My point is that self-ownership isn’t necessarily violated. We intentionally touch people without permission ALL THE TIME, albeit usually in nonsexual ways (a pat on the back or shoulder, a touch on the arm, a quick shoulder rub, etc.) and with very few exceptions NONE of these are deemed to be improper or violations of self-ownership. Heck, guys will often slap each other’s ass (in sports environment in particular) and nobody considers it a violation of self sovereignty.
Please give me a PRINCIPLED reason why touching a woman’s ass is necessarily different. Isn’t it just because it’s potentially “sexual” (and I say the word sexual with my best “Church Lady voice)? And because we’ve brainwashed women into believing that it’s improper for a man to gently touch her rear but not her arm because...SEX?! (SEX, SEX, SEX!!!! OMG, that last touch was SEXUAL, you can’t let him do that to you!!!). We’ve taught women from the youngest ages that any man doing THAT is “disrespecting” them, but not when the man just touches your arm, that’s place is okay sweetie. But patting your bum? Will THAT violates your “self sovereignty”. “Why is it disrespectful and a violation”, a naive child might ask? “Well, it just is!, we tell them” But the real answer is simply... BECAUSE SEX!!! Sex is the only reason. If butts were desexualized, there’d be no more worry over butt pats than back slaps, right?
And so we have literally conditioned our daughters to freak out when anything sexual happens to them (outside of church and parent approved parameters). We’ve taught them to panic. To feel violated. To feel like their sovereignty has been challenged or “taken”. That the man has insulted and disrespected them. That they should be incensed!
Why? Again, just because of SEX! I mean, God forbid our daughters might respond to that butt pat not with panic and offense but instead with a little wiggle that lets the guy know that she actually enjoyed the squeeze. Why? Because then SEX(!!!) might happen! OMG! The horror! SEX!!!! Not SEX! Not with MY daughter, you asshole! (And owe, by that way honey, you should be ASHAMED for that little wiggle you gave him. You shoulda slapped the guy!)
Don’t you see how this fear over even gentle loving touches from men (if sexual AT ALL) is just one giant sexual hangup perpetrated over thousands of years by churches and parents (often fathers) who view their children almost as property (they literally did so back in biblical days) and who have consequently terrorized their daughters over sex and “strange men” in order to keep their daughters from engaging in SEX (!!) outside of boundaries firmly established and controlled by the parents and the church? We’ve literally TERRORIZED our own fucking daughters for God’s sake! It’s an absolute travesty. An evil.
And the fact that it took outright systematic TERROR to overcome our daughters’ natural interest in sex shows just how UNNATURAL it is for them avoid it to begin with! When terror is required to change human conduct, you gotta know you’re doing something wrong.
It’s only this conditioned terror over sex that causes them (and you) to view a pat on the ass any differently than a pat on the back. So, no, I don’t agree that every time someone touches you without explicit advance “consent” its “simply wrong” and a violation of self sovereignty. And neither do you, actually. Your problem isn’t with harmless consentless touching (as evidenced by the fact that you’d have no problem with a pat on the back given without seeking advance consent), it’s with...SEX!! You deem any sexual touch, or even potentially sexual touch, to be harmful per se to the female, as if our daughters are little snowflakes who are sure to be taken advantage of by men if not terrorized away from them.
In fact, this traumatic conditioning is so deep that men don’t even have to touch a woman to terrorize her and make her feel threatened or violated. Let’s suppose, for example, that we could all agree on some sign that a man could give that would let a women know that he’d like to give her little bum a squeeze (please, madam?). The man could make the sign (i.e, ask permission) and the woman could respond by either offering her rear for pat or by declining to do so. You know what, even if we were to do THAT, there’s so much trauma and so much baggage around sex that just making the sign to a women would eventually come to be seen as “harassment” or even an “assault” when actually all you were doing was seeking her consent!
I don’t want to in any way minimize the significance of this conditioning. After all, it was accomplished by literally TRAUMATIZING our daughters over thousands of years about sex and their bodies. In order to prevent them from being fully sexual beings and acting upon their natural instincts, especially as a teenager (or God forbid getting pregnant by a scoundrel, which is something we don’t have to worry as much about today with both birth control and abortion available), we conditioned them through terror to fear being propositioned by men rather than to be aroused or intrigued by it (actually, they studies show they often ARE physically aroused while stil being mentally terrified). By warning them constantly of being “raped” and “violated’ and having their “sovereignty denied”, we have caused them to associate any potentially sex related conduct (outside of STRICTLY controlled parent and church sanctioned environments) with FEAR and OFFENSE.
So, the conditioning is deep because the trauma is deep. We’ve turned our daughters into fearful and sexually disempowered little snowflakes rather than roaring fully empowered sexual women. We can pretend that we did it “for their own good” and to “protect them from the bad guys”, but we really didn’t (at least not in today’s day and age where birth control and abortion are readily available). No, we did it for ourselves. For own own selfish and egoic reasons. To preserve the integrity of our religion. To avoid being shamed by the moralizaers. To avoid “dishonoring the family name”. Etc.
