Is it out of order for man to try it on with you when....

[littlestmummystop]

you've explicitly asked him not to.

This has happened to me twice now. I've been on several dates with a guy, he asks or hints to come back to my place saying: 'I'll sleep on the sofa'

When I have let him back I make it clear 'No Sex' but after a kiss and cuddle all of a sudden his exposed knob appears.... and he asks: 'Please please touch it...'

This has happened to my twice now, two different men.

Both times I have refused and gone to bed thinking they've spoilt it. I like to get to know someone really well before I sleep with them and know we're in a relationship etc. I don't want quick hand jobs on my sofa and make that clear before they come back. So why do they do it?

Isn't it disrespectful to still try it on when you've been asked not to?

Op , looking back were there any signs that these men were like this ? There are often very subtle signs but easy to pick up on if you know what your looking for. Sometimes theres a sense of uneasiness that you ignore.

It is easy to be mistaken especially if its the last thing you expect. Despite my horrible experience years ago, i allowed a colleague who ive known with for years to my house to work on a project as it was more convenient and i had no reason to be concerned.

May sound silly to some but i noticed that he felt far too at home here, so much so that instead of waiting to be offered a coffee he was asking " is it alright if i make myself a coffee" and generally making himself very comfortable.

I also noticed his body language wasnt quite right and i felt uneasy, and i also felt that he interpretated his prescence here as some sort of victory.

Anyway, it didnt feel right and i put a stop to it abruptly and he was gone within minuites, although he tried to resist.

Once again BitofFun, and will say it as many times as necessary, it is not a case of fault but of practicality: even though it is not your fault, you are still in a dangerous/unpleasant situation. So, for goodness sake, avoid it! What is so difficult to understand about it?

The men that the OP was discusiing were twats unfortunately. That doesn't mean that every nab will whop his dick out on the sofa. The op will have learned a nasty lesson and may well be wary of perfectly nice men in the future. A great shame.

Glad we finally completely agree on something, cornsilk

Aurynne, yes you have said it was the man's fault and that men should be able to control themselves. But you have followed this up by saying but you shouldn't have let them in the house. This is where your argument falls apart. And to suggest that dittany would let her children go into cars with strangers and then it's their fault if they're kidnapped is beyond ridiculous. That is not taking reasonable precaution. The OP - as far as we can tell - took reasonable precaution by knowing the guys, saying she didn't want sex, agreeing they could come in on certain terms. It was THEM who crossed the line.

Have you seen this thread? I don't see anyone on there saying 'well you shouldn't have dropped it should you'.

I'm still with Aurynne on this one.

IME guys that know how to behave himself WAIT. They wait until you ask them back to your place. You can know they can control themselves and behave responsibly because they know when their train times are, they go to the loo before leaving the pub or restaurant or wherever you've been. Good guys do not create circumstances to give them an excuse to get themselves into someones home because they know what it implies.

And women are also capable of anticipating the other person and heading off circumstances that can put you into awkward situations 'i.e. its getting late isn't it, when is your last train, I better make sure I get you to the station in time hadn't i, lets get the bill now.'

We are not helpless.

There's not absolute impartial definition of 'reasonable precaution' though, maswera. If there was, then yes, it would be easy to say someone's argument had fallen apart if they said someone should have been more careful, and you could show that actually that person had taken the textbook definition of 'reasonable precaution'.

As it is what leaps out from this thread is that different people, based on different experiences, have different ideas about what counts as reasonable precautions and there's a big grey area in the middle.

Hiring a bodyguard to go on dates would be going too far with the caution; agreeing to snog in a naked jacuzzi with someone you've met that night in the pub would clearly be not enough reasonable precautions (even if any person committing rape in those circumstances is still the one to blame).

The OP clearly took a lot of very reasonable precautions, some people think it might be worth her taking even more, but that doesn't make them 'victim blamers', it just shows she's in a grey area where people's views of what is reasonable, or sensible, or practical, vary a bit. It's a ridiculously huge leap from that to saying that those people who think even more precautions would be reasonable are switching the blame to the victim and letting an attacker off!

"The OP clearly took a lot of very reasonable precautions"

Exactly! That is why it is victim blaming for other posters say she brought this on herself!

But not victim blaming for others to say "I would do even more in the way of taking reasonable precuations".

But they are not just saying that, they are implying that because she didn't take more precautions she is at fault

I haven't pretended they aren't there - where there is victim blaming I would disagree with that.

What I disagree emphatically with is the idea that every time someone says one could take even more precautions, they've got a hidden or subconscious victim-blaming agenda. Or a man-hating one. Just because victim-blaming is often wrapped up in the guise of reasonableness, doesn't mean that every bit of reasonableness hides victim-blaming.

