Fuck post #metoo

[BootmanLA]

On 8/21/2022 at 3:37 PM, muscmtl said:

So much I left, immediately, of course calling him tragic faggot, cuz he waS.

I concentrated in my initial responses on the legal issues involved since that was the primary concern expressed in the beginning.

That said: I will add I think the leaving immediately was fine, but honestly, the name-calling was over-the-top. As others have noted, a person has the ability to withdraw consent at any point, and while he did so with no grace whatsoever - as you say, he was freaking out - as the more experienced "dom top" it really was kind of on you to stop, reassess, and end the scene with as little drama as possible. What that comment probably did, unfortunately, is cement in his mind his  impression that you're dangerous - someone who gets angry when he can't get what he wants, and in his (no doubt poorly-informed and inexperienced) mind, he probably does feel like he just barely escaped being raped.

A stern lecture before leaving wouldn't have been out of place - "Look, when you advertise you want a dominant top, you may end up with more than you expected. You need to do some serious thinking about what you really want before you try this again with someone else". The name-calling, though - that was just cruel; and I get it, your ego was bruised and you were cock-blocked in the moment, so emotional responses running high, but still: you're the experienced one, you have the responsibility of bowing out without making things worse. Too late now, but food for thought for the future. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, muscmtl said:

As a hot dom hunky muscle top, writing/ reading skills are obsolete, in fact don't want to destroy my bottoms' dom-top-fantasies by showing off fabu grammar skills

Yeah, if I where you I'd use that as my defence when the bottom you dated presses charges for sexual assault:
"I can't read very good. And I did it cuz I look hot."  </s>
🤭 

[Guest]

 

16 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

Welcome to the wacky world of #metoo. You can't even look at someone without being accused of 'leering at them in a sexual way'. You can't even flirt with someone because you'll be accused of invading their space or creating some other microaggression towards them or get accused of making 'unwanted' advances. They way this has been handled creates the net psychological effect of sexual suppression.  Everyone is now afraid to do or say anything that used to be part of the dating and sexual norms.

When did people get so psychologically weak? It used to be that if a gay whistled at a girl and she wasn't interested, she would tell him to f-off and that would be the end of it. But now, whistle at a girl and the whole reaction is as if she had been raped, she becomes traumatized for life and you end up being charged with harassment. This is NOT progress.

I think you're exaggerating even though the impact of #metoo may go too far at times, as Catharine Deneuve and some 100 other French artists and intellectuals wrote from their perspective.
Using violence including the use of abusive language against someone who says 'no', or publicly ridiculing them like the OP does crosses a line in the same way as does convicting alleged rapists and sexual predators - without sufficient proof - in the court of public opinion through social media.
I don't believe in any fixed "dating and sexual norms" because they would impose what we should do and like and that's the opposite of sexual freedom.

Like freedom of speech entails the freedom to remain silent as well, sexual freedom means also the right to abstain from it. 

 

On that note, here's the full thought-provoking text by Mss. Deneuve and the other signatories:

"PARIS, January 10 2018 — Rape is a crime. But trying to pick up someone, however persistently or clumsily, is not — nor is gallantry an attack of machismo.

The Harvey Weinstein scandal sparked a legitimate awakening about the sexual violence that women are subjected to, particularly in their professional lives, where some men abuse their power. This was necessary. But what was supposed to liberate voices has now been turned on its head: We are being told what is proper to say and what we must stay silent about — and the women who refuse to fall into line are considered traitors, accomplices!

Just like in the good old witch-hunt days, what we are once again witnessing here is puritanism in the name of a so-called greater good, claiming to promote the liberation and protection of women, only to enslave them to a status of eternal victim and reduce them to defenseless preys of male chauvinist demons.

Ratting out and calling out

In fact, #MeToo has led to a campaign, in the press and on social media, of public accusations and indictments against individuals who, without being given a chance to respond or defend themselves, are put in the exact same category as sex offenders. This summary justice has already had its victims: men who've been disciplined in the workplace, forced to resign, and so on., when their only crime was to touch a woman's knee, try to steal a kiss, talk about "intimate" things during a work meal, or send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest.

This frenzy for sending the "pigs" to the slaughterhouse, far from helping women empower themselves, actually serves the interests of the enemies of sexual freedom, the religious extremists, the reactionaries and those who believe — in their righteousness and the Victorian moral outlook that goes with it — that women are a species "apart," children with adult faces who demand to be protected.

Men, for their part, are called on to embrace their guilt and rack their brains for "inappropriate behavior" that they engaged in 10, 20 or 30 years earlier, and for which they must now repent. These public confessions, and the foray into the private sphere or self-proclaimed prosecutors, have led to a climate of totalitarian society.

