Rolling Maleness and Masculinity Discussion Thread

https://medium.com/@ebruenig/a-better-sex-ethic-19e0e55a0e4e

idk if this thread is the best place for this Elizabeth Bruenig article or not, but it seemed to engage with some of the same questions regarding consent and power relations that were being discussed upthread. if I understand her correctly she's saying that sex can be 'consensual' but also harmful/unethical - that the common progressive response to this problem is to expand the definition of 'consent', argue that this harmful/unethical sex is not *really* consensual, but in her opinion it would be better to split this into two separate questions ('is it consensual' and 'is it harmful')? idk if this just makes things more rather than less "murky" tbh, but I thought it was interesting.

almost bought dude wipes yesterday

but opted for the cheapest option instead

i had the pleasure of watching the movie Gaslight years before gaslighting became a term and being super fucking creeped out by charles boyer and i still think of creepy charles boyer every time i hear it

― harbinger of failure (Jon not Jon), Monday, November 6, 2017

I rewatched it last Thursday. There are few villains in movies you wanna punk in the dik as hard as Boyer.

I really enjoyed that Elizabeth Breunig article. It's interesting that one of her conditions for ethical sex is that it be good for the people involved, not just harmless for them. That's a rather more demanding standard, one that a huge amount of consensual sex may not meet, depending on how strict you are about "good for".

Yeah there's a reason one might ask "was that good for you?" rather than "did that harm you?" But of course much better to try to find out beforehand if it's a good time ("this ok?") and check during ("should I keep going?").

Longtime couples can develop nonverbal vocabularies for all this, and that's fine too, but it still doesn't hurt to occasionally talk about how things are going.

Something from a friend's consent zine that's really stuck with me, not that I've always lived up to it, was swapping "do you want..." or "what would you like to..." or similar for "is this okay?" on the grounds that it is a lot easier for people to quash their own reservations/desires for "is this okay?" Like, depending how comfortable you are articulating your feelings, "okay" can feel like "well - it's not terrible, I'm surviving fine, it's acceptable, I can tune out and pass the time" but that's actually really really different from "I actively want this to happen."

stop watching the remake of Gaslight

BUT PAULA

Like, depending how comfortable you are articulating your feelings, "okay" can feel like "well - it's not terrible, I'm surviving fine, it's acceptable, I can tune out and pass the time" but that's actually really really different from "I actively want this to happen."

Maybe people should only be having sex with people they actually know and are comfortable communicating with.

That sounds kind of conservative maybe but reading all of this it seems like the best option for preventing the nightmarish scenario presented above where someone ends up being cowed into doing things they don’t want to do.

people you know and are comfortable communicating with can absolutely violate your trust and boundaries, it happens constantly.

But if you’re worried about unwittingly crossingg someone else’s boundary, that’s harder to do when it’s someone you really know and feel able to speak openly with. Assuming one is genuinely well meaning.

right, from the POV of well-meaning partners, sure.

I dunno if it sounds "conservative" but it reads a little weird and... I dunno, like, we're talking about someone you care about and want to help have a good time presumably; wouldn't it be reasonable to approach the situation from the point of view of "what can I do that helps them?" rather than "psssh well if they don't have a great time it's their own fault, they should have said something" ?

To connect back to broader masculinity question, it reminds me of defenses of confrontational/agonistic/high-stakes conversations about politics or music or whatever - hey, this is just how we enjoy talking, if someone else wants to join in they're welcome to, they just have to be ready to argue and jostle and shout over the other people at the table and defend their position! (Not going after you here, but me: I can still hear myself at age 20 making that defense to a professor when I was dominating the conversation in a classroom and it still stings me.). And it's like okay, this "neutral" position where it's someone's job to speak up and tell you xyz... maybe sounds good on paper, but what's at stake in *not* saying, actually, it's MY job to adjust my own behavior to give them chances to participate, assert themselves, articulate their desires as opposed to confirming their acceptance of mine, etc...?

also assuming that your definition of well-meaning has the understanding of what actions are generally considered harmful. if all of your immediately role models have emotionally abusive relationships, and all of your relationships have fallen into that pattern, then it's going to take some work to internalize better norms

wouldn't it be reasonable to approach the situation from the point of view of "what can I do that helps them?" rather than "psssh well if they don't have a great time it's their own fault, they should have said something" ?

