Fuck post #metoo

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

But the flip side, as I see it, is that a person who does NOT want romance at work is forced to endure things - like physical touching, "stealing" a kiss (which to me translates to "kissing someone when it's not invited), or - read this carefully, as it's exactly what she wrote - "send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest..." - literally, she's defending men sending sexually provocative messages to CO-WORKERS when the co-worker has ALREADY said he/she isn't interested. That's textbook sexual harassment.

I don't oppose office romances, even as I recognize they're fraught with potential problems. If Mary in Accounting finds John the IT support guy hot, by all means, let them date. But she can ask him if he's interested in going for coffee, or drinks, or whatever, and then they need to take it off-site. And if John isn't interested - I'm deliberately reversing the sexes here, because I'm driving home the point it works both ways - he shouldn't be subject to Mary's repeated attempts to "romance" him.

And I'll add this: I suspect Deneuve wouldn't feel this way if she weren't a major star able to conduct her own liaisons as publicly as she chooses, with the freedom to reject powerful men if she wants because she knows she's in demand (or was, at least, since she hasn't done a lot of work since her stroke).

8 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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?

I don't know that sexual assault is any less prevalent in France other than by the fact that they define things differently. I tried to do some comparison research and was repeatedly stymied by the fact that definitions shift - in the U.S., we have pretty broad definitions of what can be sexual assault, whereas in some countries, anything short of actual penetrative rape is not really tracked very well. But Deneuve's own letter suggests that France simply has a higher tolerance for what we in the US would consider inappropriate sexual behavior towards another person.

8 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

But how do people become more confident and assertive? By seeing that others are confident and assertive standing up - in other words, by making the "social convention" that you stand up to bad behavior and don't let it happen.

8 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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's a difference between "victim" and "perpetual victim". If someone commits an offense against you, you ARE a victim. That's inherent in the definition of the word. What may differ is HOW the victim responds.

And I'll posit that it's a lot easier for a victim of a crime to stand up for themselves - to avoid being victimized, or a "perpetual victim" (to use her phrase) when society supports and denounces the acts that lead to one being a victim. The reason bad behavior became normalized in America for so long was that society REFUSED to support victims - blaming them (what was she wearing? was she asking for it?) instead of challenging the ones behaving badly. And worse, society then used those problems as "proof" that women didn't belong in the workplace because they just "caused  problems". 

8 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

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.

But a community acting in a particular way *IS* the very definition of "social rules of conduct". I agree the legal system is sometimes too blunt an instrument to solve some problems, but you are arguing for the same thing (social support) you one sentence earlier said was unworkable. I think we actually agree that the answer is a group refusal to tolerate bad behavior - but when a group acts as one, as a group, then that is very much EXACTLY setting "social rules of conduct".

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

But the flip side, as I see it, is that a person who does NOT want romance at work is forced to endure things - like physical touching, "stealing" a kiss (which to me translates to "kissing someone when it's not invited), or - read this carefully, as it's exactly what she wrote - "send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest..." - literally, she's defending men sending sexually provocative messages to CO-WORKERS when the co-worker has ALREADY said he/she isn't interested. That's textbook sexual harassment.

I don't oppose office romances, even as I recognize they're fraught with potential problems. If Mary in Accounting finds John the IT support guy hot, by all means, let them date. But she can ask him if he's interested in going for coffee, or drinks, or whatever, and then they need to take it off-site. And if John isn't interested - I'm deliberately reversing the sexes here, because I'm driving home the point it works both ways - he shouldn't be subject to Mary's repeated attempts to "romance" him.

And I'll add this: I suspect Deneuve wouldn't feel this way if she weren't a major star able to conduct her own liaisons as publicly as she chooses, with the freedom to reject powerful men if she wants because she knows she's in demand (or was, at least, since she hasn't done a lot of work since her stroke).

I don't know that sexual assault is any less prevalent in France other than by the fact that they define things differently. I tried to do some comparison research and was repeatedly stymied by the fact that definitions shift - in the U.S., we have pretty broad definitions of what can be sexual assault, whereas in some countries, anything short of actual penetrative rape is not really tracked very well. But Deneuve's own letter suggests that France simply has a higher tolerance for what we in the US would consider inappropriate sexual behavior towards another person.

But how do people become more confident and assertive? By seeing that others are confident and assertive standing up - in other words, by making the "social convention" that you stand up to bad behavior and don't let it happen.

There's a difference between "victim" and "perpetual victim". If someone commits an offense against you, you ARE a victim. That's inherent in the definition of the word. What may differ is HOW the victim responds.

And I'll posit that it's a lot easier for a victim of a crime to stand up for themselves - to avoid being victimized, or a "perpetual victim" (to use her phrase) when society supports and denounces the acts that lead to one being a victim. The reason bad behavior became normalized in America for so long was that society REFUSED to support victims - blaming them (what was she wearing? was she asking for it?) instead of challenging the ones behaving badly. And worse, society then used those problems as "proof" that women didn't belong in the workplace because they just "caused  problems". 

