Amba_k, I was talking mainly from the context in which there is already 'blanket consent' for the man to use physical force to ensure his dominance. What if he does that without seeking her explicit consent first? Well, that wouldn't bother me much, since I prefer a man who's willing and able to push me around a bit. And I would much rather that he just takes the initiative on that at some point, rather than asking me if I would like it. (Although, he might approach it by starting with something gentler and gauging my response to that.) That doesn't mean that all women would like it, but some of us do.

Is that a dangerous sign of a potential abuser, a man who might later do some real damage? I suppose maybe it could be; but so could a thousand other things. What I would say is that if a man gets to the point of pushing me into a wall, then we are definitely at the stage where we need to start talking honestly about physical dominance and submission, and how to engage in that safely. That is, it's something that would raise a little red flag for me; but the next thing to do would be to figure out if it's a red flag of danger, or a red flag of fiery erotic passion.

What I would not agree is that a little push should get categorized as 'domestic violence' - or that it should be grounds for police intervention and mandatory feminist lectures on the glories of egalitarian relationships. Whether or not something is 'violence' or 'assault' should be measured not by how the person feels about it, but by the more objective criterion of what damage is actually done. I do think that society has gone way too far in the direction of leaping to the defense of anyone who claims they've been "victimized" in any way, be it by a harmless push, an insulting remark, or somebody looking at them the wrong way. Life is tough; unpleasant things happen all the time; deal with it. If you haven't actually been done any injury, then you have no business whining and wailing and trying to get everyone else in the world to gang up on your "oppressor."

For example, it used to be the case that a couple of guys might start a shoving match, and it would end up in a barroom brawl, and one of them would win, and the other one would nurse his wounds and admit defeat, and that would be that. No police, no lawsuits, no bartenders worrying about their liability, no public service announcements about the evils of pushing, no "women's studies" professors lecturing about how men should outgrow their masculinity and be more like women - nope, none of that. They'd just have a fistfight, and be done with it. Maybe later they'd make up, have a few beers, and be best friends again; and it was all cool. Because back in the good ole days, people took it for granted that life just pushes you around in one way or another, and as long as you don't really get damaged, you shouldn't go whining too much.

Under the influence of political correctness, it seems our current society aims at providing all people with a comforting illusion of perfect control, complete safety, and total equality and acceptance at all times. In the grey flatness of this vision, no one is ever seized by the passion or wildness of the moment, no one stands proudly apart from the herd or dances upstream; and we all find our joy in a bland, tame, lifeless, sanitized, orderly, egalitarian ideology of universal siblinghood. And whenever that illusion is threatened in even the tiniest way, there are floods of sympathy, blame, outrage, stunned disbelief, demands to punish the strong - and even more proposals as to how we can further transform human society so that it reflects something utterly unlike human nature. But life itself offers no such guarantees of perfect safety and equality and acceptance; that's something that has been brought painfully to mind by recent world events. We all have much more terrible threats to worry about than somebody pushing somebody else up against a wall. So I imagine that the pendulum of concern might start swinging back the other way sometime soon.

(And, sorry, I wasn't really trying to get off topic into politics and society here; I know that could open up many cans of worms wiggling in many irrelevant directions. But it's true that our romantic lifestyle is often afflicted by anti-violence crusaders with an unrealistic ideology of perfect safety and total equality.)

- Dee

Amba_K wrote:

I don't think a push is serious enough to warrant police intervention either, but it isn't particularly fair or empathetic to dismiss women who might be upset and frightened at such treatment as 'whiners': they're entitled to their feelings, as you are to yours.

Absolutely, they are entitled to their feelings; and I can understand how something I find sexy and thrilling might be upsetting to another woman. If a man is testing her for submissive tendencies, and she gets upset by that, and she lets him know it's not her sort of thing at all - great! That's not 'whining' - that's just honest communication. Now he knows that she doesn't really like being pushed, and he can decide whether or not he still wants to pursue that relationship, or whether he should pursue a woman whose inclinations are a better match for his own. But he would never be able to find that out in the first place, if he didn't do a little harmless testing of the waters.

What I was calling 'whining' is if she does go to the police, or the lawyers and the courts, or his family and friends, and starts complaining to them about it. By all means, I am in favor of honesty and consent in relationships. But in the case of a woman who's looking to be conquered and dominated, and a man who's looking to conquer and dominate, then the only way to find that out for sure is for him to start off with some gentle, playful forcefulness, and then slowly ramp up the intensity to where she definitely responds one way or the other. Then they can start having a discussion about that, and explore their dominant and submissive inclinations a bit more via dialog. But dialog is no substitute for actions; his forceful actions alone can bring out her submission, not just him asking sweetly if she would like to be dominated. (That's really sort of a contradiction in terms, because if she has to ask to be dominated, then she won't really feel that she's being dominated by him. It becomes more like a game than real domination.)

So, conversations about consent are important, yes; but it seems like some people want that discussion to take place before anything at all happens - and that's what I just don't get. Because it would completely undermine the possibility for conquest and domination in the first place, if he had to ask for her consent at every step of the way: "Would you like me to overpower you against your will?" "Would you like me to wrestle you and pin you down as if I were actually dominating you?" "Now would you like me to push you into a wall?" --- I mean, come on.