The solution (as I have proposed it) is simply to STOP FUCKING TRAUMATIZING our daughters about sex! Stop the madness! Let them be the sexual beings that they are. Stop teaching them to fear the sexual interest of men and instead to capitalize on it. And most importantly, teach them to enjoy the hell out of sex, one of evolution’s great gifts to humanity, rather than fear it.
Your response to my proposed solution seems to be “but Sean, you’re ignoring the trauma-induced sensitivity of the existing generation of women. You can’t fully appreciate the extent of their trauma and the stuff they’ve been subjected to. It’s unkind to expect them to change and embrace their sexuality when they’ve been so abused for so long.”
To that I have two answers. First, we shouldn’t continue terrorizing future generations of women just because past ones were. Enough is enough! Mamas and Daddies shouldn’t be encouraged to terrorize their daughters about sex (as religion and traditional feminist do), and make their daughters fearful of it, just because they were terrorized about it by their parents.
And second, when people have suffered trauma, the moral and compassionate thing to do is NOT to enable it but rather to help HEAL it, to help them get over it so that it no longer adversely impacts their lives in harmful ways. That’s how we treat victims of PTSD in other instances, and that’s how we should be treating these trauma survivors. We don’t tell veterans suffering from PTSD to stay inside and hide so that won’t have to cope with terrifying noises (the slam of a car door or a car backfiring). We don’t tell people driving cars not to slam their doors. Instead, we rehabilitate the victims by helping them learn to overcome the trauma so that they can not only function , but actually excel, at normal life.
We owe that to the women in our lives who have been so terrorized and shamed over sex. We owe it to help them heal, not to continue encouraging them to hide and be fearful and feel traumatized or “violated” every time a man approaches them (no matter how innocently or kindly).
Why is it natural and evolutionary for men to pursue sex, yet it's conditioning for women to avoid it? I know you are aware of the dire consquences that indiscriminate breeding has on women and children. Why are you arguing that women go against our "natural programming" and calling our evolved defense strategies the result of conditioning? To this very day, the children of chaste and choosey women still have better outcomes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
At the moment we’re mainly debating slaps on the ass, where no chance of pregnancy is involved. But regardless, at the risk of being highly offensive to humans who think themselves to be so far above the “beasts”, let’s compare the sexual habits of our nearest relatives for a minute. Female bonobos are notoriously promiscuous. Bonobo society is in fact constructed around this very trait. And it works great for the bonobos. Yes, they are still choosy (they don’t mate with the genetically unfit, for example), but among the genetically fit (which is the majority of males) they make little distinction. Regardless, they are not terrified of their male brethren and don’t feel violated or threaten when one approaches with interest.
Chimps are similar but different. Female chimps are “protected” by the Alpha Male. It’s really only the terrorising by the Alpha male that keeps the female “chaste”. But when a suitablably healthy would-be usurper to the alpha male makes sneaks through unobserved by the Alpha, the female usually doesn’t hesitate to offer up their rump for his and her enjoyment. Regardless, female chimps don’t fear the the sexual interest of their male bretheren and seem to feel “violated” or threatened when one displays that interest physically.
I invite you to read the book “Sex at Dawn” for much, much more on this subject. It makes a very compelling case (from studies of male and female anatomy and social behaviors) that female humans have been evolutionarily programmed to be relatively promiscuous—less so than bonobos but far more so than chimps.
In sort, there’s tons of evidence that human females are naturally promiscuous. Virtually all biologists of every flavor, and also evolutioanry psychologists, agree with this. By contrast there’s little to no evidence that they are innately chaste.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Lol, I got all excited. I thought I caught you and was stoked for my "gotcha!" moment. I scrolled up to the comment that I partially quote below KNOWING there was a major contradiction. Alas, I was wrong. Pair bonding with a good provider does not exclude cucking him and being choosey in a sea of available males does not exclude promiscuity. Dang it!
Hopefully I can come back at lunch and I'll get ya then. I'm at a disadvantage using my phone as I can only see about 20 words of what I'm composing at a time and navigating through the comments isn't easy. Despite that, I hope to power through because I'm having a good time. This is a fun discussion, so thanks.
Excerpt below just so you know what huge comment I thought I had you cornered with. 😉
The genetic differences between males and females are attributable largely to two simple facts. First, female eggs are very rare and precious (coming along at the rate of only one per month) while male sperm is cheap and plentiful (coming along at the rate of millions per hour). Second, energy is not unlimited in nature. Consequently, those genes that compel or induce people to spend large amounts of energy on things that don’t confer a reproductive advantage are generally selected against and disappear. By contrast, genes that compel or induce people to pursue activities that confer a reproductive advantage are obviously selected for.
Given that energy is not unlimited, the rare in nature generally doesn’t waste precious energy pursuing the plentiful. But the plentiful in nature generally does pursue and compete for the rare, and those among the plentiful who pursue and compete better have better reproductive success.
Thus, in nature, its generally the males (plentiful sperm) who pursue and compete (often unconsciously) for the females (rare eggs). Males who are better competitors, more innovative, more industrious, etc. have had slight greater reproductive success than those males who lacked these traits. Consequently, evolution has selected for exactly these traits in males.
