21 Feb 11, 11:57 AM
The_Perfect_Sadist
UK(PO), 4 yrs
 |
I thought this question might elicit a strong response and it has – both for and against.
My rough count of the 90 posts so far indicates about 23 posts supporting my original posting, about 17 against it and about 50 neutral, repetitive of previous posts or funny posts. So opinion seems pretty evenly divided and was strongly argued both ways.
When I posted at first it was because I wasn't sure whether there was some matter of principle involved or whether it was simply me feeling miffed. As a result of the discussion here I now believe there are principles of consent involved.
I now think it comes down to two areas. First, there is a current tendency both in legislation and in what is considered socially correct behaviour to start limiting not only people's behaviour but also their thoughts and words. I think this is a bad trend and I want to oppose it. I think it's right that a woman should be able to say “You may not touch me without my consent” but I don't think it's right that a woman should be able to say “You may not think about touching me without my consent”. There's a case for saying some women, in some situations, feel vulnerable and so should be protected but I don't think that clause is available to a woman who dresses in a skin tight rubber suit to sexually excite people.
The second closely related area is more important. It's where does consent begin and end? Physical contact, certainly. Threatening looks or non-touching behaviour, certainly. Inappropriate or persistent approaches, certainly. Being a pest, certainly. But where does it stop? In what circumstances is it up to the sexual target to decide and in what up to the sexual hunter? It seems to me that if the thing that has attracted me to the woman is a sexually provocative photo that she has published, then she cannot reasonably seek to limit my mental responses to that photograph, even if she finds them distasteful.
I feel genuinely sorry for the lady concerned (I really mean that – I'm not just saying it). I wish there was some way I could express my regret – if I could buy her a bunch of flowers I would. But I conscientiously believe that – whether she realises it or not - she is asking for something that she's not entitled to and that would compromise my integrity to give away.
There is more than one way to skin a cat but there is only one try per cat
|
21 Feb 11, 12:09 PM
Beau_Tox
UK(CB), 7 yrs
 |
You keep using that word...
 .
Oh you poor little lamby-kin, does the nasty post above upset you..?
|
21 Feb 11, 12:14 PM
pepperpants
UK, 3 yrs
|
The_Perfect_Sadist wrote:
I feel genuinely sorry for the lady concerned (I really mean that – I'm not just saying it). I wish there was some way I could express my regret – if I could buy her a bunch of flowers I would. But I conscientiously believe that – whether she realises it or not - she is asking for something that she's not entitled to and that would compromise my integrity to give away.
|
I find it a bit suspect that you are willing to express regret through a meaningless gesture rather than comply with her request--
Compromise is a key word, but it doesn't seem to involve your integrity. Obviously, she felt entitled to request it of you and by refusing her request, you are redefining her perception of control. Basically, you are stating that in no way is she allowed to determine your behaviour. I don't see this situation as a question of who is right or who is wrong--it is more two individuals attempting to assert control over the other. "...to precipitate a nocturnal carnation,
to be, and be nothing but light in the dark"
|
21 Feb 11, 12:34 PM
MisstressvsSolicedog
UK(NN), 17 mths
|
The_Perfect_Sadist wrote:
I thought this question might elicit a strong response and it has – both for and against.
My rough count of the 90 posts so far indicates about 23 posts supporting my original posting, about 17 against it and about 50 neutral, repetitive of previous posts or funny posts. So opinion seems pretty evenly divided and was strongly argued both ways.
When I posted at first it was because I wasn't sure whether there was some matter of principle involved or whether it was simply me feeling miffed. As a result of the discussion here I now believe there are principles of consent involved.
I now think it comes down to two areas. First, there is a current tendency both in legislation and in what is considered socially correct behaviour to start limiting not only people's behaviour but also their thoughts and words. I think this is a bad trend and I want to oppose it. I think it's right that a woman should be able to say “You may not touch me without my consent” but I don't think it's right that a woman should be able to say “You may not think about touching me without my consent”. There's a case for saying some women, in some situations, feel vulnerable and so should be protected but I don't think that clause is available to a woman who dresses in a skin tight rubber suit to sexually excite people.
The second closely related area is more important. It's where does consent begin and end? Physical contact, certainly. Threatening looks or non-touching behaviour, certainly. Inappropriate or persistent approaches, certainly. Being a pest, certainly. But where does it stop? In what circumstances is it up to the sexual target to decide and in what up to the sexual hunter? It seems to me that if the thing that has attracted me to the woman is a sexually provocative photo that she has published, then she cannot reasonably seek to limit my mental responses to that photograph, even if she finds them distasteful.
I feel genuinely sorry for the lady concerned (I really mean that – I'm not just saying it). I wish there was some way I could express my regret – if I could buy her a bunch of flowers I would. But I conscientiously believe that – whether she realises it or not - she is asking for something that she's not entitled to and that would compromise my integrity to give away.
|
i can understand that she just want's a women and wants to attract a women
i can understand she dos.nt want to be men's eye candy,,
i dont understand unless she is entirly ingnorant as to posting a pic og herself that men will find attractive then objecting to men finding it atractive,
when your aware that men will find it attractive, and you dont want that,
it just confuse's me,,
Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish
|
21 Feb 11, 1:02 PM
epona74
UK(SL), 7 yrs
|
The_Perfect_Sadist wrote:
I thought this question might elicit a strong response and it has – both for and against.
My rough count of the 90 posts so far indicates about 23 posts supporting my original posting, about 17 against it and about 50 neutral, repetitive of previous posts or funny posts. So opinion seems pretty evenly divided and was strongly argued both ways.
When I posted at first it was because I wasn't sure whether there was some matter of principle involved or whether it was simply me feeling miffed. As a result of the discussion here I now believe there are principles of consent involved.
I now think it comes down to two areas. First, there is a current tendency both in legislation and in what is considered socially correct behaviour to start limiting not only people's behaviour but also their thoughts and words. I think this is a bad trend and I want to oppose it. I think it's right that a woman should be able to say “You may not touch me without my consent” but I don't think it's right that a woman should be able to say “You may not think about touching me without my consent”. There's a case for saying some women, in some situations, feel vulnerable and so should be protected but I don't think that clause is available to a woman who dresses in a skin tight rubber suit to sexually excite people.
The second closely related area is more important. It's where does consent begin and end? Physical contact, certainly. Threatening looks or non-touching behaviour, certainly. Inappropriate or persistent approaches, certainly. Being a pest, certainly. But where does it stop? In what circumstances is it up to the sexual target to decide and in what up to the sexual hunter? It seems to me that if the thing that has attracted me to the woman is a sexually provocative photo that she has published, then she cannot reasonably seek to limit my mental responses to that photograph, even if she finds them distasteful.
I feel genuinely sorry for the lady concerned (I really mean that – I'm not just saying it). I wish there was some way I could express my regret – if I could buy her a bunch of flowers I would. But I conscientiously believe that – whether she realises it or not - she is asking for something that she's not entitled to and that would compromise my integrity to give away.
|
To me, you're coming across as rather arrogant and unpleasant. Please note that I'm not saying that you ARE, only that this is how you're coming across in this instance.
You state that you "feel sorry" for the lady, and wish you could express your regret...there is. You could do something she ASKED you politely to do.
She didn't try to control your actions. She didn't memo you telling you that you were out of line and that you needed to do this. She ASKED you, politely. Seriously? It would compromise your INTEGRITY to take her photo off your favourites after she's made a polite request that you do so? To me, anyone with INTEGRITY would have acceeded to the lady's wishes, she's not exactly asking the world here. She's not asking you NOT to perve over her photos, only to not have them on your favourites where (if I've understood the site's workings correctly from others' comments), you are effectively announcing to the world of CM that you are perving over them.
You can still do what you like, and she may feel sufficiently squicked to take her photo down, never to repeat the process, which would make the world of CM a slightly less shiny and bright place for lots of people to enjoy. Or she may block you (again, if I've understood CM's workings correctly-I don't use it), which would prevent you from viewing it. She could shrug her shoulders, notice that her view of you as somewhat cringeworthy is correct, but do nothing else.
