It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: melatonin
No means no. And the absence of a no is not a yes.
That is an interesting statement....
If you do not say no, but continue in the relationship/activity what does that mean?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: melatonin
Yeah, cheers.
Is this example touching a nerve (;
Actually no, I just thought it was funny that a person would give another person 5 chances to hit the right spot... I think after the second time a serious conversation should have happened... like, "if you try that again we are done...." etc etc.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
Hey, that's my act!
originally posted by: toysforadults
This me too movement has every single woman on the planet as a rape victim.
Let me tell you something.
MANY women if not most want a man who's willing to be assertive and take control and they are turned off by men who aren't.
originally posted by: toysforadults
MANY women if not most want a man who's willing to be assertive and take control and they are turned off by men who aren't.
Evident throughout this extract is the participants’ overarching employment and acceptance of the miscommunication model in accounting for rape. Jason is the first to respond to the interviewer’s question about the adequacy of the theory (l. 531–6) and, in contrast to his own earlier version in Extract 3, in which he asserted that a verbal ‘no’ is an effective means for women to avoid rape, it can be seen that he too now endorses the subsequent account proposed by Cam (in Extract 5), in which a ‘no’ alone was claimed to be insufficient and as having potentially negative consequences for the ‘perpetrator’. In Jason’s reformulation he addresses Cam’s concerns by constructing the need for a ‘girl’ who gives a verbal ‘no’ to accompany it with congruent non-verbal behaviour—to ‘look you in the eye’—in order for the refusal to be ‘heard’ and accepted by the recipient as a refusal of unwanted sex (l. 537–8). This claim is bolstered by contrasting it with a second, alternate example: ‘if she sort of says ‘‘no::’’ and does the whole look away flirty’ (l. 540–1) is constructed as having negative consequences for the recipient, who is left ‘in the lurch’ (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998).7 This further accomplishes the construction of women as being responsible for rape and men as passive bystanders helplessly ‘left’ without agency in the act.
originally posted by: melatonin
You gonna tell me that the poor guy can't help it, he's just a dumb meat sack driven by his penis?
originally posted by: melatonin
So again you put this on the actions of the woman/girl, lol.
She had already said 'no' and 'don't wanna be forced'. She was trying to be nice. You are essentially saying she must allow him to carry on and feck her or she must be rude or give him a slap and/or force criminal action. That's quite a dilemma. Who said romance was dead? D:
originally posted by: Xtrozero
It is obvious the woman didn't get her message across correctly. Was it to the guy being a pile of sh@t and just could not understand "context" or the girl kind of saying "no" as she gave him head so the guy assume it was a "yes"..who knows, but in the end the communication wasn't correct.
Still just a bad date....
originally posted by: Xtrozero
The actions is on the person not wanting it...
...
She had a choice of leaving, but decided to give him a blow job instead...OK
originally posted by: melatonin
So saying 'no' and 'don't want to be forced' caused a lack of clear communication... OK D: