Excellent article about sex, has lots of men advertising how crap they are in bed

[AskBasil]

upliftconnect.com/asking-permission-isnt-lame/

This has made me really laugh this morning, this article is really excellent. What struck me while reading it, is that this man had the usual assumptions men in our culture have about sex and this incident made him completely reassess his own attitudes and assumptions and as a result, he's clearly a red-hot lover.

There's a whole lot of men on the FB page where this was posted (yesterday at 4.03) absolutely outraged by it. "That wasn't rape, she just changed her mind" "Hand in your man card" etc. They have completely ignored the actual point of the article, which is that if you don't assume consent and communicate properly, IE, behave as though you're not a rapist, then you will have better sex.

What happened to the sexual revolution? Why are so many men, so utterly unabashed to publicly declare that they are really crap lovers? When I was young, men actively wanted to be good in bed. They would listen to women when we said what we liked. Now they seem to take pride in assuring the world, that no woman who sleeps with them, will ever be in danger of having an orgasm.

WTF?

What happened to the sexual revolution? Why are so many men, so utterly unabashed to publicly declare that they are really crap lovers? When I was young, men actively wanted to be good in bed. They would listen to women when we said what we liked. Now they seem to take pride in assuring the world, that no woman who sleeps with them, will ever be in danger of having an orgasm.

Patriarchy.

There's a backlash against feminism nowadays.

So, why do they do it? Because they can.

Useful for feminists who listen to what men say about themselves, but there's always enough naive young women who will want to appear as "cool girls" and let themselves be used as fucktoys.

"That wasn't rape, she just changed her mind" That bloke is admitting he's a bit more than crap in bed. He's pretty much admitting he's a rapist. The very definition of rape is if a woman doesn't want it but you carry on anyway.

And yes I agree. The sense of entitlement for men to have their orgasm (which has always been around, lets face it) appears to becoming much more at the expense of a woman rather than with a woman.

I just found it so depressing the way they piled on to mansplain how it's not rape, it's not rape.

They are more interested in defending their right to be rapey while still being the good guy, than in finding out how they can not rape a woman without meaning to.

Is it more that the men like this are selfish?

If they actually cared about being good in bed then they'd talk to the women but if they just care about themselves and what they get out of it then the women are just a means to an end...

I actually found the article very disturbing. I mean, what must his behaviour have been like for the woman to turn round and say "you raped me"? And yet it is a completely air-brushed version, woe is me, I thought it was all consensual.

It's not impossible that he didn't realise, but it's pretty unlikely. I know I'm always mentioning Lisak's research on here, but it's sobering to realise that when Lisak does his questionnaires with value-neutral descriptions of behaviour ("have you ever had sex with a woman who didn't say yes, and lay there completely passive and inert while you held her down with your body weight?"), 6% of his respondents admit to behaviours which meet the legal definition of rape. When he includes the word rape ("have you ever raped a woman?") the figure drops... to 5%. So I guess maybe the author is in that 1% margin. But I still think the article is more than a little self serving, and the whole "look, I learned how not to be a rapist, and as a result I'm getting awesome sex all the time" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

But I still think the article is more than a little self serving, and the whole "look, I learned how not to be a rapist, and as a result I'm getting awesome sex all the time" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Yeah. One wonders. At best, the woman didn't react at all, but you'd expect he'd wonder about that if he really doesn't want to be a rapist. All the more disgusting that men still hate the article. You'd think that sort of rhethoric would appeal to them.

What study do you take those numbers from? The study I read about had a much higher percentage of rapists when asking men about the act of rape without using the word rape. (I thought there was only one such study? Are there several? The one I know about was conducted on an US campus, I suppose it is possible men in other places aren't as bad ...)