Her reaction may seem OTT to you, but consider it from her perspective for a moment. If she's anything like me, she gets reasonably constant harassment from men, who come out with the most ridiculous rubbish imaginable. "She just hasn't met the right man" and similar expressions might seem funny or harmless once or twice...but 2,000 times later, it grates-and it can start to colour the way someone sees any response or reaction. She MAY just want to be able to be herself, to show the world who she is, without having to segregate herself into the very niche lesbian BDSM scene, and without being treated as a commodity by others.
Personally? I think you should get over yourself.
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new (A. Einstein)
To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it. ~Confucius
|
21 Feb 11, 1:08 PM
shit_sub
UK(W), 5 yrs
|
ThePerfectSadist wrote:
I'd be interested to hear anyone else's views on the netiquette of this.
On another BDSM site which I couldn't possible name – oh,all right then, it's Collarme – the following takes place. A tall, lovely and sexy looking young woman posts a profile and photo of herself. She makes it plain that she's a lesbian, isn't interested in men, but is interested in a female sub. The tone of some of her words seems to me to be rather angrily anti-male, but then perhaps she has good reason for that.
Her photograph shows her dressed in a skin tight black rubber catsuit, gloves and mask all very highly polished by her or a photographer or a sub. She looks absolutely stunning and anyone who likes rubber will drool over this woman in their dreams.
I see this profile because it is served up at the top of the home page as the latest user to log on. She looks stunning and I feel that, even though she isn't remotely interested in the likes of me, I would probably like to look at her profile again in more detail, so I click on “Add to my favourites”. At this stage, I didn't know that other users are aware when you add them in this way – I thought it was like bookmarking here.
Shortly afterwards (minutes rather than hours) I receive a message from the lady, written in very polite and respectful language, saying “Will you please remove my profile from your favourites”.
I was very taken aback by this, never having had such a message before even though I've used the internet for two decades. However, despite her respectful tone, I felt that I was somehow being bullied. It seemed to me a bit like those lawyers in the US who try to stop you using a photo of their client on the dodgy grounds that they own their image. I replied right away that I would think about it and let her know. She interpreted this as arrogance on my part (  )
Having had a chance to think about it, my view is that, of her own free will, she placed her profile and picture on a BDSM site with a view to sexually exciting and attracting her target partners. In so doing she placed her words and picture in the public domain where anyone can see them. Does she have the right to seek to control how others view her profile? I don't believe she does. I believe she gave up that right when she made her details public. It seems to me unfeasible that someone can seek to selectively titillate some people but not others.
Please note that I'm not denying this lady her right to despise men (if she does) to despise me in particular (should she wish to) or to express her sexual preferences in any way she chooses. I accept that she has the right to assert copyright over her photo (should she wish to). But I simply don't think she can control who makes her a favourite (or even who has a wank over her picture) and that she has no right to ask such a thing.
What do you all think? |
this is what i think:
the fact that she's a lesbian is entirely irrelevant, and it is more telling of you than her that you choose not only to mention but to headline it. the fact that you equate lesbianism with man hating is equally telling. the fact that you believe the way a woman dresses somehow endorses your response to her sexually is also telling.
your objection is that she cannot control the viewing of her image. but you have not merely viewed, you have actioned. it is the action to which she has objected.
i think you've raised yourself a rubber clad straw lesbian, and invited us all to dance around while you burn it.
The_Perfect_Sadist wrote:
I thought this question might elicit a strong response and it has – both for and against.
My rough count of the 90 posts so far indicates about 23 posts supporting my original posting, about 17 against it and about 50 neutral, repetitive of previous posts or funny posts. So opinion seems pretty evenly divided and was strongly argued both ways.
When I posted at first it was because I wasn't sure whether there was some matter of principle involved or whether it was simply me feeling miffed. As a result of the discussion here I now believe there are principles of consent involved.
I now think it comes down to two areas. First, there is a current tendency both in legislation and in what is considered socially correct behaviour to start limiting not only people's behaviour but also their thoughts and words. I think this is a bad trend and I want to oppose it. I think it's right that a woman should be able to say “You may not touch me without my consent” but I don't think it's right that a woman should be able to say “You may not think about touching me without my consent”. There's a case for saying some women, in some situations, feel vulnerable and so should be protected but I don't think that clause is available to a woman who dresses in a skin tight rubber suit to sexually excite people.
