Consent for women

[ArabellaScott]

A reminder:

You don't owe anyone your attention.

You have no obligation to 'include' anyone in your 'dating pool'.

Your sexual preferences are yours and yours alone.

Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences.

Nobody has the right to question your sexual preferences.

When it comes to sex and sexual preferences, nobody has the right to demand your attention, your consideration or your attraction.

Not ever.

@CousinKrispy

I don't think it's that people don't understand your point. It's that they don't want to discuss it here, on this thread.

Okay, fair enough. Some people have said that and that’s fine. If the responses had been in the vein of “think you might have misinterpreted what I mean by preferences, I see the point you’re making and it’s a discussion that’s worth having but probably needs a thread to itself” then this wouldn’t have blown up. But it didn’t take very long for inferences to eroding women’s boundaries and manipulation started popping up which really couldn’t be further from my stance on consent, so I wanted to clarify that. I think as I and my friends are very much the kind of people who welcome these sorts of conversations I’m always quite surprised when I meet people who aren’t interested in having them, which is my issue, I accept not everyone finds this stuff interesting. But I don’t appreciate suggestions that I’ve got some kind of agenda or I’m trolling or trying to deflect the issue. And as I said it’s really not a very welcoming attitude to women who want to have discussions about women’s rights and feminism but might hold a different viewpoint on something within that.

If the responses had been in the vein of “think you might have misinterpreted what I mean by preferences, I see the point you’re making and it’s a discussion that’s worth having but probably needs a thread to itself

Several of us said exactly that, Ted.

Right and others said I’m a troll and god knows what else, that I had a bad attitude. I’m not just going to let that lie because it’s simply not true. Given feminism is a sociological theory in and of itself I’m surprised so many people are simply not interested in conversations of that ilk but fair enough.

Oh @TedMullins the irony of your posts on this thread is almost painful.

Perhaps you should remind yourself of the actual OP and then reconsider your posts.

*A reminder:

You don't owe anyone your attention.

You have no obligation to 'include' anyone in your 'dating pool'.

Your sexual preferences are yours and yours alone.

Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences.

Nobody has the right to question your sexual preferences.

When it comes to sex and sexual preferences, nobody has the right to demand your attention, your consideration or your attraction.

Not ever*.

No fucking ifs and buts. None.

It would have been a lot simpler and more constructive if you'd taken my suggestion way upthread and started your own thread, about exactly what you wanted to discuss, Ted. You could easily have done so, and you'd probably have found people interested in your topic who might not be on this thread.

I wasn’t even thinking about this until I read the opening post. I thought a public forum was a place to share viewpoints but considering MY VIEW ON CONSENT IS THE SAME AS EVERYONE’S, I didn’t see a reason to start a new one. You have the right to expect your consent/decision/preference etc will be respected but you don’t have the right to expect that nobody will try and have an entirely theoretical discussion with you. As far as I’m aware there’s no rule saying threads can’t go off topic. I’m accustomed to discussions where people bounce off each other and let the conversation evolve and can respectfully disagree without resorting to calling someone a troll but maybe unusual, I don’t know. Anyway this is just going round in circles now so I’ll just repeat A G A I N that my position on consent is the same as yours and suggest we all go and have a cup of tea.

that my position on consent is the same as yours and suggest we all go and have a cup of tea.
Good idea.

I don't like tea.

that was a joke.

then? or ?

God yes, all of those.

You don't suppose anyone will mind if I just sit in a corner somewhere and get slarmy? I might sing a little.

slarmy? google is giving me the Sri Lankan army ...

@ArabellaScott

I don't like tea.

I dont like tea.

for realz

I'm really not sure why a thread about the absolute nature of consent would seem like an appropriate place to suggest that people should examine themselves over why they wouldn't consider a particular group as sexual partners.

I appreciate the sociological question might be interesting to some people, but in the context of a very important discussion about consent being consistently undermined, to bring it up is a real time example of exactly how this undermining occurs.

I once rejected someone I fancied because they had a bad haircut. I have no reason whatsoever to examine that choice, and if i had rejected them because I thought they were promiscuous or because they weren't, or whatever the fuck reason, that is it. Full stop.

People are completely free to not even consider me because they don't want to sleep with a skinny white woman with tons of swagger, and they are free to have that perspective because they think i am more likely to be a racist or have BO or puck my nose and eat it... and I have no place to try and persuade them otherwise.

That is what consent means. It explicitly precludes persuasion.

Regrettably, it's a Hitchhiker's quote. Ford Prefect was unable to cope for some reason I forget.

That is what consent means. It explicitly precludes persuasion.

Yes.

@BuntingEllacott

I'm really not sure why a thread about the absolute nature of consent would seem like an appropriate place to suggest that people should examine themselves over why they wouldn't consider a particular group as sexual partners.

I appreciate the sociological question might be interesting to some people, but in the context of a very important discussion about consent being consistently undermined, to bring it up is a real time example of exactly how this undermining occurs.