The purging wave seems to know no bounds. The poster of an Egon Schiele nude is censored; calls are made for the removal of a Balthus painting from a museum on grounds that it's an apology for pedophilia; unable to distinguish between the man and his work, Cinémathèque Française is told not to hold a Roman Polanski retrospective and another for Jean-Claude Brisseau is blocked. A university judges the film Blow-Up, by Michelangelo Antonioni, to be "misogynist" and "unacceptable." In light of this revisionism, even John Ford (The Searchers) and Nicolas Poussin (The Abduction of the Sabine Women) are at risk.

Already, editors are asking some of us to make our masculine characters less "sexist" and more restrained in how they talk about sexuality and love, or to make it so that the "traumas experienced by female characters' be more evident! Bordering on ridiculous, in Sweden a bill was presented that calls for explicit consent before any sexual relations! Next we'll have a smartphone app that adults who want to sleep together will have to use to check precisely which sex acts the other does or does not accept.

The essential freedom to offend

Philosopher Ruwen Ogien defended the freedom to offend as essential to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a freedom to bother as indispensable to sexual freedom.

Today we are educated enough to understand that sexual impulses are, by nature, offensive and primitive — but we are also able to tell the difference between an awkward attempt to pick someone up and what constitutes a sexual assault.

Above all, we are aware that the human being is not a monolith: A woman can, in the same day, lead a professional team and enjoy being a man's sexual object, without being a "whore" or a vile accomplice of the patriarchy. She can make sure that her wages are equal to a man's but not feel forever traumatized by a man who rubs himself against her in the subway, even if that is regarded as an offense. She can even consider this act as the expression of a great sexual deprivation, or even as a non-event.

As women, we don't recognize ourselves in this feminism that, beyond the denunciation of abuses of power, takes the face of a hatred of men and sexuality. We believe that the freedom to say "no" to a sexual proposition cannot exist without the freedom to bother. And we consider that one must know how to respond to this freedom to bother in ways other than by closing ourselves off in the role of the prey.

For those of us who decided to have children, we think that it is wiser to raise our daughters in a way that they may be sufficiently informed and aware to fully live their lives without being intimidated or blamed.

Incidents that can affect a woman's body do not necessarily affect her dignity and must not, as difficult as they can be, necessarily make her a perpetual victim. Because we are not reducible to our bodies. Our inner freedom is inviolable. And this freedom that we cherish is not without risks and responsibilities".

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/full-translation-of-french-anti-metoo-manifesto-signed-by-catherine-deneuve 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

21 hours ago, EuRawBottom said:

Also, ask within community what is his standing. There's nothing more that we gays love than a juicy gossip. That's a source of good info if it comes to that. 

Please speak for yourself not for 'we gays'.

People who gossip may have a very unsatisfactory sex-life if they are so (overly) interested in someone else's habits and behaviour, or perhaps are very insecure about their own body or sexual techniques.
 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Guest

[tallslenderguy]

i think this is a great discussion.

To me, this gets down to how one approaches life in general. Are there static absolutes that make our standards static and absolute, or is life fluid and our standards evolving?   To me, that is a larger, foundational discussion.

i see two general groups (with infinite varying degrees) in the BDSM community,  Those who believe  BDSM defines the person, and those who believe the person defines what BDSM is. 

In my experience, the first group tends towards ego/ethnocentricity, while the second group is more inclined to delineate that who and how they are/believe is not a/the universal standard. To my way of thinking, the first group tends to relate to a/the (their ascribed to) standard, the second to a/the person. 

 

[ErosWired]

On 8/21/2022 at 3:37 PM, muscmtl said:

I just cruised this guy on Grindr and he replied that  I've raped him, harassed him that he's got my license plate. And then I remembered,   5 years ago, 5 fukn years ago.  I showed up at this guy place, after being invited as a dominant top, kissed him like an animal... And he freaked out !!!! So much I left, immediately, of course calling him tragic faggot, cuz he waS.

Now he's threatening to put my picture everywhere...

Deleted my Grindr account, because even though I did nothing wrong it is post #metoo  and this guy can have his day in the sun. well more like an hour out fo the pit of a garbage can.

anyone else worried that this new era is making every sex encounter legally dangerous. I sure am

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In terms of the actual legal jeopardy you might face from this guy, I suspect you’re more on target about him wanting an opportunity to have something to say on social media, to be a magnet for sympathy, and to raise outrage. Actually going to the effort to instigate court proceedings against someone on a charge of rape is a serious matter that requires proof - something he does not have - without which he will find it difficult to get the state to prosecute a case.

