Sexual novelty

[Bird]

"WORSE STILL, 83.5% ARGUE THAT “SOME WOMEN LOOK LIKE THEY ARE JUST ASKING TO BE RAPED."
Statistics can be misleading. Does that mean

1. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women completely disregarding their desires as is want in fantasy?
2. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women if they were openly reciprocating?
3. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women after they declined to do so?

4. 83.5% Would force women to have sex due to their appearance.

 

[echoplex]

Actually, I always thought "just asking to be raped" was a way of complaining about how women dress, not an expression of personal desire or intent. I hear alot of conservative-minded people say things like that.

Though, I can see how such a belief might act as justification of rape in some people's minds, though not 83.5% of minds. Generally, I think agreement with that phrase indicates awareness that a small percentage of people might rape you for looking like that and that it may not be wise to do so -- not that the woman is literally asking to be raped.

The existence of rapists acts like a "Beware of Dog" sign. If you enter the dog's fence many might say "you're asking to be mauled" without implying you actually want to be mauled. Though, of course, a dog could also maul you in your own yard if you're unlucky.

And sometimes there's no dog at all, just a sign that scares people away. Some people want you to be scared so they can influence your behavior.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I've never lived out a rape fantasy... now I'm curious if I could set it up and go through with it.

 

[Melllvar]

I should say that when I said "rape fantasies" earlier I was referring to general "domination fantasies", not necessarily fantasies about actual violent rapes. Domination fantasies (stuff like "I'm going to leave the door unlocked, I'll pretend to be asleep, you pretend to be someone else, etc.") are well documented. Fantasies about actual violent rapes are documented too, but I expect they're far less common, in the same way that lots of people think handcuffs are kinky but not everyone wants to get into whips and hot wax (referring to BDSM). I should have made that distinction initially.

In any case, there's still a big difference between consensual rape roleplay and using the existence of rape fantasies as an excuse to do whatever you want. The other person may even want you to take advantage of them, but you wouldn't know that unless they told you. I think it goes without saying that just assuming someone wants you to take advantage of them, without being told, is a pretty big asshole move.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That's exactly it, though. Defining the difference between playing out a rape fantasy and an actual rape would be part of living out the fantasy, and I'd be scared of going too far or not far enough. If it's not far enough, it wasn't really a lived out fantasy. If it goes too far, that could seriously injure someone emotionally.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The other person may even want you to take advantage of them, but you wouldn't know that unless they told you. I think it goes without saying that just assuming someone wants you to take advantage of them, without being told, is a pretty big asshole move.

Explicit vs Implicit.

You could say it's better to trust the explicit words, "I would like to be taken advantage of". But that person agreeing with being taken advantage of does not necessarily have the same boundaries as the one taking advantage. It might go too far, and it would still be an asshole move, even if the words were stated.

Some people would argue that they can tell the types of people who'd like to be taken advantage of. But in order to do this, you have to be aware of limits. These people understand the limits of physical interaction and closeness to the point where they have confidence in their abilities to exert their will without remorse.

In the case of playing to another's limits versus using context to your advantage, I don't think the more asshole thing to do is readily classifiable. You'd need more knowledge of the situation.

 

[Melllvar]

Some people would argue that they can tell the types of people who'd like to be taken advantage of.

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but it seems like the people who would say this are the same ones who would say, "She was asking for it," etc. At least the vast majority of them. How do they know they're right in any particular circumstance? How do they know they're not just projecting their desires onto someone else? It's not the kind of thing you'd want to gamble on.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but it seems like the people who would say this are the same ones who would say, "She was asking for it," etc. At least the vast majority of them. How do they know they're right in any particular circumstance? How do they know they're not just projecting their desires onto someone else? It's not the kind of thing you'd want to gamble on.

(Edit: Also, you realize you're attributing my rape comments to BigApplePi? )

Oops.

The people who say, "She is/was asking for it", can either be detachedly critical or curiously interested. In the latter case, we have people who think she was asking for it(more likely just horny people), and we have people who, from experience, know she is asking for it(without getting into an epistemological argument). The people in the latter's latter case are my intended subjects.