Well I was talking about what you should do if you are worried about unwittingly crossing someone else’s boundary so this isn’t relevant.

xp I get where you're coming from, DC, but the idea that you're going to determine what can help someone, rather than pushing that person speak to their own interests, is pretty much the dichotomy of social policy in a nutshell

I'm on the same page, and obviously people don't speak up for their best interests because of power dynamics, or they genuinely don't understand a situation is exploitative. It's the weakness of the self-interest advocacy position, in that people aren't empowered to do so

there are always some boundaries that will accidentally be crossed, you just have to make sure communication is open and honest so that they're minor instead of major

Like if someone is not comfortable talking to you, you are never going to really be able to safely understand their feelings. So maybe don’t have sex with a person like that.

whoaoaoa @ "treeship 2"

No connection.

can't help but imagine Thunderbird 2 now

big green skycraft

modern man

anyway, i strongly agree that more communication is better, being more aware is better, but i think the way to get there might include actually building real interpersonal trust. I’m not sure there is a shortcut to this via different phrasings or something, not that anyone outright said that

is treesh2 a parody account

It’s a bot

but i think the way to get there might include actually building real interpersonal trust. I’m not sure there is a shortcut to this via different phrasings or something, not that anyone outright said that

Where does that leave casual sex, which is something enjoyed by many ppl of all genders?

but the idea that you're going to determine what can help someone, rather than pushing that person speak to their own interests, is pretty much the dichotomy of social policy in a nutshell

well, yeah, there's no magic set of words that will give someone all the capacity they've been seeking to speak up for their own interests. but surely there are words that make it more and less likely? my point was narrowly about the choice of "is this okay," which is well-intention but may carry an implicit bias towards proceeding rather than stopping. it ratchets things forwards, never backwards, by (unintentionally) relying on people's tendency to acquiesce to things being "okay." i dug through a drawer and found the zine i was thinking of (which turns out is online anyway) (and which i now think maybe my friend just contributed to, or was committed to spreading the word about, but anyway) - - - and this is the particular passage that struck me back in 2010 or so:

I have never been able to figure out a way to talk comfortable about consent. I think I am pretty good about asking othe rpeople, but figuring out a way to explain wehther or not I want to be doing something is prettyimpossible. I mean, if I want to be doing something, it's usually fine, but if I don't, or especially if I'm unsure, it's impossible. If someone asks, "is this ok," i alwyas say "yes." Everything is "ok" I mean, I can survive anything, right?

the author goes on from there to complicate things even further: for them, even the "do you want me to be doing this" language is described as triggering and/or shifting them into a distanced, reflective register. but they still want to find a form of communication that works:

So, talking beforehand, and also trying to figure out ways to talk about what's happened during sex, but later. like when we are not in bed. and trying to figure out ways for them to not get freaked out if I admit to faking it or having a flashback or just not wanting to do something. it's important for me to be able to talk about it later, because I can't usually talk about it at the time, but that usually makes people feel liek shit and feel guilty and then queestion every move they make, and they feel like they can't get anything right and I have to take all the initiative and give so much reassurance, and that makes me never feel like doin' it, and that sucks too.

encouragingly, they conclude by describing a "numbers" system that they came up with in collaboration with a partner, one that worked really well for them:

He would ask me 1-6.... 1. I feel like being held. No sex. Nothing. Not even sexual energy. 2. I want kissing but nothing past that. No moving against me in a sexual way. 3. I want to kiss and might be open to other stuff too. 4. I want to do stuff, but check back in a lot as we go. 5. I want to do stuff, and don't want much checking in, just check in before doing anything with the downthere parts and check in if you feel like I might be feeling weird. 6. Let's do it!