Also, depending on what he says about you, he may be opening himself up for a suit for libel/defamation of character. If he is going out there telling people you raped him, that is untrue. If, on the other hand, the kiss you gave was unconsensual and amounted to sexual assault, and he only claims that you sexually assaulted him, that would be a true statement and you would have no claim for libel or defamation. His having your license plate number is not persuasive; he could have followed you out of the grocery and seen you get into your car. The fact that he might have any personal information about you at all connecting you to your Grindr account does not equate to proof of sexual assault five years after the fact unless you had been so unwise as to discuss the incident over electronic media.

In order to make a case for libel/defamation stick you might have to prove that he acted with actual malice, but on the other hand it might not come to that - defending against such a lawsuit is usually a considerable expense for the defendant, whereas the plaintiff may be able to find a firm willing to file the suit on contingency. The mere threat of the suit may be sufficient to chill the behavior of someone who is acting out without a legitimate reason.

I am not an attorney of any kind, by the way, I just have a little grounding in laws that relate to communications. Others here can no doubt speak to this with greater authority. Here’s a general article on defamation in the #metoo context:

[think before following links] https://www.loubar.org/UserFiles/files/bar-briefs/2021/6-June/Bar Briefs_June'21_Defamation Law in MeToo_Abrams_p22.pdf

[hntnhole]

On 8/21/2022 at 8:36 PM, BootmanLA said:

That's one reason why the old-fashioned negotiation for BDSM scenes - what's okay, what's not okay,

I think that it's still a valuable tool:  1.  Meet in person, in some public place, like a street-side cafe.  Without going into all of it again, I still would recommend this to any guy.  

About 4,5 months ago, I heard from a delightful young man who, maybe 10, 12 years ago, began to understand his call to submission within the context of the LeatherLife, and contacted me for instruction in the same.  I hear from him occasionally (how're things, etc), but this particular time he was in anguish over the fact that I had stressed - years before - the importance of having a specific time when someone he knew would be calling the (supposed) Dom.  Well, despite a well-crafted profile on Recon, the Dom balked at the notion.  The supposed Dom had mindfucked my (well, formerly young) friend into all these preparations (body shaving, etc), and expected him to drive down to the city from WI with nothing more than the online expectations.  He called me in tears before he actually left home in WI, and I did my best to comfort him over the phone, but he did listen all those years ago, and he knew better than to simply show up in the middle of boystown in Chgo with no one else knowing where he was, what he was doing, etc. 

Point:  It's always best to get the limits ironed out in advance, not just let one's imagination run away with itself.  Even better if one can get an affirmation from a third party that the Dom is on the level*.  

I hope no one bothers to pour cold water on this response, since I have no quarter to give on this particular issue.  I wouldn't consider a serious exchange without a prior, in-the-flesh meeting in some public place.  These cruise apps aren't even close to enough validation.  

*for instance, a bartender at a local Leatherbar.  If he doesn't know the guy, then he'll know someone who does, maybe one of the clubs like CHC (which, I hear, is no longer over on Levitt - is the clubhouse sold? Any Chicago guys have the lowdown? 

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, ErosWired said:

In terms of the actual legal jeopardy

.....

 by the way, I just have a little grounding in laws that relate to communications. Others here can no doubt speak to this with greater authority. Here’s a general article on defamation in the #metoo context:

I applaud your effort, but the OP is from Canada, and the legal situation with respect to defamation *and* sexual assault is markedly different up there.

For instance, as I pointed out in a previous post: there is no such crime as "rape" in Canada any more (all such crimes are lumped together under "sexual assault"). And under Canadian law, a plaintiff in a defamation case doesn't have to prove that a statement was false to win a defamation case (although in Quebec, where the OP is, the laws more closely resemble those of the U.S.). 

[onlyraw]

While I really miss the days of bars when you went out, cruised, found a guy you had good chemistry with and went home and fucked 

And while some of the endless messaging back and forth with time wasters can really ruin an evening 

if you do hook up - and when I am looking for “rough sex” - which can mean a lot of different things to different people- but the  type of  rough sex I liked could certainly be considered sexual assault-If it was NOT CONSENSUAL- (and I only like consensual sex) - so I found  all that “annoying” back and fourth messaging to be reassuring- as I want to be sure we are on the same page - and I would much prefer to waste my time at home rather than driving over to someone’s house to have him back out - (so I do understand your considerable annoyance) 

So we should all take this as a cautionary tale - to always keep your message history (if it goes well- it will help remind you that you had a good time and may again - or that it was a waste of time and avoid him

sorry muscmtl that you are dealing with this

 

[Guest]

On 8/21/2022 at 9:37 PM, muscmtl said:

 

Now he's threatening to put my picture everywhere...

