The right to say 'no'

AnyFucker Honestly? Neither. Pretty much just an internal eye roll at the boorish behaviour, thinking they could at least try and come up with some new material. I do understand that is a luxury I have that women don't.

RedToothBrush Understandable, but I have lurked unregistered for quite a while, and everyone has to start posting somewhere, and I picked a doozy, largely because my personal experience of being unable to simply say "no" in the sexual arena and have it just accepted at face value. In that respect, I can relate to the concept in the original post. What I can't relate to, and fully acknowledged is the consequence women face on a regular basis.

That said, I was a CSA victim, some of which I remember vividly, in particular the powerlessness to stop or change what was happening, so I do have a personal interest in the subject of consent and consequence.

samyeagar

Let's play a game.

You ask me: "Am I welcome on a thread on a feminist board in which women are talking to one another about saying no to men?"

And I reply: "No."

Then we see how you react? Good game, right?

How did getting called "limp dick" make you feel ?

In fear for your life ? Or just a bit upset.

Sort of like what I explicitly said right?

What I don't don't have to worry about is being being raped or murdered. And yeah, that makes all the difference in the world.

As in so many other contexts this quote is useful here...

men are afraid that women will laugh at them, women are afraid thst men will kill them

Have a proper think about that sam

The difference is you face words ("limp dick" etc) if you say no; we face rape and other forms of physical violence.

Full disclosure, I am a man.

That said, this thread is not something that is completely foreign to me, nor to many other men. No, we are typically not badgered and denigrated for saying no specific acts because that is just not something we are subject to in the same way, however in my own experience...

I have been badgered, called gay, accused of having a small dick, limp dick, and all kinds of other things simply for declining sex with women who wanted sex from me. There is a definite pressure to perform at a woman's whim, even within relationships. Hell, since anal was brought up, my wife enjoys it occasionally, and it was her who badgered me and wore me down over the course of about a year into doing it, because after all, how could I know if I didn't like it unless I had tried it?

The biggest difference is that as a man, if and when I say no to something sexual, I am still expected to be apologetic, explain, justify, show concern for feelings. What I don't don't have to worry about is being being raped or murdered. And yeah, that makes all the difference in the world.

When I used to visit my DB in central London late at night he always put me in a taxi and paid for me to get home safe. To me - and him - this acknowledged that public transport late at night can be hazardous for women, plus he earned far more than I did.

That sort of protective behaviour isn't sexist to my mind. It's based on a realistic assessment of greater risk to women.

I'm the oldest and I did well out of my DBs. When we were kids they looked up to me. I was the leader of the girls' gang so they were in my gang. Then when they grew taller than me they became protective (, though never restrictive). I remember some dick trying to give me a hard time in a pub once and then, as if by magic, I had a brother on each shoulder and the dick had vanished. Love them to bits.

Yeah, sometimes a word is just a word with no need to assign a pejorative absolute to it.

It's the difference between acknowledging differences between the sexes and saying those differences mean we should give people a kind of lesser value as human beings.

There has been a type of feminism that wants to simply wipe out the differences altogether, say they don't exist. I think it's come up with a lot of failures though. The other approach has difficulties though. If we acknowledge that they exist, it's possible they could have implications we don't like, and you have to then argue the point on its merits, not through a straight claim to the difference not existing.

It's still sexism, but it's not misogyny.
Really important distinction MrsTP - and one I'm going to ponder on. I think I've often had the feeling that sexism isn't always totally bad per se but at the same time I thought it had to be. But it doesn't. Just like giving up a seat to someone elderly is ageist. Of course some women are stronger than some men, but if a ship is going down it's not really the time to get picky if you're trying to save the most lives is it?
And I sort of feel stupid, but at the same time I can see how sometimes, some, feminist ideals get rejected by other women.

Interestingly, I was musing about this in the context of the 'woke bros versus chivalrous men' thread. There is actually a sort of benign sexism in the concept of ladies first. In lifeboats, doors and orgasms. And an acknowledgement of basic biology is intrinsic in all of them.

It's still sexism, but it's not misogyny.

Posted too soon. Only men who really respect and love women can be great lovers. To them our sexuality is as important as their own.

Hence telling lesbians to 'learn to cope' with piv sex by getting over their 'genital fetish'.

Because sex for women isn't about their choice or pleasure damnit, it's about servicing men. So knickers off and stop being silly.

Spot on, Michelle.

Kink shaming is often code for let me shame you for not accommodating my kink. Some kinks are repellent to most people - age play for instance.

And don't qualify the no. The simple two letters will do.

Great thread.

No is a complete sentence.

Again, only with emphasis: No is a complete sentence.

And that's about everything, not just sex.

A good rule of thumb for assessing men is to say no to them - can be about anything, not just sex - and see how they react. It'll tell you all you need to know. If they get cross - bin them. If they wheedle - bin them. If they accept it without question - they might well be a keeper.

Oddly enough I have problems saying no in other contexts but not in terms of sex. I think it's because I'm very confident sexually.

Though there's also the fact that men trying to hassle you into a sex act you don't fancy are soo much working for a script. You're a prude, you're not cool. And then there's the classic "All the other women love it" - to which the answer is "Then do it with them."

That's actually an excellent point, the only fetish that isn't allowed is a so-called vagina fetish.

The point is women's pleasure isn't the point. That's why 'I don't want to' isn't good enough. We're a prop to these people, not a human with preferences, desires, needs and wants of our own.

Hence telling lesbians to 'learn to cope' with piv sex by getting over their 'genital fetish'.

Because sex for women isn't about their choice or pleasure damnit, it's about servicing men. So knickers off and stop being silly.

mrsterry I remember back when anal was seen as much more niche a male friend of mine making the same point: he said he'd noticed that in "locker room conversations" the sort of men who went on and on about how they loved anal were the sort of men who did not like women and wanted to dominate them.

I think it was American Gods when someone said "do you know why men like anal? Because women don't" and he made the point that women don't have the same biology as men and are less likely to enjoy it.

Now I don't want to get into the whole 'I love it' thing. The point is women's pleasure isn't the point. That's why 'I don't want to' isn't good enough. We're a prop to these people, not a human with preferences, desires, needs and wants of our own.