal sex with her without ejaculating, even that this is not what he wants, is that assault? I mean, think about it, she's decides FOR him, AGAINST HIS WILL what happens to HIS body....


PS: No I am not trying to argue that it would constitute assault. My point is that you're being far too liberal with the word "assault". You're being hyperbolic. If you're going to classify everything that isn't cool as "assault" then effectively the word loses all meaning.

Ejaculating on purpose inside a woman who DOESN'T want you to do so IS assaulting her with your ejaculation.

I would argue that if, at the time of ejaculation, the guy's dick is there, without a condom, with her consent then it doesn't qualify as assault. Is it a dick move (apologies for the pun). Yes. Is it criminal? No, don't be ridiculous.

It's like inviting someone you know into your house, then sitting them down at a table, placing their favourite, freshly baked chocolate chip cookies in front of them, forcing them to smell and lick the cookies allowing them to taste and bite the cookies but telling them they may not swallow. Then, if they do swallow, accusing them of theft.

[Total Crica]

if a woman decides that a man will have unprotected vaginal sex with her without ejaculating, even that this is not what he wants, is that assault?

Is the woman FORCING him to have sex with her without ejaculating or is she just telling him NO SEX with her unless he agrees to her conditions?

The former, yes, it's assault. The latter, no, it's not assault.

- - - Updated - - -

It's like inviting someone you know into your house, then sitting them down at a table, placing their favourite, freshly baked chocolate chip cookies in front of them, forcing them to smell and lick the cookies allowing them to taste and bite the cookies but telling them they may not swallow. Then, if they do swallow, accusing them of theft.

What? None of that has anything to do with forcing yourself (or anything that belongs to yourself) on someone else's body against their will.

[Raelbo]

Is the woman FORCING him to have sex with her without ejaculating or is she just telling him NO SEX with her unless he agrees to her conditions?

The former, yes, it's assault. The latter, no, it's not assault.

Oh right, so it's conditional on context

(my point exactly)

[Total Crica]

Oh right, so it's conditional on context

(my point exactly)

The context being you deciding to do it to the person against their will, which I already stated in my post that you first quoted.

[Raelbo]

What? None of that has anything to do with forcing yourself (or anything that belongs to yourself) on someone else's body against their will.

It's called an analogy, the point of which is to show that if you set someone up and they fail, and they do, that doesn't entitle you to accuse them of a crime.

[Theodarzna]

Actually I think the MeToo campaign is horrible.

It ultimately serves to take the heat away from Weinstein and his disgusting serial sexual abuse and make it some boiler plate radfem "All men are rapists" and thus defusing the attention paid to the specific case and possibly related cases in Hollywood. It devalues and minimizes exactly what Weinstein has done and likely will do in the future since it seems like he will suffer no consequences for this. It allows Weinstein it just vanish into some generic "All men are terrible!" narrative that diffuses and obfuscates what he has done whilst he goes to some spaw for a week to get "help" and then completes his "redemption arc."

The other problem this hashtag does is blur the line between documented sexual abuse and just anonymous accusations that mean nothing and muddy the waters.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Weinsteins defense team who came up with the Hashtag.

[Total Crica]

It's called an analogy, the point of which is to show that if you set someone up and they fail, and they do, that doesn't entitle you to accuse them of a crime.

Set someone up? There is no set up by a woman who tells you she doesn't want you to ejaculate inside of them.

Any woman who tells you that is being very blunt and straight forward about what she doesn't want to happen to her body.

[Raelbo]

The context being you deciding to do it to the person against their will, which I already stated in my post that you first quoted.

The context of the original scenario was a woman dictatiting to a man what he was/wasn't to do with his body against his will.

I mean if a guy decides to cum inside his gf even though she has expressly forbidden it, that doesn't exactly imply his willing agreement to her demand. That is basically coercion.

Which is my whole point over here: You're wanting to crucify the guy for being a jerk (and escalating the offence to the status of "assault") when the woman is also being a jerk.

I am ALL for women's rights and equality. The position you're defending is not about equality, it's about zeal.

[Total Crica]

the original scenario was a woman dictating to a man what he was/wasn't to do with his body.

Bullshit. It was a woman dictating what she doesn't want to happen to HER body.

"DO NOT ejaculate inside MY body" is all about what she doesn't want to happen to HER body.

Yes, your body is involved in this request because she doesn't want you to use YOUR body to assault HER body.

[Queen of Hamsters]

It's just a reflection of our sexual dimorphism, girls are different from boys.

Boys are aggressive and would welcome sexual overtures. Men have a hard time understanding why women aren't flattered. Women aren't as aggressive and they don't welcome sexual overtures. It's been this way forever.

It's in the DNA.

Yes I'm speaking in generalities.

And this thinking is why men and boys feel added amounts of shame to come forth when they're the victim.

[Narwal]

So rape is generally o.k. because DNA. Got it.

The #metoo, is not about rape. It's about sexual <insert description here>, in any terms. Anything from a person feeling they were sexually harrassed, which is damn near every guy in the world too btw. Not all sexual <insert description here> is created equal. However, whoever started this wanted you to believe it is. They want to lump everything into one category in the assumptions you will incorrectly assume it's all about rape. It worked on you.

One time a girl said "come on" after I said "no". #me, too

[Minikin]

So, applying your own logic, if a woman decides that a man will have unprotected vaginal sex with her without ejaculating, even that this is not what he wants, is that assault? I mean, think about it, she's decides FOR him, AGAINST HIS WILL what happens to HIS body....


PS: No I am not trying to argue that it would constitute assault. My point is that you're being far too liberal with the word "assault". You're being hyperbolic. If you're going to classify everything that isn't cool as "assault" then effectively the word loses all meaning.



I would argue that if, at the time of ejaculation, the guy's dick is there, without a condom, with her consent then it doesn't qualify as assault. Is it a dick move (apologies for the pun). Yes. Is it criminal? No, don't be ridiculous.

It's like inviting someone you know into your house, then sitting them down at a table, placing their favourite, freshly baked chocolate chip cookies in front of them, forcing them to smell and lick the cookies allowing them to taste and bite the cookies but telling them they may not swallow. Then, if they do swallow, accusing them of theft.

LOL! Whats that meme, the "Get out!" one. it would apply perfectly here.

[Katie N]

Bullshit. It was a woman dictating what she doesn't want to happen to HER body.

"DO NOT ejaculate inside MY body" is all about what she doesn't want to happen to HER body.

Yes, your body is involved in this request because she doesn't want you to use YOUR body to assault HER body.

It's just some fluid, why would it warrant to classify as assault? It's easy to get out and it doesn't hurt you so what is the problem with that?

[Sky High]

this is an even more cringy version of putting a french flag filter on your FB profile. at least it's getting rightly trolled.

[Ellarielle]

It's just some fluid, why would it warrant to classify as assault? It's easy to get out and it doesn't hurt you so what is the problem with that?

... I literally have no words for this.

[Total Crica]

It's just some fluid, why would it warrant to classify as assault? It's easy to get out and it doesn't hurt you so what is the problem with that?

If a man could get pregnant, he wouldn't have to ask that question.

He would already understand the risks to *his body by being ejaculated inside of.

But, since he can't get pregnant, he will have to continue to ask that question of ALL women he wants to have sex with.

[Kathandira]

It's just some fluid, why would it warrant to classify as assault? It's easy to get out and it doesn't hurt you so what is the problem with that?

It is basically poisoning someone. You are putting a fluid in them that will cause them sickness and pain.