Something about the number system took the weight off things. It made it more easy and a little bit funny. I was totally able to say 2, where as I would never say 'I want to kiss right now but nothign else.' Saying those words would make me feel totally guilty where as saying 'two' just felt like fact. It didn't always work perfectly, but it was way easier for both of us.

so life's complicated, people are complicated, it is tragically likely that your partner has been through some kind of trauma and/or a fucked-up upbringing in a fucked-up gendered rape culture. so there is no reason to assume your partner does not have experiences that have given them similar fraught relationships with these words, or other words. hence the need for again, some kind of metanegotiation when you're not already in the bedroom: how do you want to talk about these things, what kind of consent appeals to you or makes you feel empowered and in control?

maybe "treeship 2" would say this person is "not comfortable talking to you" and therefore "don't have sex with a person like that" but i find that really cold and dismissive. how do you know if the person you're having sex with is "comfortable talking to you" at this level? seems like a recipe for just assuming that those people who ARE having sex with you MUST be comfortable telling you if something is wrong.... and it's this kind of convenient assumption that undergirds everyday masculinity and lots of small moments where boundaries are crossed and consent is violated, that don't look much like harvey weinstein from a distance. but which are where IMHO i as a cis man need to do a lot of work.
meanwhile the account i'm quoting from suggests that taking communication seriously as something you could work on together (rather than an ability the person either has or doesn't) means that there are happy consensual sex lives possible even for people for whom "is this okay" doesn't work. i dunno, i guess a lot of it is easier said than practiced, but i'd rather at least be thinking about this than taking all the convenient things for granted and ignoring all the possible bad things.

and btw if it's not totally clear, i think of all these as problems i have to do serious work on, and NOT things i've solved and am here to deliver the memo to the uninitiated or w/e. i quoted so long from that zine because it's a thing that i read once seven years ago that still keeps popping into my head and troubling me, not because it's accepted wisdom that i think people are dummies for not already agreeing with.

If someone asks, "is this ok," i alwyas say "yes." Everything is "ok" I mean, I can survive anything, right?

yes
i had a belief when i was young that i should experience everything so that i could handle anything
did NOT work out so well
in fact, it was a total disaster as a personal policy!

also there needs to be some time between asking and answering for the person to actually think about their answer. think about when a teacher asks you what you think about something they just presented, a topic you are not very familiar with. you're not sure, maybe you don't understand the full situation and suddenly you are in a high-pressure situation being asked to provide an answer. it's not comfortable and doesn't lead to good answers.

patience is key in these situations and i think there should be more attention paid to giving people time to make a decision when they are presented with one. encourage thoughtful answers, not just the ones you want to hear when u wanna do it

I had that weird outlook as well, coupled with the idea that most people had more life experience than me (which may be true when you’re really young) but that does not in any way preclude your ability to make decisions and decide what is best for you. If the answer is “I don’t know” then you need others to be aware of that, and they should adjust their behavior accordingly

I haven’t followed this thread because huge swathes of it feel completely alien to me - I don’t intend at all to diminish anyone’s experiences by that, I just have felt like trying to relate would be completely pompous and absurd, so I took a break. And a lot of my shit is nobody’s business anyway etc.

But I didn’t know where else to put this so I’m putting it here.

Phil posted this tweet on the LCK thread -

Here is an example of just one of many many tweets I'm getting from men along with countless threats and attacks on me as a performer and person. This is what coming forward gets you and exactly why people are so reluctant to do so. pic.twitter.com/BYLEUQSpCi

— Rebecca Corry (@TheRebeccaCorry) November 15, 2017

well everybody's about vicariously punching nazis these days so maybe that's your usp

I dont think it is just the invective she has an issue with, but you know that right?