 

[BigApplePi]

4. 83.5% Would force women to have sex due to their appearance.

I will give my own response to this Bird even if it is off the topic in one sense, but on in another.

I wouldn't force a woman anything. Bad move. If I found a woman attractive or desirable, I'd want to see her again. It's a matter of planning ahead.

Appearance? This is complicated and there are many impacts for appearance. It's nice if a woman is socially presentable in the eyes of others. That is because if the woman is associated with me, it reflects on me. Beautiful or pretty? That's often subjective but there are certain rules that may lie within my species that are beyond my understanding. It helps to have two eyes, a centered nose and mouth, good health, ... things like that. Then there are other considerations about willing or unwilling. What are we looking for? Sex? A companion? Fun? Game playing. Is this particular woman fitting for any of those? If we were playing a game, she should not be too willing ... and on and on.

 

[BigApplePi]

I've never lived out a rape fantasy... now I'm curious if I could set it up and go through with it.

Okay SpaceYeti. Here is a rape fantasy for you. This board will solicit the favors of a group of woman, dividing them into two groups. One group will be willing; the other unwilling. Then we will pick one at random and send her over to you. You will be free to act. The catch is you will never know whether you raped her or not as she is not to disclose whether she was unwilling or from the control group.

Feel free to revise this scenario if not set up properly.

One more thing. For the privilege of participating in this experiment you will be required to donate to the American Society for the Rehabilitation of Mistreated Women and have a vasectomy.

 

[Melllvar]

The people who say, "She is/was asking for it", can either be detachedly critical or curiously interested. In the latter case, we have people who think she was asking for it(more likely just horny people), and we have people who, from experience, know she is asking for it(without getting into an epistemological argument). The people in the latter's latter case are my intended subjects.

I think the chances of anyone actually knowing this beyond any reasonable doubt is so low as to be almost non-existent. Even if someone specifically told you that it was a person's desire, how would you know they weren't lying? In the more likely case where they just think they can tell from the person's behavior, it's back to the "well she dressed like a slut so she was asking for it" thing. Lots of people think they can tell when a person's gay too, and they might guess right a lot of the time, but they're delusional if they think they can actually tell beyond just a statistical guess.

Back to your original "explicit vs. implicit" thing, I'd think that discussion of boundaries would be part of the consent discussion, if two people were deciding to do this. Does it make it less 'fun' because the rape roleplay is less real? Maybe, but like SpaceYeti said the risk if you fuck it up could be quite damaging to someone.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Okay SpaceYeti. Here is a rape fantasy for you. This board will solicit the favors of a group of woman, dividing them into two groups. One group will be willing; the other unwilling. Then we will pick one at random and send her over to you. You will be free to act. The catch is you will never know whether you raped her or not as she is not to disclose whether she was unwilling or from the control group.

Feel free to revise this scenario if not set up properly.

One more thing. For the privilege of participating in this experiment you will be required to donate to the American Society for the Rehabilitation of Mistreated Women and have a vasectomy.

The scenario is false because I would never do this with a woman I did not know well and trust, or who did not know and trust me.

 

[Yet]

The scenario is false because I would never do this with a woman I did not know well and trust, or who did not know and trust me.

... I cannot really relate to the fantasie of being raped as sexually arrousing. I wonder why some women (you know well and trust) would.
I suppose there are a lot of fetishy things under the sun ... but the abusing one always puzzled me & somehow makes me wonder about personal issues. (I admit that is a prejudice out of not being able to imagine that sort of arrousal.)
But it might also just have to do with chemics and hormones (as most /neuro/biological and psychological aspects are intertwined).

I mean: it is quite a difference whether you like to sniff boots, rub each other with feces or whipped cream, dress up as nurses or in rubber, crossdress, blindfold each other and use sensory surprises, run around naked in the garden with fairy wings before you have good sex ... versus rape, strangle, whip, pull hair backwards, tie up, put pegs on nipples and some sort of ball on chain in mouth, shout about insults before you have good sex.

It is the difference between turn on in funny surprises and fantasy and play ...versus turn on by hurt and fear, shame, discomfort and helpless-nes (in play context).