Yes, agree with prickly and vestal. I came on here this morning to say the same thing.
This guy is equivocating with himself. He feels bad about it, so he's telling part of the truth but leaving a lot out.
At no point does he say he did actually rape her. He says she said he did.
He's saying he accidentally raped her. He had no idea, honest guv. You have to be dim to accidentally rape someone and this guy isn't clearly.
She must have been so frightened that she just froze. What did he do to frighten her?
After the event he doesn't let her leave until she's discussed it with him for several hours to make her, no, not her, him, feel better.
Now he's God's gift to women. Wow, he's a great guy isn't he? And has given lots more men a really good excuse.
'I had no idea. Was I really raping her? Oh I'm sowwy'.
And I think he knows men will say 'she should have said no, don't worry you didn't do anything wrong'.

Yeah. This sentence stood out: "On the surface, I wanted to help her feel better, but the reality was I felt scared and I needed reassurance that I wasn’t a bad guy."

Perhaps she stayed voluntarily, because she didn't want to feel like a rape victim. Some rape victim make their rapist breakfast, so that's a thing that happens.

But the fact that he doesn't criticise himself for putting his own wants first again says a lot.

I read that sentence as him acknowledging that the only reason he stayed around to discuss it, was because he wanted to retain his image of himself as the good guy - he didn't want to go away uncertain in his own mind, that he is a good guy. However, you could also read it as he didn't want to go away with the knowledge that there was a woman out there who thought of him as a rapist and therefore, he had to put her right, even if it took all night. So he invested in that time talking to her (or a less charitable word would be "browbeating" her) in order to validate himself, rather than understand why she said what she did.

I may be too charitable in attributing to him, the realisation that that's why he was doing it and the learning that instead of just validating himself, he also learned why she said what she did.

I read it through again to see if I agree with the impression that his tone is that of "hey, I raped someone, realised I had and said sorry so now I'm great and getting lots of sex" and I'm not sure that I can find that tone.

Yes, he's a bit slippery. He doesn't admit he raped this woman and I'm left with the impression that at the end of the conversation, he wouldn't admit what he'd done - they gave up. So I think I may agree to some extent, though that wasn't my first impression - I'd have to read it through yet again to make up my mind.

I didn't think too deeply about it because I was focusing on other men's responses to this, rather than the guy himself. What the guy has said is so little - I may have raped someone but I'm not going to admit it, but she thought I did so I changed my way of doing things - and other men have a huge investment in saying "Bro, hand in your man card, don't listen to the bitches, don't change". It's like even the very little admission he made, is too much for many men. That's what interested me initially, but there are lots of other things going on here too.

It's like even the very little admission he made, is too much for many men.

Yeah, that's interesting.
I can see why you think it is a good article - it contains enough truth to utterly enrage the entitled (rapist) dudebro commenters.
My standards for a feminist text are higher than this, but it is only natural to intuitively approve of anything that rapist dudebros don't like.

There is, of course, the possibility, that the whole story about the woman is fictional, that this guy just wanted to write about how consent is important and invented a story that he thought his intended audience could relate to. (I bet that's a thing that happens often to them. Though probably not with the woman telling them they raped her right there - it'll be what she writes in reply when he asks why she doesn't want to see him ever again)

There is a very "I once was an entitled dudebro, just like you" vibe to this, and it reads a bit like an advertisement.

The more horrifying that the target audience still hates it so much.

(I haven't read the comments yet, don't feel I can deal with the misogyny right now, but I don't doubt your words)

This is slightly like the situation where Guy X regularly gets up in the night with his new baby, changes 50% of nappies and reads baby development books and everyone is like "Wow he's so amazing', whereas actually he is just doing what he should - but because most men don't, Guy X seems pretty great.

Similarly: pointing out that fucking a woman while she lies there silently is rapist behaviour, and that it's much better for all involved to have sex only with women who are vocally enthusiastic, while paying close attention to what turns them on, shouldn't really be praiseworthy. But - in the world we live in - it is.

Coming back to your earlier question, Vestal, this is an NPR article on Lisak's work. You may possibly be remembering the much higher percentage from a study which asked men whether they would rape if they could be guaranteed not to be caught/face consequences, which came out at a terrifying third of them - Independent article here.

