You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: May I “Mansplain” Something for a Minute, Please?
"I'd prefer a society where touching anyone without their consent is unacceptable"
Your wish is granted.
"while appreciating generic male and female preferences (as the starting point, before treating each person as an individual which is clearly ideal) which would imply men and women should be approached differently."
What does this mean in the context of competition? I would prefer not to be coddled and patronized. Also, it is inherently unfair to set up a "ladies tee" in the boardroom. Not only do I not want people to think I screwed my way to my position, I don't want people to think that I "affirmative actioned" my way there either.
In the context of the previous conversation with Sean, unasked for kisses, butt touchings, and full on gropings were described as potential "failed passes" instead of violations of someone's bodily autonomy. My understanding is these things happen often and are predominately male on female violations. To suggest these actions should be normalized and considered acceptable would, IMO, mean we don't have the society I prefer and described.
As to your second question, I don't think it means anything in the context of competition. I gave a specific context of an example where (IMO), a woman wasn't being treated correctly. To clarify my example, guys might punch each other in the arm and not get too upset about it. Punching a woman in the arm and expecting her to have a similar reaction as a guy doesn't make much sense to me (again, in a generic sense, not in terms of a specific individual who might not mind at all). That said, one could also make the point punching some guy in the arm without knowing them personally well enough as to whether or not they find that action acceptable or not is also wrong but maybe less wrong?
I agree with you that no one should be coddled or patronized. I'm simply acknowledging there are different, socially accepted preferences between men and women. To ignore them is to (IMO) act deliberately against the most probable preferences of another individual (lacking any specific knowledge about that individual's preference).
Fair enough, this conversation has definitely strayed from the original context of competition. Ideally, non-consensual touching does not occur, but there is no Fail-Safe. It will sometimes occur even when men have the sweetest of intentions for as long as men are expected to make the first move and face the risk of rejection. I have little experience taking that risk. I intensely dislike romantic rejection and have little conditioning to deal with it appropriately. Not a lot of tools in my tool box there and I think that's pretty stereotypical. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, right? If women expect men to shoulder the risk and responsibility of taking things to the physical level, then they must also be understanding of mistakes. It's quite the thrill for both novices and experts.
Touching someone that you know isn't willing, or have no reason to believe will be willing, is entirely different, and I reject the narrative that there's an epidemic. That doesn't mean it's not a serious offense or that women should not be protected from it. Despite the existence of rapists and gropers, we do not live in a rape culture. We live in a very anti-rape culture.