I believe you called regular sex vanilla sex or sthing, somewhere I read that. I am not familiar with that term anyway. And you compared it with wanking, that is what it would be like for you.
But maybe some people just don't need al the mambo jambo to get turned on and have briljant sex. That exists as well you know

 

[BigApplePi]

The scenario is false because I would never do this with a woman I did not know well and trust, or who did not know and trust me.

I didn't say I knew how to properly execute a controlled study, however good for you for doing something extreme limited to someone with mutual trust and knowledge.

 

[BigApplePi]

... I cannot really relate to the fantasie of being raped as sexually arrousing. I wonder why some women (you know well and trust) would.
I suppose there are a lot of fetishy things under the sun ... but the abusing one always puzzled me & somehow makes me wonder about personal issues. (I admit that is a prejudice out of not being able to imagine that sort of arrousal.)
But it might also just have to do with chemics and hormones (as most /neuro/biological and psychological aspects are intertwined).

I mean: it is quite a difference whether you like to sniff boots, rub each other with feces or whipped cream, dress up as nurses or in rubber, crossdress, blindfold each other and use sensory surprises, run around naked in the garden with fairy wings before you have good sex ... versus rape, strangle, whip, pull hair backwards, tie up, put pegs on nipples and some sort of ball on chain in mouth, shout about insults before you have good sex.

It is the difference between turn on in funny surprises and fantasy and play ...versus turn on by hurt and fear, shame, discomfort and helpless-nes (in play context).

I believe you called regular sex vanilla sex or sthing, somewhere I read that. I am not familiar with that term anyway. And you compared it with wanking, that is what it would be like for you.
But maybe some people just don't need al the mambo jambo to get turned on and have briljant sex. That exists as well you know

Yet. All these odd things naturally have me puzzled. I wonder if the solution is sex physically is a union? Could it be satisfactory sex is always psychologically a union and unions can be about ANYTHING? If people were happy about getting together skateboarding and felt a joy in doing it together, why wouldn't or couldn't that be a turn on for sex? If people wanted to get together where one could experience a representation of the pain in their life and the other relieve it, why couldn't that be a turn on? Union would be the point.

The union would be physically real which would in itself be a psychological enhancement superior to masturbation if the union were carried out in a satisfactory manner. Mutuality would support this from a social point of view. But if one partner didn't care for what happened, the other partner would sooner or later suffer as with a non sexual social situation. For example a genuine rape, not a fantasized one, might be a union only in the mind of the raper if domination were the fantasy, but there would be a social consequence for violence done to the non-consenting partner.

Feel free to check this out next time you have sex, write it down and report back here with your results. If you are so inclined, run it by your partner before doing so and see if they have anything to add. We are not adverse to enhanced documentation.

 

[SpaceYeti]

... I cannot really relate to the fantasie of being raped as sexually arrousing. I wonder why some women (you know well and trust) would.
I suppose there are a lot of fetishy things under the sun ... but the abusing one always puzzled me & somehow makes me wonder about personal issues. (I admit that is a prejudice out of not being able to imagine that sort of arrousal.)
But it might also just have to do with chemics and hormones (as most /neuro/biological and psychological aspects are intertwined).

I mean: it is quite a difference whether you like to sniff boots, rub each other with feces or whipped cream, dress up as nurses or in rubber, crossdress, blindfold each other and use sensory surprises, run around naked in the garden with fairy wings before you have good sex ... versus rape, strangle, whip, pull hair backwards, tie up, put pegs on nipples and some sort of ball on chain in mouth, shout about insults before you have good sex.

It is the difference between turn on in funny surprises and fantasy and play ...versus turn on by hurt and fear, shame, discomfort and helpless-nes (in play context).

I believe you called regular sex vanilla sex or sthing, somewhere I read that. I am not familiar with that term anyway. And you compared it with wanking, that is what it would be like for you.
But maybe some people just don't need al the mambo jambo to get turned on and have briljant sex. That exists as well you know

Different people like different things. It's pretty much that simple. I have a stronger thanatos than others, I guess.