I learned early how to tell from bullies who can easily be ignored because they’re all talk, bullies you can turn because they just want someone to talk to and can’t engage except by starting a confrontation, and bullies who are really looking for a fight. In any case, fear and humiliation is blood in the water, so you don’t ever give them the satisfaction. I was taught that, and I learned it by experience as well, sometimes from unexpected people in places I thought were safe.

But I’ve always been lucky. To get all Larrycarpet Applekaiser, you wouldn’t want to fight me unless you have the jump and 40+ pounds over. Which is just a shitty macho way of saying lucky. Sorry.

Boys are horrible to each other from the get go. It doesn’t give us the right to use that poison on anyone else. But everyone should know what it looks and sounds like, maybe that would help in coping, I think that’s where my head was trying to go.

if tombot's point to some extent is that this 'undoing masculinity' is something one can opt out of only through some pretty high levels of privilege i dont disagree

I just realized there’s no way on earth I would ever give that cheap of a bully the satisfaction of screencapping his idiotic crap.

Screencap surely not really about the bully but about showing ppl the consequences of speaking out? Like you're probably right that the bully's gleeful about the screencap and thinking "I got her!" but he doesn't really matter enough that she should have to take that into consideration imo.

And I thought, that is how other boys talked to me and my friends since we were 10? 11?

I was bullied pretty badly through most of middle and high school and I gotta say, none of my bullies ever sounded this psychotically enraged - the tone was more along the lines of chirpy, mocking sadism. A cultural thing, I suppose.

D-40 sadly otm I think

Anyway time to take a break from ilx

Dan RF: at least ime, the trope that all bullies are basically abused kids is real, so yeah, the occasional mocking semi-sadistic stuff could come from anywhere, but there were other kids who would be relentless and focused because they really, really needed someone else to be lower on the order than them, because they were getting relentless shit from somebody at home. I got both.

I don’t know if that tweet is necessarily an issue of masculinity outside of the defense of a sexual predator, because I’ve witnessed women using the same language. Seeing bullying as a male thing, especially written or verbal bullying, is kind of wrong?

I just observe girl bullies operating differently most of the time? I’m certain the motivation is identical. Anyway despite best intentions I should never engage with personal shit on the internet, it’s literally never worth it.

I definitely think there's utility in acknowledging and preparing oneself for the variety of ways in which people are cruel to one another, but I would never fault anyone for being ill-prepared when faced with a manifestation of that cruelty. I totally understand what Tombot's saying on one level, inasmuch as I had a bully for a father, which gave me a lot of time to examine that shit close up and learn how to deal with it. So I see for instance the way a pathetic manbaby like Trump throws his weight around and it seems so familiar and I'm just like, guys, he's a total pussy under all the bloviation, push back fer chrissakes. But then I have to remind myself that bullying works because not everyone has the unfortunate opportunity to get enough exposure to it that they build up an immunity to its psychological impact. And while I have a keen radar and good bit of psychic buttressing in place for a particular kind of bullying, there are all kinds of other manifestations of cruelty (physical violence, for example) which I know I'm not as prepared for and which I find traumatizing and difficult to cope with. Those sources of potential trauma are going to be different for everyone.

We all learn that from our parents

WHAT NOW?? How is that remotely acceptable, as a way to speak to your children and teach them about the world? You're a dad! You would never do that!

Once again for the record, when men use sexualized threatening/hostile language against women, it has an extra lens of inherent violence because that language is dehumanizing. And we all know what happens to people when others find them less human.

I agree with you; I'm just not sure why it isn't also dehumanizing when men use it against other men.

Of course it is.

Yes, there's also the thing where telling people clinging to the rungs below you on the privilege ladder how they should feel about something is NAGL.

While I agree with that in a general way, if you're referring to DJP and me, we each have different components to our identities that are more or less marginalized than each other in different ways so it's not really a productive comparison probably.

No, that and my previous post generally were in reference to:

I just realized there’s no way on earth I would ever give that cheap of a bully the satisfaction of screencapping his idiotic crap. That’s fucking life.