Can I be a feminist and 'one of the guys'?

[Datepalm]

-

Again, you are saying all men should come out and ask women "is it ok if I kiss you now" and get at least a verbal consent before going on? Just to be clear.

YES!

Strange women, ones that you're not in a relashionship with where spontaneous kising has been established as a desired thing, ones that haven't clearly signalled "it is ok to kiss me now" in some other way, YES. ASK. WAIT FOR AN ANSWER. YES.

I don't know what world of bizzaro social ineptitude you live in, but its actually not that confusing to tell apart situations where it is OK and where it is NOT OK and "Is it ok if I kiss you now" is not some huge awkward interruption of intruding legalese into normal human conduct.

[Samalander]

Listen, sometimes you go for it. Sometimes you're wrong and it's awkward and it isn't assault. If you have a reasonable assumption that there's consent, and you stop when you realize there isn't consent, it's not a crime.

But.

Just because you think the assumption is reasonable doesn't mean that jury of your peers will agree.

The thing is it's come to the point where if you're wrong it's a crime. I have a problem with that.

And we have no juries here. Just hangin` judges.

[Yagathai]

Then that seems like a pretty dumb risk to take, huh?

Personally, unless she initiates, I always go with a quick "May I?"

[Samalander]

Strange women, ones that you're not in a relashionship with where spontaneous kising has been established as a desired thing, ones that haven't clearly signalled "it is ok to kiss me now" in some other way, YES. ASK. WAIT FOR AN ANSWER. YES.

The part in italics is the problematic one. You may think she signalled, but then it turns out you are wrong and now you are a criminal. That's the way it might go these days.

[Samalander]

Then that seems like a pretty dumb risk to take, huh?

Personally, unless she initiates, I always go with a quick "May I?"

Personal question, on the issue of double standard: When was the last time you got a "May I" before a woman kissed you?

[mormont]

Unfounded claims of any other sort of crime carry with them zero consequences to the accused.

To use a colloquial phrase of some value in this instance: what utter bollocks.

You're claiming that if a co-worker makes an unfounded accusation that I am defrauding the company, or am sometimes drunk on company time, or have falsely claimed sick leave, or have made racist comments about customers, that won't have consequences. My boss will instantly dismiss these from his mind with zero prejudice. But if it's about me saying something off-colour to a female colleague, my card is marked from then on?

Or in a criminal context, that being falsely accused of theft, assault or even murder never has any negative consequences?

Total, arrant, self-serving rubbish simply stuffed with fallacy and nonsense.

The current climate is spreading paranoia into the hearts of men.

I must have missed the memo. I manage to get along pretty well with female friends, colleagues, and even women I am trying to pick up with no paranoia whatsoever.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Personal question, on the issue of double standard: When was the last time you got a "May I" before a woman kissed you?

I've asked guys. Not Yags...yet.

[Noontidal]

NO. NO NO and NO.

Should you always have to convey your dis-want of me kicking you in the nuts to prevent me from kicking you in the nuts? The answer, of course, is "NO." Similarly, women certainly don't and shouldn't have to constantly tell men to keep their fucking hands, lips and all other body parts to themselves. Until someone gives consent, THERE IS NO CONSENT NOR SHOULD CONSENT BE INFERRED. This is not a tough concept.

If you ever end up in the same room as me, Samalander, you better be shouting "Xray! Don't kick me in the nuts!" at 5-minute intervals the entire time because, really, without that, I might just think you want me to kick your groin repeatedly. And in your bizarro world, I'd be totally justified in doing so. :smoking:

This, goes with THIS

[Mlle. Zabzie]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if some strange guy touches me, whether it's kissing, hand holding, or a pat on the back that it's wrong and actionable.

Equally wrong and offensive: Someone rubbing a bald man's head and those crazy ladies in the grocery store who seem to be compelled to touch every pregnant woman's stomach. Offensive touching doesn't have to be a male-female thing. Don't touch someone else without permission. *sheesh*

[Samalander]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if some strange guy touches me, whether it's kissing, hand holding, or a pat on the back that it's wrong and actionable.

Who said anything about "strange guy"? What if it's someone you know who thinks you are into him?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

That's still not okay. Nor a woman into me, nor me into anyone else.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Who said anything about "strange guy"? What if it's someone you know who thinks you are into him?

He should make sure that I am into him as he thinks he is before he touches me. You'd be surprised how many men labour under the mistaken illusion that a particular woman wants them.

[Elrostar]

Why is kissing a girl somehow a protected right? Or more broadly, why is kissing anyone a protected right?

I mean, if kissing a girl is something you're allowed to do as long as you haven't been denied permission, then surely the obvious corollary is that gay men should be allowed to go around kissing any and all men unless this has been specifically denied...

Personally, I'm very worried about the false accusations of sexual harassment made against gay men who kiss other men just because they're 'misreading signs'.

Seriously, people.