 

[Yet]

Yet. All these odd things naturally have me puzzled. I wonder if the solution is sex physically is a union? Could it be satisfactory sex is always psychologically a union and unions can be about ANYTHING? If people were happy about getting together skateboarding and felt a joy in doing it together, why wouldn't or couldn't that be a turn on for sex? If people wanted to get together where one could experience a representation of the pain in their life and the other relieve it, why couldn't that be a turn on? Union would be the point.

The union would be physically real which would in itself be a psychological enhancement superior to masturbation if the union were carried out in a satisfactory manner. Mutuality would support this from a social point of view. But if one partner didn't care for what happened, the other partner would sooner or later suffer as with a non sexual social situation. For example a genuine rape, not a fantasized one, might be a union only in the mind of the raper if domination were the fantasy, but there would be a social consequence for violence done to the non-consenting partner.

Feel free to check this out next time you have sex, write it down and report back here with your results. If you are so inclined, run it by your partner before doing so and see if they have anything to add. We are not adverse to enhanced documentation.

hahahaha I bet you ain't... but no thanks, I don't feel the urge to discuss my sexlife here.

I agree with your union-point.

 

[BigApplePi]

no thanks, I don't feel the urge to discuss my sexlife here.

You bring up a point. Sex life or sexual desires are highly personal as well as important and might involve much of the entire self. Therefore identification would be difficult and one could easily be misunderstood or trivialized. Who wants that? On the other hand perhaps society has made us too shy? I'll go for union as an easily shared concept though. (That's why I'm not going to share with you if my favorite sexual fetish is a ball of yarn.)

Aside from that, perhaps we can excuse those with emerald eyes.

 

[Causeless]

Also, if nudity was a day to day commonality sex would become pretty damned mundane.

Ever hear of the internet? ;P

 

[Reluctantly]

"WORSE STILL, 83.5% ARGUE THAT “SOME WOMEN LOOK LIKE THEY ARE JUST ASKING TO BE RAPED."
Statistics can be misleading. Does that mean

1. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women completely disregarding their desires as is want in fantasy?
2. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women if they were openly reciprocating?
3. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women after they declined to do so?

It's probably really this one for everyone that isn't a psychopath.
2. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women if they were openly reciprocating?

3 kind of goes with 1, doesn't it?

Supposedly it turns men off if women are crying and stuff. I'm pretty sure it would for me. So I don't know.

 

[Bird]

It's probably really this one for everyone that isn't a psychopath.
2. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women if they were openly reciprocating?

3 kind of goes with 1, doesn't it?

Supposedly it turns men off if women are crying and stuff. I'm pretty sure it would for me. So I don't know.

I always cry and it never seems to be a
problem for anyone but me.

 

[Yet]

I always cry and it never seems to be a
problem for anyone but me.

why crying? why not just refusing? or do you refuse & cry ... oh never mind it is far too personal question.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It's probably really this one for everyone that isn't a psychopath.
2. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women if they were openly reciprocating?

3 kind of goes with 1, doesn't it?

Supposedly it turns men off if women are crying and stuff. I'm pretty sure it would for me. So I don't know.

BS! Tears are hot!

Edit; That's a joke, and the only reason it has anything to do with women being the ones who are crying is because women are the only things I'm sexually attracted to.

On a more serious note, however, a woman who's willing to undergo something that makes her cry for you is hot, but not because of the crying.

 

[Moocow]

BS! Tears are hot!

Edit; That's a joke, and the only reason it has anything to do with women being the ones who are crying is because women are the only things I'm sexually attracted to.

On a more serious note, however, a woman who's willing to undergo something that makes her cry for you is hot, but not because of the crying.

Key assumption: "willing."

 

[SpaceYeti]

Key assumption: "willing."

You assume it's an assumption. When you get to know people, you know what they like, dislike, and are willing to do whether they like it or not. Further, just because they're willing doesn't mean it's wise to do, nor does it mean you should not. All things are to be taken in their apropriate context.

 

[Moocow]

You assume it's an assumption. When you get to know people, you know what they like, dislike, and are willing to do whether they like it or not. Further, just because they're willing doesn't mean it's wise to do, nor does it mean you should not. All things are to be taken in their apropriate context.