This thread is lost because people are assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with them exactly, must therefore agree with every single other person on the thread. There are lots of people I disagree with on this thread, sometimes for quite different reasons.

That was your response to me saying that people might just have different opinions as to what are reasonable precautions though. You seem to see victim-blaming everywhere even where people explicitly say they don't blame the victim.

Dittany this has clearly stuck a very close personal chord with you. Many of the opinions you seem to be taking personally, even more so than the OP herself.

I would say, take a deep breath, this is not about you, stand up, step back and go for a walk. You're wasting your energy making this a personal crusade pushing your idealistic world where everybody behaves as you think they should. They don't and its unrealistic to think otherwise. Most people don't behave badly. Some do IF THEY GET THE OPPORTUNITY to do so and think they can get away with it.

This doesn't mean 'All men are rapist'. IMO it is just about much a woman personal responsibility to stay in control of herself, keep her wits about her, use her brain, PROTECTS HERSELF and ANTICIPATES and AVOIDS situations where she could be placing herself at risk. Its called common sense.

You're probably right - if I had dated a man a few times, and he somehow ended up near my home even though I'd made it quite clear he wasn't going to stay, and needed to use the toilet, because there was abosolutely nowhere else, yes I'd let him. And I would have left my front door ajar, stood in the hall with my bag and coat on and my arms folded waiting for him to finish to be able to wave goodbye to him. I would not have ended up snogging/cuddling on the sofa and then be 'surprised' when he tried to go further.

You seem to be operating from a plane of amazing naivety.

Kiwi that is incredibly patronising. Dittany is not 'pushing her idealistic world' she is stating her beliefs and engaging in debate, like people do on an internet forum.

You're preaching to the converted here. I know perfectly well there is a problem with male bad behaviour not being examined or challenged, and with unfair blame being assigned to women as victims.

Where I disagree with you is that you're assuming that that's what's happening every time someone says anything other than that they would do exactly what the OP did.

You're lumping in everyone who thinks that taking x y and z precautions is worth doing with people who think it's all the woman's fault and men should be let off the hook. All one big group of people with undifferentiated opinions, doing 'victim blaming', in your eyes.

I feel that you're insulting the intelligence of most women here in that you think we're incapable of considering two issues simultaneously: firstly "any man who pressurises a woman for sex is behaving badly and is the one to blame", and secondly "given that there are people out there who may pressurise their dates for sex, what can a woman do to protect herself even though of course she shouldn't have to".

It's like you think we can't be trusted to consider both issues in the appropriate circumstances (public debate about behaviour, say, versus private decisions when going on dates), so we must be prevented from having the second discussion at all, by accusations of 'victim blaming'. That's how it's coming across to me, anyway, even though I think I may agree more with you than with many other people on this thread, in some ways.

Going back to the original question "Is it out of order...?" Yes, it is out of order. Men should not behave like this. It is appalling and it is wrong for them to lie to a woman they are dating to gain access to her home and to try to get her to engage in sex with them even though she has said she is not interested.

But being wise to the fact that men lie can't hurt, right? Telling the OP that if a man tries this again she should beware is a caring thing to do. It's not an insult. It's not heaping blame on her. It's not letting the men off the hook. It's not saying all men are potential rapists.

OP, the fact that this happened twice is what made me worried that you needed some advice here. (Not blame, but advice about potential danger and how to spot it in future) Grown men can take care of themselves. It is not your role in life to take care of them in any way. You don't have to be nice to them.

Regarding signs that something is off -- yes, asking to use the loo is a sign for me; this is little boy behaviour (why not pee in the pub or the restaurant? Why not hold it in until he gets home?), as is having lost track of time and missed the bus or train; this means the man is no longer taking responsibility for himself, and making you responsible instead.

"I would have left my front door ajar, stood in the hall with my bag and coat on and my arms folded waiting for him to finish to be able to wave goodbye to him."

EXACTLY Kiwi! This is what I have been trying to resist posting for fear of being accused of bullying OP - which is absolutely not my intention...

But I'm sure I'm not the only one seeing mixed messages here - if she didn't want these men to come home with her and didn't want to have sex with them, then WHY once they were in the house was she getting up close and personal on the sofa?? And as a grown adult is, "OH MY GOD - it's a PENIS!!" really such a surprise in that situation.

Of course, men should know that No means No and not push boundaries - and to be fair they both stopped when told to and the situation could have ended in a far more unpleasant way (as I sadly discovered for myself many years ago).

Almost unbelievably naive.