 

Take that as free advertising. Forget about that sorry ass faggot who cannot stand a hard kiss. He was looking for a dom top not for dinner and Harry spotter movie. The idiocy some people are gifted with.... sigh. And even better, move here to Spain. We know to treat and gorgeous muscle dom top with the respect and obedience you deserve. 

If that little whinny faggot threatens you with a lawsuit, find a good sub lawyer and take him to the cleaners.

[LetsPOZBreed]

As mentioned by some other posters, negotiation can be used for more than just BDSM play.  My thoughts is that if a guy isn't willing to negotiate and discuss boundaries, then he's not worth my time.  

Personal preference, but I don't really do kink or rough play on a first encounter.  Those things require a deeper connection that has to be built.  Even if I chat with a guy on Recon, I'm upfront about this point.  

If any sort of kink, fetish, or rough play is in the cards - I make it a point to outline my limits, ask him to outline his, and communicate a safe word AND safe signal.  Once he arrives at mine (or me at his), the agreement is that the safe word will be repeated and the safe signal be demonstrated before action begins to make sure it's clear what they are.  I also take copious screen shots of conversations (just in case I delete something by accident) so I can refer back to them later.  I'd recommend any partner do the same.  

[BootmanLA]

On 8/23/2022 at 3:50 AM, BareLover666 said:

(Quoting Catherine Deneuve):

"PARIS, January 10 2018 — Rape is a crime. But trying to pick up someone, however persistently or clumsily, is not — nor is gallantry an attack of machismo.

The Harvey Weinstein scandal sparked a legitimate awakening about the sexual violence that women are subjected to, particularly in their professional lives, where some men abuse their power. This was necessary.

....

In fact, #MeToo has led to a campaign, in the press and on social media, of public accusations and indictments against individuals who, without being given a chance to respond or defend themselves, are put in the exact same category as sex offenders. This summary justice has already had its victims: men who've been disciplined in the workplace, forced to resign, and so on., when their only crime was to touch a woman's knee, try to steal a kiss, talk about "intimate" things during a work meal, or send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest...."

Deneuve, unfortunately, both makes and misses the point. The problem she just gallops over is that the *workplace* isn't the proper venue for sexual interaction, wanted or not, and while in her culture that may not be a problem, for an awful lot of employers elsewhere, it certainly is.

Touching a woman's knee in the workplace is unnecessary and unrelated to work. Trying to "steal" a kiss - fuck, woman, the word "steal" says a lot, doesn't it? It means to take without permission - is a form of assault. If you're at a work meal, you should only be talking about "intimate things" with someone who's expressed an openness to that, not someone who can't get up and leave without making a scene. Her point about "professional lives" seems to vanish from her head almost immediately after making it.

And worst of all, she makes the assumption that everyone else feels (or should feel) the same as she, a clearly very sexually liberated woman, feels - with no allowance for the fact that many people just don't want to have to deal with that kind of shit at work. Or, really, anywhere that they don't specifically invite it. She clearly relishes being fawned over and thought of as a sexual object (or objectified person, at least) - which is great! - but she certainly shouldn't assume everyone else is willing to be treated that way.

[hntnhole]

On 8/23/2022 at 9:13 AM, tallslenderguy said:

and those who believe the person defines what BDSM is. 

The practice of Bd/Sm is an outward, visible expression of what's in a man's  heart, his mind, his being. It's anything but one-sided; it's entirely a sharing construct, from one man's mind to another man's mind, via the body, sexually as well as emotionally/intellectually/spiritually.

Some men hear the Call to Service, whether from the Top or the bottom, some men hear nothing, probably because they're not listening.  The gear, the Acts associated with Bd/Sm are merely the tools we use as we delve into the depths of a man's need for something more.  

[Guest]

12 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Deneuve, unfortunately, both makes and misses the point. The problem she just gallops over is that the *workplace* isn't the proper venue for sexual interaction, wanted or not, and while in her culture that may not be a problem, for an awful lot of employers elsewhere, it certainly is.

Touching a woman's knee in the workplace is unnecessary and unrelated to work. Trying to "steal" a kiss - fuck, woman, the word "steal" says a lot, doesn't it? It means to take without permission - is a form of assault. If you're at a work meal, you should only be talking about "intimate things" with someone who's expressed an openness to that, not someone who can't get up and leave without making a scene. Her point about "professional lives" seems to vanish from her head almost immediately after making it.