Obviously rape is a repugnant horror but what this has to do with men being 'crap in bed' is I don't know. Are you saying that if a man doesn't give a woman an orgasm he's on a rape continuum? That's insane, and not feminist.

Gentleman, read the article.

And don't even go there with attempts to tell women what is and isn't feminist.

No sorry if you are making such a suggestion then I have a perfect right to say it's offensive, hypocritical garbage.

Just read the article and the man is a douche. What I was objecting to is the bizarre insinuation that rape is congruent with an absence of sexual prowess!!??

Perhaps she stayed voluntarily, because she didn't want to feel like a rape victim. Some rape victim make their rapist breakfast, so that's a thing that happens.

He was at her house. He raped her, and then he stayed and mansplained for hours why he didn't think that he had. I think it's great that he's pushing the importance of proper consent, but as PPs have said, he doesn't seem to believe or want to accept that he raped someone. Although I suppose possibly in his defence? www.cracked.com/blog/how-men-are-trained-to-think-sexual-assault-no-big-deal/

IrenetheQuaint I love your name.

First of all it sounds made up to further the point. Second, I'm not convinced he's learnt anything

"we have to play games to coerce each other to get something we both already wanted in the first place."

ItsAll, that David Wong article is very good (I've read some of his stuff before). Thanks.

Gentleman John my point was about the men who responded to this article by loudly proclaiming that it's perfectly normal to have the sort of sex the author described - where his partner did not positively respond in any way, to his actions.

There were the usual comments about how men are going to have to get women to sign a contract whenever they have sex (tells you about their technique) because apparently it's not reasonable to tune into your partner, see them, hear them, listen to them, feel them, notice their responses to what you're doing and respond to those responses, when you have sex. They are outraged by the suggestion - made by a man - that men can do things better.

Leaving aside the question of the definitions of rape, these sorts of comments always strike me as being a massive advertisement of being totally crap in bed.

It's definitely an interesting article.

What bothered me is that the woman he raped sort of disappeared. Once she'd finished her role as the vehicule for his self discovery, she just...vanished. Once he'd convinced her that really, he was sorry he raped her because it made him feel bad. It's also extremely interesting that his admitting his "accidental" rape has the dude bros so up in arms. What are they so afraid of? (we know the answer to this, of course).

But I can't get over his utter insistence that at the time he didn't know he was raping her. It's like that other bloke who wrote a book with the woman he'd raped - fundamentally I still just couldn't get on board with his show of penitence. It feels hollow, performative, self-congratulatory in a smug sort of suddenly-got-Jesus sort of a way.

I don't like the idea that man should seek enthusiastic consent because they will then get more/better sex.

This is just a continuation of the idea that women aren't fully human and our feelings only matter when they directly impact on what a man wants to do.

To me part of it reads a bit like an article written by a woman trying to talk men into seeking consent on the basis that things will be better for the men if they do.

I know it is not, but that is how some of it comes across.

Women love sex. Do they? All women, all the time? No, of course not. Why not start by finding out if the women you've just landed up visiting would like sex with you, rather than extrapolate what all women want.

Sadly, men expect so much, demand so much and the writer wants to convince us that actually men and women want the same things. I am not sure they always do. So the necessary thing is to find the woman who wants what you want, make sure you have the situation correct and then enjoy whatever you do mutually.

I wonder how much young women now even feel they have the right to say no, to not be interested in sex at any particular time etc. What's this guy offering, a one night stand, is that what lots of women want? If it is, fine.

So you only get the chance of this if you ascertain that that is actually what is on offer.

Otherwise maybe you don't just get to be 'crap in bed', maybe you get arrested or clobbered in self defense.

Maybe treat that women with the same respect you would want to be treated with.

That's the bit that tells me it isn't written by a woman. Because in the end it feels not like what happened mattered, but that the man convinced the woman what she though happened, didn't actually happen.