That reminds me of the ridiculous "dating codes" that some colleges instituted, where the man had to get her verbal 'consent' at each step of the way: "Is it ok if I hold your hand now?" "Is it ok if I kiss you now?" and etc. Blecchh! Could there be any quicker way to kill a romance?? I do agree that it's best for the man to approach physical domination in a gentle way at first; perhaps not pushing, but pinning down, like I said. But there has to be some level of physical domination that is harmless enough and non-frightening enough that it does not require her verbal consent in advance. And if he does get her behavioral consent at that stage (that is, she seems to be enjoying it, and she doesn't get angry, say 'stop!'), then I'd say he's justified in notching it up to the next level of intensity, and the next, etc. Because if he does not take that sort of initiative, then there's no real way to establish his physical dominance.

So, I can understand and accept if other women don't find a man's physical domination appealing. But what I cannot accept is when their preferences dictate that I can never have a man who fulfills my preferences. But that is exactly what the current PC/feminist mindset is trying to do, with their overwrought protestations of fear and loathing at any sort of male domination. They are trying to make it so that all men are afraid to physically dominate women - in even the slightest and most harmless degree - without first obtaining their explicit verbal permission. And for women like me, who need a man to truly conquer them physically - it would ruin the whole thing if we had to give verbal consent at each step along the way.

I recall there are some articles on this site, about some women needing to have their submission "taken" from them forcefully, instead of handing it over to the man on a platter - and that's what I'm talking about here. That's what I would call "conquest."

- Dee

Personally, I'd describe the act of pushing someone against a wall to calm them down as forceful, not violent. Slamming the same person against a wall because you were fed up with their behaviour would be violent.

The primary definition of violence in the one dictionary I checked is the more negative one. All the "Heathcliffian" ones are the second definition, which seems to have largely fallen out of favour. It also seems too uncontrolled and too emotional a definition for the type of actions you're describing.

Noone commented

Once, English was a tapestry of communication - alive with hues and shades of meaning. Today, it is often trite, stilted, and bland

Curiously, I had almost the reverse accusation levelled at me today. I am English born and bred, the person I was talking with speaks English as (I think) his first language, but is from another part of the world. He wanted to know why the English couldn't just say what they meant instead of wrapping meanings up in layers of words hundreds of years old that seemed to mean the reverse of what was intended.

I still don't like the older usage of the word violence. It's a purely irrational thing that comes mainly form my dislike of one novel (and the rest from my dislike of books in that style)

It's also an overused word, and I suspect it needs a break somewhere quiet where it can't even be applied to the weather.

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

There is an interesting sense in which the radical feminist agenda deprives women and men of their right to non-verbally consent to a physical act.

Certainly, non-verbal communication often leads to greater passion.

Thank you for pointing out what actually is quite obvious, but rarely considered.

Michael

I don't think anyone on this thread would like to insist that the nonsubmissive woman ACCEPT nonconsensual conduct that they might not like.

They can do with the experience what they like. But let's face it, MOST conduct between a man and a woman is consensual in a body language way, not a verbal way. Most men will kiss a woman without asking her. But they have gone on a date or "have a moment." It's not like a guy just walks up to a random woman and attaches his lips to hers.

There was build up but no one said: "may I kiss you now" or "you may kiss me now." He just does it and she reacts. Either by pulling away, or moving into the kiss and returning it. Perhaps she REALLY didn't want to kiss him, she might slap him. Or she might push him away or say "stop" If he continues, he might end up sexually assaulting her and she might go press charges.

While a kiss might be unwanted, it's generally harmless and if the man stops after she says "no" or pushes him away or whatever, then it was simply a case of misunderstanding signals. It wasn't assault or sexual harassment or any other PC label. ZOMG she got kissed against her will.

He thought she wanted it, she didn't. It might be embarrassing and awkward for both parties, but no one was horribly victimized here.

It's the same with pushing and shoving and pinning arms or whatever. It's going to start very gradually. If she responds negatively AT ALL, he knows she's not into it, and pulls back. Just like he wouldn't keep kissing her if she said no, he won't keep ramping up physical force if she is clearly not into it.

Verbal consent for every little thing is insane. Sex is one of the few primal actions we still have left in our shared human evolution. Nonverbal cues are an important part of the arousal response for most people. For example, many women would be very amenable to you kissing her, but if you ask to kiss her first, she might decide she doesn't want to be kissed because of the complete nonsexiness of asking first.

In fact I would think it would be pretty rare to get verbal consent even before sex. Things naturally progress, and you judge consent by the fact that the other person isn't pulling away, fighting you, saying no, crying, etc. That they are into it too. You kiss them, they return it. You slip your hands underneath their clothes, they return the action etc.

VERBALLY consent seems to happen mostly in the negative. i.e. "No" or "Stop" etc. So I would expect this to work in other physical scenarios such as those described here as well.

So I disagree that anyone in this thread is saying any nonsubmissive women should have to "accept" anything. A woman need only react in the same way she would to an unwanted kiss. No one is saying that the man should keep forcing his way. But one little bit of minor forcefulness isn't going to hurt her, and it's an appropriate way to figure out if she's into it.

I think instead what is being said is that if this scenario were to play out, using MILD force and no lasting harm, and the woman responds negatively, and he stops, then it is INSANE for her to go press charges when he didn't really hurt her and his INTENT wasn't to hurt her.

To compare back, how silly would you find a woman who wanted to press charges of sexual assault on a man who just kissed her without her express verbal permission, but he stopped the moment she said no?

THIS is the kind of thing being discussed. Not that women genuinely harmed shouldn't seek justice.