The second closely related area is more important. It's where does consent begin and end? Physical contact, certainly. Threatening looks or non-touching behaviour, certainly. Inappropriate or persistent approaches, certainly. Being a pest, certainly. But where does it stop? In what circumstances is it up to the sexual target to decide and in what up to the sexual hunter? It seems to me that if the thing that has attracted me to the woman is a sexually provocative photo that she has published, then she cannot reasonably seek to limit my mental responses to that photograph, even if she finds them distasteful.
I feel genuinely sorry for the lady concerned (I really mean that – I'm not just saying it). I wish there was some way I could express my regret – if I could buy her a bunch of flowers I would. But I conscientiously believe that – whether she realises it or not - she is asking for something that she's not entitled to and that would compromise my integrity to give away.
|
i think you're confusing your integrity with your testicles.
|
21 Feb 11, 1:15 PM
SheilaBlyge
UK(S), 4 yrs
|
The_Perfect_Sadist wrote:
SheilaBlyge wrote:
violet_haze wrote:
I mean, there are sites for lesbians... loads of them, so if you choose to put yourself on a mixed dating site, then what the hell else do you expect?
|
Respect? Naive I know. 
|
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth Sheila, but are you suggesting that if I take a very strong sexual interest in a person who has no interest in me but who appears intensely sexually interesting to me because of the way she herself has chosen to dress and present herself, that I am lacking in respect for her?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not entering a plea for the Wanky Men here, but don't we all really want to be sexually attractive to our target audience - and can we complain if there is "collateral damage" - if people we don't find sexy, find us sexy?
I don't think this is about respect or lack of respect. I think it's about natural response to sexually provocative behaviour.
|
No on all counts.
I was suggesting that, as per the quoted bit, saying that just because she's a lesbian she should go away and be on lesbian only sites because men are going to perve was disrespectful. I meant that I would expect respect for a lesbian's right to be on a mixed site the same as any other orientation.
I DO think your response was disrespectful but for different reasons - there is a vast difference between understanding that if we put 'interesting' pictures on the internet they will attract interest from people we are not attracted to, vs. actually being faced with an army of fundamentally unsuitable (wrong sex!) people shoving it in your face. The former one accepts with good grace, the latter one is entitled to feel a bit 'eugh' about. I'm actually feeling distinctly 'eugh' at you using the phrase 'take a very strong sexual interest' in her... why on earth would you, or should you? She has excluded herself from your pool simply by means of sexuality, so your sexual interest should go no further. A 'very strong sexual interest' is a far cry from admiring a great photo of a great body in a great outfit!
The point for me was the word 'polite' - you stated she asked politely to be removed, yet your response was not really polite, rather confrontational. Yes, you have every right to perve over her, but she has the right to not want to know about it.
You really seemed to be making a point for a point's sake. My 2p. Value for money in this day and age.
|
21 Feb 11, 4:04 PM
Beau_Tox
UK(CB), 7 yrs
|
pepperpants wrote:
The_Perfect_Sadist wrote:
I feel genuinely sorry for the lady concerned (I really mean that – I'm not just saying it). I wish there was some way I could express my regret – if I could buy her a bunch of flowers I would. But I conscientiously believe that – whether she realises it or not - she is asking for something that she's not entitled to and that would compromise my integrity to give away.
|
I find it a bit suspect that you are willing to express regret through a meaningless gesture rather than comply with her request--
Compromise is a key word, but it doesn't seem to involve your integrity. Obviously, she felt entitled to request it of you and by refusing her request, you are redefining her perception of control. Basically, you are stating that in no way is she allowed to determine your behaviour. I don't see this situation as a question of who is right or who is wrong--it is more two individuals attempting to assert control over the other.
|
As I said earlier, this thread seems to be more about ego than manners...
If a person needs to put their need to remain in control (they can call that "integrity" if they wish) above manners, and needs to assert their "right" as an argument for refusing to be gracious about the matter, then they are at liberty to do so. But never confuse "I am not forced to do XYZ and therefore I have the right to continue" with it BEING right to do so. There are lots of things in life which are not illegal, but they are not morally right to do. .
Oh you poor little lamby-kin, does the nasty post above upset you..?
|