And worst of all, she makes the assumption that everyone else feels (or should feel) the same as she, a clearly very sexually liberated woman, feels - with no allowance for the fact that many people just don't want to have to deal with that kind of shit at work. Or, really, anywhere that they don't specifically invite it. She clearly relishes being fawned over and thought of as a sexual object (or objectified person, at least) - which is great! - but she certainly shouldn't assume everyone else is willing to be treated that way.

You're point of view is a respectable one as well, of course.
I fully agree with the 100 French artists and intellectuals including Deneuve in supporting the #metoo movement for bringing things out in the open. This was, is and remains necessary and I understand that you think so as well by your participation in this thread.

The down-side of yours (as I see it) is that when we would ban all possibilities for romantic and sexual advances from both the workplace (where most of us spend most of our time) and everywhere that "people don't specifically invite it" there remains hardly any place in the real world left to flirt, if any at all. I'd like it when flirting, sex and romance are normal.
More importantly: I am firmly convinced that normalisation and openness about Sex leads to a lesser amount of sexual assaults besides it helping to achieve a more fun society sexually - of which the French culture is one example of a way to achieve this. Not that it's perfect, but what culture or society is?

Besides normalising love and sex as only human, two of of the things in this statement from the 100 French women - of which Catherine Deneuve is just one, be it probably the most famous (and perhaps most comely) one - when I first read it in 2018 are among it's strong points:

It allows for people to make mistakes, for being clumsy when approaching someone even to the point of being rude. The signatories still draw the line at rape, forced sexual acts, the use of physical force and (if I'm not mistaken) the abuse of a position of power. If they don't I certainly do. That's why in the beginning of this thread I called how someone treated a date 'a dick move' because he was and remained rude and by his own account hurtful and disrespectful, in the same way as I would stand and have stood up for myself and my personal boundaries. I deeply feel that being confident and assertive is more helpful - and more powerful - than having to resort to the law or social conventions as they never allow for the fact that what people feel differs.
Vive la différence! (And let's help one another to be stronger, powerful and confident to live with all of our differences).

The second powerful thing in this letter from the French intellectuals and artists follows that through:
They don't assume that someone becomes a victim just because someone else behaves like a dick or cunt. The fact that the word survivor has gained the same meaning in (American) English says to me that women and victims of (sexual) abuse, rape and being mistreated by abuse of power, struggle with this themselves and this French point of view is a helpful one to aide in that fight to prevent and overcome being victimised. I fully agree with the bottom line when making it more gender-neutral that:
'Incidents that can affect someone's body do not necessarily affect his or her - or their - dignity and must not, as difficult as they can be, necessarily make anyone of us a perpetual victim.
Because we are not reducible to our bodies. Our inner freedom is inviolable. And this freedom that we cherish is not without risks and responsibilities'.

 

There is a downside to the viewpoint in this letter you didn't address though, because we cannot assume everyone is strong enough, confident enough, articulate enough and assertive enough to stand up for themselves and their bounderies. Although we should help each-other here on BZ and everywhere in our lives to be strong, we can't blame someone else for not being it. Freezing in the moment for instance is often the first psychological response to being threatened. Another is running away.
So assuming one should have stood up for themselves can lead to blaming the victim.

Sexual abuse and abuse of power in most cases happens without witnesses or other proof and we can't accuse and condemn someone for things without proof that can be scrutinised by an impartial party with authority. That's one reason why laws and (social) rules of conduct are often too blunt as instruments.  So that's where we as a community come in:

To stand beside them when something bad happened by listening to them and addressing the sexual perpetrator even when he or she 'merely' acted like a dick, cunt or asshole. Again: sex like romance is fun or it should be for everyone involved. If it's not something went wrong.
 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and critique on 'the French letter' and having stepped out from behind Deneuve's comely figure with some thoughts and assumptions of my own I'll be happy to hear yours again.
Btw: It takes guts to question a women's perspective on the @metoo moment, more so when one of them is la exceptionelle Deneuve. 

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

12 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The practice of Bd/Sm is an outward, visible expression of what's in a man's  heart, his mind, his being. It's anything but one-sided; it's entirely a sharing construct, from one man's mind to another man's mind, via the body, sexually as well as emotionally/intellectually/spiritually.

Some men hear the Call to Service, whether from the Top or the bottom, some men hear nothing, probably because they're not listening.  The gear, the Acts associated with Bd/Sm are merely the tools we use as we delve into the depths of a man's need for something more.  

Some men hear both callings depending on the situation, the moment and their sexual mate; hence the words switch and versatile.
And isn't versatility a lovely thing to have even more fun and not having someone else or our own preconseptions on who we are define or limit ourselves?