I share the horror everyone has expressed regarding DP's scenario and it's things like this that make me want to apologize for my half of the human race on a regular basis.

And when it comes to using testosterone as an excuse or explanation, we're surely joking, right? Or do we similarly believe that mentally unstable people aren't responsible for their actions and that psychopaths should therefore not be punished for crimes they commit? I mean, it's not them doing it... it's the neurotransmitters in their brain!

Far be it from me to denigrate the seriousness of mental disorders and that is not at all what I'm trying to do. I'm just saying that the idea of people being responsible for their actions is a basic tenet of how our society works.

If we really can't trust the judgment of men in groups, does this mean we shouldn't allow men to serve in Congress? I mean, putting all those men in a room together, who knows what they might decide to do!?!

[Samalander]

That's still not okay. Nor a woman into me, nor me into anyone else.

Again, all of you are skating the issue. Only Yag and Lady Cassandra gave straightforward answers -they ask permission before going in for a kiss (though not sure from Lady Cas` comment if she does that all the time).

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

No, the issue I addressed was the one you raised: What if it's not a stranger, but someone you know who thinks you're into them?

FWIW, and to be honest, I can't think of the last time I asked permission. But then I'm also rarely the one initiating the kiss, either, so I can't come up with a time where I started it AND didn't ask permission. Generally I don't ask permission, but it's beyond those initial stages, so there is implied consent. If moving on to any other activity, though, I ask - and expect to be asked.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Who said anything about "strange guy"? What if it's someone you know who thinks you are into him?

It's still not ok. Being a situation where I have talked to/flirted with many men and women on-line and later met them in person, it is something that is rather important to me. Many of us chat and feel we know each other very well, yet still, when we meet there is always the time to check what level of contack is ok.

You lean into hug or kiss someone and they usually do one of 3 things: lean towards you (to hug or kiss back), pull back, do nothing.

Only in one case would I continue. If a person stood there looking at me, wondering what I was doing, I would stop the action. That is, in my opinion a reasonable expectation.

[Guest Raidne]

Sam - if you meant that the Israeli system has gone too far, then explain specifically why, and cite some sources. That would be interesting, IMO.

Not sure it's so specific to US law anymore. The way the US goes the world follows. So, all a woman has to do is say "boo" and a guy gets ousted from his current position? Am I the only one that finds this problematic?

And no, the harasser (the most recent time I've heard of the situation it was a woman, FYI) is transferred to a different physical location, and possibly department if they are the supervisor of the person who complained, or maybe even put on administrative leave with pay, if the claim looks particularly valid until the investigation is over. If the company determines that are creating a hostile work environment, then they may very well be terminated, or put through training, but not until then.

They're not ousted. At that point - not at all. But people have argued that it should take more than a bare charge of sexual harassment before moving someone. I would agree that something minimal, like corroborating witness testimony, or something like that, would be nice, but let's be honest, this s**t is complicated enough for companies as it is.

By the way, my father was unjustifiably the subject of one of these investigations, and all the while the woman was harassing my mother and calling our house, etc. I suspect they had an affair and then broke it off, but I don't really know. But I know he wasn't sexually harassing her at work. And it was really, really stressful for him for months. So I get what a problem it can be. But I still think the system does a pretty good job of balancing the best of both worlds. And, ultimately, his "accuser" was terminated, but not until it was about three years later, i.e. hard enough for her to make that retalation claim, and because people were filing religious harassment complaints about her, which where true, because she was "witnessing" to people at work (in the middle of the lab) and it was making everyone really uncomfortable.

[Xray the Enforcer]

To answer: I have asked and have been asked in the past for consent to kiss/be kissed. It is not an unreasonable move -- hell, it's kind of sexy, IMHO. Better than being pounced upon and mauled, that's for sure.

Scot -- sure thing. You may even leave my name in there if you wish. :)

Lany -- yeah, I go through the same thing when meeting people in person for the first time. I always assume that physical contact is not OK until we establish that it's OK to give/receive hugs, etc.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Xray,

Danke. :)

[Mo Sneachd]

Everyone does have an affinity for this kind of behaviour.

Furthermore, many many FTMs on hormone therapy have reported an increase in aggression (sexual and otherwise) and anger after beginning their transition -- to speak nothing of the well-known mood-altering side effects of testosterone supplementation and anabolic steroid use. It also affects the way the brain develops, the way the body reacts to sexual stimuli... it's a big deal.

Obviously hormones aren't the total picture, and like most human behaviour what we're talking about here is a complex combination of both nature and nurture, biology and social conditioning, but I think it's terribly irresponsible and short-sighted to dismiss biology's contribution to the mix.

I wasn't saying that testosterone does have no effect on human behaviour, and I've read studies about the increase in aggression and sexual activity. But there is a difference between an increased affinity to aggression and outrightly advocating rape and rude behaviour towards women. My argument went more against 'blaming hormones' as the main reason for behavior, rather than negating that they had any effect at all.

Apologies for being not clearer.