I didn't know we were talking about people that we have gotten to know that well.

Also when someone means the opposite of what they say I usually express my confusion openly until they start talking straight. I just can't stand mind games, even though I can pick up on that stuff. In my opinion, really ought to be everyone's responsibility to communicate their part clearly instead of expecting everyone else to read minds.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Agreed

 

[Bird]

why crying? why not just refusing? or do you refuse & cry ... oh never mind it is far too personal question.

I don't know.


Whenever I get aroused my eyes water
like crazy, too.

 

[MissQuote]

Interesting stuff about sexuality and tears:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-turn-off-sexual-health-arousal-men-science/

 

[BigApplePi]

Interesting stuff about sexuality and tears:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-turn-off-sexual-health-arousal-men-science/

I wouldn't know how that works, but wouldn't tears connote a sad situation ... which is not conducive to a successful reproductive environment? Or is that too far-fetched?

On the other hand, haven't I seen (in the movies) where the woman in tears seeks comfort from an uninvolved man and it leads straight to sex?

 

[cheese]

I didn't know we were talking about people that we have gotten to know that well.

Also when someone means the opposite of what they say I usually express my confusion openly until they start talking straight. I just can't stand mind games, even though I can pick up on that stuff. In my opinion, really ought to be everyone's responsibility to communicate their part clearly instead of expecting everyone else to read minds.

I totally agree with that, and always felt it was the fairest way to act...until I heard someone who considered it 'forced disclosure' which made them feel violated, like they'd been forced to show more than they would have chosen to - adding that in cases like this it's impossible to consent, because their way of consent has been stripped from them, and that it's not fair as the terms of communication are being dictated by the other party in their need for clear-cut honesty. (This was in direct relation to sexuality, iirc.)

I guess manner of communication also has a lot to do with freedom of personal expression. It wouldn't be fair to force them to compromise, considering I'd be imposing on their freedom - and their manner of being is obviously something of great importance to them. But it would still frustrate and maybe piss me off. But that's fine, given that these people would likely feel repulsed by me as well. I suppose some people really just don't deal well together. I feel comfortable and more importantly safe with direct, honest personalities, and I guess they feel the same way with the opposite.

It was a real eye-opener. Now I'm much more wary about stomping all over people's defenses. It was surprising as well because I never thought anyone I respected would be so 'touchy, unreasonable and difficult' (my old take on this) about something as important as communication and trust, but I guess that's just typical human hubris.

[I may have totally misinterpreted his meaning though.]

 

[Moocow]

I totally agree with that, and always felt it was the fairest way to act...until I heard someone who considered it 'forced disclosure' which made them feel violated, like they'd been forced to show more than they would have chosen to - adding that in cases like this it's impossible to consent, because their way of consent has been stripped from them, and that it's not fair as the terms of communication are being dictated by the other party in their need for clear-cut honesty. (This was in direct relation to sexuality, iirc.)

I guess manner of communication also has a lot to do with freedom of personal expression. It wouldn't be fair to force them to compromise, considering I'd be imposing on their freedom - and their manner of being is obviously something of great importance to them. But it would still frustrate and maybe piss me off. But that's fine, given that these people would likely feel repulsed by me as well. I suppose some people really just don't deal well together. I feel comfortable and more importantly safe with direct, honest personalities, and I guess they feel the same way with the opposite.

It was a real eye-opener. Now I'm much more wary about stomping all over people's defenses. It was surprising as well because I never thought anyone I respected would be so 'touchy, unreasonable and difficult' (my old take on this) about something as important as communication and trust, but I guess that's just typical human hubris.

[I may have totally misinterpreted his meaning though.]

Yeah, I was considering that as I typed it. I'm not sure that my expectation of straight forward honesty is more righteous than someone else's expectation of passive communication. They're both forms of communication, we're just each asking for it in the language we understand better.
In reality, it has worked out best to accept and use both in a moderated balance, but that takes trying to determine if I'm giving a little too much or too little. Depending on the person that can be hard to judge.

 

[Reluctantly]

I always cry and it never seems to be a
problem for anyone but me.

lol, so they just ignore it and keep going, eh?