By contrast, evolution has generally not selected females for aggression, competition, pursuit, ambition, etc., at least not to the same extent as males. Why? Because females need to complete for sperm about like they need to compete for air, which is to say virtually not at all under normal circumstances. Given that energy is limited in nature, it makes no sense for evolution to program females for such wasteful behaviors.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
LOL. Yah, cucking a man can be a great strategy from an evolutionary perspective. :-)
I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. I am too! It's nice to have an honest debate and conversation without resorting to labels and ad hominem. I'm grateful for that!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Guys slapping each other's asses has become somewhat of an accepted practice within the context of sports, from what I understand. Maybe participating there is implied consent? Even within that context, if a guy said, "Hey, teammates, please don't slap my ass, it makes me uncomfortable," shouldn't that preference be respected? Don't people have a right as to who gets to touch their property (including their body)? Same goes for a "non-hugger" who doesn't want to be greeted with a hug.
Most workplaces have implicit and/or explicit policies on touching co-workers. Even on the shoulder or the back could be considered harassment if it's done without their consent or specifically against it. This goes both ways. Women touching men in ways they don't want or gay men/women touching other men/women in ways they don't want. To me, it's all about consent and the importance of respecting that.
From my perspective, the reason it's different is because women everywhere are saying "Don't touch my ass without consent."
The rest of your comment, to me, is a beautiful rant. I love the passion you have for this topic, and I agree on many levels that sexuality in our culture is really messed up and has been for a very long time. As you know, I'm still coming out of the "trauma" of religious views on sexuality myself, as is my wife (though from my perspective she's still quite stuck, comparatively). I'm certainly open to the idea that my own biases cloud my judgements on this topic.
In many ways, it sounds like you're advocating for a Garden of Eden approach where we can all live without clothes if we so choose with no "private parts" at all and no stigma towards sex because it's as natural as breathing, eating, or shitting. That's quite a jump for most people to grasp, but I think I can appreciate where you're coming from, and I see how that view would immediately remove a lot of psychological trauma.
I really do like your rant, but I still get caught up on the concept of consent. If a women doesn't want to be treated like a piece of sexual meat, and someone gives the "can I grab your ass?" sign, how is that not offensive to them? It seems to me you're telling all women, "Your preferences are wrong, and you are a victim of the society you're in. You should always be open to being objectified by men because that's a good, natural thing." You may be right, but that's quite presumptuous, IMO, to speak for all women (especially as a man) and to tell them what their preferences should be.
Again, I'm not saying you're flat out wrong, and I'm doing my best to keep an open mind about your views and how you may have discovered something which will take the rest of humanity a while to catch up to. I agree with much of what you're saying about how messed up our victimization thinking is, our unhealthy perspectives on sex, and how many of the "solutions" only create more victims.
I'd like to separate out the concept of consent from the concept of toxic views of sexuality. I do agree with you they are closely related, but I don't think they are the same thing. Many more women may give consent much more freely if they were healed of their trauma as you describe. Until then, I still think we should respect their preferences. I can see how this creates a catch 22 where making a big deal out of things could actually make the problem you're describing worse.
When I see women on Twitter, Steemit, and other social sites being treated horribly (doxed, rape threats, death threats, etc) even after they've been completely clear about their preferences, I have to think the problem you're addressing may not be the same problem many feminists are working against. Maybe it is, and I'm just not seeing how your proposed solution would help in those situations.
Either way, I'll definitely be thinking about this in more detail.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Luke, I hate to say you’re arguing in bad faith, but...you kinda are. When you ask questions I answer them directly even when I know you won’t like the answer. When I ask questions you instead create a strawman and slay it (at least you have this time) or else answer a question I’ve not asked.
Of COURSE someone who has communicated that they don’t which to be touched shouldn’t be touched by anyone with that fore knowledge. Do you seriously think I’ve ever argued otherwise? That’s not my point at ALL.
And of COURSE there are instances where even a pat on the back can be a violation of self sovereignty. But again, that’s not my point!
My point is that 99 percent of the time, people HAVEN’T given the other person fore knowledge that they don’t wish to be touched. And 99 percent of the time, a simple pat on the back is NOT taken as a threat or a violation of sovereignty or as something improper. So, rather than deal with the general rule, you keep diverting to the exceptions to that rule so as to avoid my questions.
My question involves the “normal” circumstances where the guy doesn’t know that the women doesn’t want to be touched. In that instance, why is it safe to assume that a pat on the back is okay but a pat on the butt is not? Please go back and read my rant again and try to answer the questions that I actually asked.
You KNOW that I’m the first to defend women who are being abused, who are treated in ways they don’t wish to be treated. Ironically it was ME who interceded to help protect @techslut from berniesanders! So, again, please stop focusing on the truly abusive instance where you and I are in complete agreement and deal with the far more common instances that I’ve outlined multiple times now.
Your raised the issue of implied consent. It’s a good point, but again it avoids my question. My question is why is there “implied consent” for back pats but not butt pats in instances where the patter has no fore knowledge? Isn’t the answer just BECAUSE SEX? And isn’t that a conditioned (through trauma) response rather than a “natural” and healthy one?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit