It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheTory
Sure his ideas are silly, but banning him from countries for the crime of words and thoughts is far more dangerous. It would be easier, and far more helpful to civilization in general, to refute his words and thoughts with your own, rather than advocating violence or the state denial of rights.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: cosmickat
In my opinion, a woman may change her mind right up to, and during the act of lovemaking. However, in the event that a change of mind occurs mid way through the physical union, there is no guilty party, just two very embarrassed persons, one or both of whom may be rapidly clothing themselves to hide their parts, in a desperate attempt to contain the shattered pieces of their ego.
Personally speaking, I think there are some fairly obvious ways to avoid entering into a situation where it is possible for a man to mistake the signals being sent to him by a female, although it must be said that they are not popular methods, requiring as they do a certain change of lifestyle for some.
Basically, it is important to be an old fashioned sort of a person. For my part, I never consider going to bed with a woman that I am not currently in the process of falling in love with. I know that makes me a bit of a fuddy duddy when compared with other fellows of my age and generation, but I simply cannot get aroused unless I am emotionally invested in a person. That investment takes time to nurture, and it also requires reciprocation in order to flourish. This has two very important effects on whatever happens next.
First, it means that time will have been spent with the object of ones affections, and time breeds familiarity. If one is indeed familiar with the manner in which another comports themselves, their behavioural characteristics, one is better able to read the intention behind those actions and behaviours, which means that one actually gains familiarity with communicating with that other person, on a non verbal basis. Considering how much foreplay one tends to do without actually realising it (and this goes for the fellows as much as the ladies), using non verbal cues, it is necessary to learn a persons behaviour and manner, before entering into amorous situations with them, in order that one does not misread a situation to the detriment of both parties.
It also means that the lady one might express desire for, has ample opportunity to send clear signals to one, alerting one to how few universes there are, in which that lady would actually consider another date with one, let alone actually taking one to bed. Drunken fumbling with a stranger in a parking lot, or dragging a randomer back to ones home, does not allow for the sort of communication acclimatisation that is necessary for clear sexual communication to operate between two people. However, giving a woman time to express her consent or lack thereof, is not a matter of simply saying "I will be leaving the club in five minutes. If it would please you lady, would you consider getting your coat, and coming with me?".
A gentleman is never in a hurry, and more to the point, is never of a mind to hurry a woman. A gentleman ensures that his intentions are clear, and awaits decisions being made by a lady as to her position on the matter, accepting that those decisions will not be fast, and being prepared to wait an inordinate amount of time before being alerted to the content of those decisions.
To my mind, much of this modern day trouble with interpreting consent, is down to the mindless, animalistic, and morally defunct way that modern courtship works. Grinding anonymous persons in a club, getting in their cab home with them, screwing them and then having the first conversation after all that is frankly appalling behaviour, and you would not catch me up to any of that amoral and utterly valueless nonsense. It is way too fast, has no nourishing aspects other than physically, and is asking for trouble in more ways than are covered by this thread.
In short, by the time one has reached the point where there might be some manner of sexual union involved with the evenings proceedings, one ought to already have been on several dates, bumped into the lady in question around a few times, hung out all of a randomness, gone for a coffee, hung out at the library, gone to the beach, maybe had a pizza and Star Wars night, or possibly a Pasta/Mafia night (basically spaghetti of some sort, followed by, or during the Godfather on DVD)... In short, a gentleman should know the lady he is interested in, well enough by the time that sexual intercourse even becomes a subject, that he does not need a bloody flash card to work out where he stands, and it is the constant insistence on instant gratification and pointless rutting in this day and age, which causes the majority of problems discussed in this thread!
(His blog) also claimed women should be made responsible for ensuring they were not raped, instead of teaching men not to rape. “I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds,” he wrote.
He has organised the meet-ups, promoted through his website, so that he are so that 'like-minded' men can come together to discuss and learn more about these ideas. They have agreed to meet in public places and by local landmarks. Only straight men will be allowed to attend.
He has threatened (and incited his misogynist army of followers to do likewise) any women or man protesting the event with "furious retribution". He asks protesters to be filmed and promises to set his "anti-feminist" mob to "tear them up" as punishment for standing against violence towards women.