I once rejected someone I fancied because they had a bad haircut. I have no reason whatsoever to examine that choice, and if i had rejected them because I thought they were promiscuous or because they weren't, or whatever the fuck reason, that is it. Full stop.

People are completely free to not even consider me because they don't want to sleep with a skinny white woman with tons of swagger, and they are free to have that perspective because they think i am more likely to be a racist or have BO or puck my nose and eat it... and I have no place to try and persuade them otherwise.

That is what consent means. It explicitly precludes persuasion.

This is fair and I agree. Honestly I think this is just a personality clash. I just really enjoy deep discussion and over lockdown as I haven’t seen my friendship group we’ve been on our WhatsApp group every day and can launch into deep theoreticals very suddenly, literally like the conversation could turn from, for example, ham sandwiches to sexual harassment in the space of a few messages and nobody minds veering from the actual point. I totally accept that I started a discussion expecting the same kind of dynamic here, and I can see why that might have been misinterpreted. Then it spiralled when my legitimacy was questioned. I still hold my views but I accept some people don’t want to talk about them right now or don’t enjoy meandering conversations as much as I do.

“think you might have misinterpreted what I mean by preferences, I see the point you’re making and it’s a discussion that’s worth having but probably needs a thread to itself”

I don't actually see that it is a discussion worth having. What would be the point of it?

If it identifies that the reasons for not choosing a particular person as a sexual because of a particular trait are unfair, unreasonable, illogical then so what?

No one is owed sex. There are obviously legitimate reasons for studying such discrimination in relation to civil society and civil rights but sex? No

Okay, that’s your opinion, and I disagree, because sex and the norms and expectations around it are very much part of wider societal expectations. Some people find it interesting. Doesn’t mean they’re obliged to change their preferences because bodily autonomy obviously trumps critical theory. As I just said I’ve accepted you don’t want to discuss it so I’m bowing out of this thread.

I don’t even know why I’m dignifying this with a response (lockdown boredom mostly) but first off, that’s a pretty lame attempt at provocation and given that I’m a woman, a passionate feminist whose friends are too it’s actually laughable that the best argument you can come up with is ‘I don’t agree so you’re an incel’. Pretty childish isn’t it really?

Since I joined this thread I’ve had my intentions questioned, told I have a bad attitude, accused of derailing and trolling and now called an incel. Is this not a classic deflection strategy, painting me as an agitator but in the absence of being able to articulate why in an intelligent and adult manner, resorting to personal attacks and attempting to gaslight me about my beliefs and intentions?

You’ve taken one quote entirely out of context, I think it’s pretty obvious when I said ‘these sort of conversations’ I meant critical debates in general. If you think I’m so wrong, do you actually believe the way I’ve been spoken to here is going to make me go away and question myself, or am I more likely to think you want to maintain an echo chamber (which I bet is a concept you accuse people with opposing views of). I keep hearing about concerns and campaigns for young women but very many young women think like me. Please do tell me how you plan to put your argument across in a productive way? Even though I’m still not sure what your argument is beyond ‘sociological debate is bad’. I’ll wait.

Can you find me the bit where I said I want to pressure lesbians into sleeping with me? I doubt it because you’re making it up. Or did I in fact say I understand and sympathise with their position, and have I said throughout this entire thread that I don’t think any amount of critical analysis should make anyone have sex with people they don’t want to? Seriously, please find the quote that says or implies that lesbians should change their minds or consent to sex with people they don’t want to. You won’t be able to, because those words never came out of my mouth (or keyboard)

Ted, You haven't, as far as I'm concerned made any convincing argument why there needs to be critical analysis of why person A won't have sex with person B.

What is the point of such analysis? It cannot possibly be, and should not be, with the intention of changing anyone's preferences as to who they want to have sex with.

No one should be denied education , a job, a roof over their head, health care , the ability to participate in civil society just because the person in control of delivering those items dislikes the other person.

We have laws to ensure that should not happen. They don't always work but they are there for good reasons. The persons with power to deliver these items need to be sure they do not discriminate, either openly and deliberately or by unconscious bias. Studying this a valid concern.

For example I said there are certain regional accents which I find very unattractive. I also find people who are seriously into sport unattractive and often uninteresting. It would be entirely wrong of me to refuse to employ a man because of his accent or he was a rugby player. However there is no obligation on me whatsoever to consider him as a sexual partner. What legitimate difference does it make to his life? None.

Your argument was also muddled. You said in an early post:-

You, to person you’re on a date with: ‘I don’t want to sleep with anyone under 6ft’Date person: ‘oh really, why’s that?’ Innocent conversation

It is not "innocent conversation". It is asking someone to justify and explain their preferences.

Later you posted

Assuming this is aimed at me, I have never suggested anyone has the right to an explanation

which is outright contradiction of what you said in your earlier post.

Individual sexual preferences might be absurd, illogical even discriminatory but that is irrelevant when considering sexual partners.