But a community acting in a particular way *IS* the very definition of "social rules of conduct". I agree the legal system is sometimes too blunt an instrument to solve some problems, but you are arguing for the same thing (social support) you one sentence earlier said was unworkable. I think we actually agree that the answer is a group refusal to tolerate bad behavior - but when a group acts as one, as a group, then that is very much EXACTLY setting "social rules of conduct".

Thanks again.

I don't think 'stealing a kiss' is considered something offensive or crossing boundaries, I've only heard it used in the context of two lovers - often star-crossed - who have a secretive moment in private to kiss, which is very romantic. If it's grabbing someone by the head, forcing a tongue inside a mouth I'd call it rape. If it's a clumsy attempt to kiss someone on the cheek, or even the lips I learned to just turn my head a little so the kiss ended up on my chin, ear or cheek if it was aimed at my mouth. In most cases that brought the point across I wasn't into the person in question. (Yes, I was playing it that coy at one time in history, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and in-between two ice-ages).

I don't know what the original French wording in the letter was and if it did I'm afraid I've never been very good at understanding and using the - beautiful - language.

But I am fairly sure that in the letter that the 100 French women - who I don't think are all called Deneuve (!) - are NOT talking about persistent attempts by a co-worker. The line you're referring to goes: "send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest". That COULD mean the person receiving the messages had already indicated they are not interested but I don't think it's what they mean and I am certain it's not the point.

If I missed the original French meaning and it got lost in translation, I'm sorry.

My point is that a first attempt to romance / hint at a co-worker you'd like something sexual can be ok. I'd draw the line at sending dick- / cunt-pics (and even breast- or other nudy pics), because even I who LOVES and I mean REALLY LOVES dick don't appreciate getting them in a professional environment. And there can be no hierarchy between the two persons involved. 

 

I'm not sure either if numbers of sexual assaults differ much, from one country to another and how much it correlates with social norms. I am convinced that openness and talking about sex - both the fun part and the boundaries for each of us - is healthier than tabooing too much. It allows for conversations, for getting educated, talking about sex, articulation our wishes as well as our boundaries.
We in the Western part of the World - Europe and Northern America (including Canada) have probably much more in common with each other value-wise than we'd care to admit. You and I probably agree on more things than we disagree about.

But it's also probably true that socially acceptable behaviour indeed does have slightly different borders here in Europe vs. the US.
I remember nipple-gate (the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy) and both as a European, a Dutchman and as someone who was breast-fed (or so I was told) as a baby I really didn't get the fuss. 

What's really much more important than any nipple and even two nipples is the Social Convention that anyone of us is entitled to say: No. To say: no, you are crossing my lines here. Independent of what etiquette or social norms or the law says about the actual act:
if someone is been made to feel uncomfortable by something possibly sexual: it's only decent to respect that. 
And if someone doesn't, it's a dick move. And it depends on the situation if there should be consequences, when a person is in a position of power - not unlike a dominant top - with years-and-years of experience we can except that person to know how to respect someone else's boundaries more than say the average 20 year old who's only clumsily taking his first baby steps as the future Casanova he wants to be.

So in part we may agree on this, that seeing people standing up for their values is a good example to give, and may help others become more confident and assertive. 

Personally if feel stronger without the label of victim attached, although in legal sense I probably am one (and certainly in a case of lesser importance where the person was appropriately convicted). And like I said, I notice others with similar or less-similar experiences that feel uncomfortable with the terminology as words sometimes have the effect they define us. And sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes some of us may want to re-define ourselves. 

I think that's what the 100 signatories also meant with their last line in the letter.

 

I am - or want to be if I'm not - sensitive to the needs of women and victims of abuse. And your situation in the US hardly differs from the one on this side of the Atlantic. For too long women (or victims of any gender) where considered to have brought it on themselves. 
So I get the need, but would allow for a slightly larger grey area for people to enjoy themselves and learn, to fuck up even. 

 

Yes, we do agree that a group - or individual as online I'm VERY brave - refusal to tolerate bad behaviour is an answer. But if  we stop nitpicking about what constitutes social norms, rules and conventions, let's use the OP as a case:

Someone admits the use of foul and hurtful language after someone indicates to no longer wishing to continue doing stuff of a sexual nature. Not knowing what transpired myself, the derogatory language is repeated and strengthened here on BZ in this thread. Allegedly the other person has threatened to publicly accuse the OP of rape. 

In a lot of jurisdictions, rape is considered to be the unwanted insertion of any part of the body into any orifice of someone else, in a sexual context. I can't make out from the literal text how far the kissing went.
Even if his date said beforehand that he wanted to be molested, if the OP's date at the time of the date indicated that he didn't want the OP's tongue in his mouth: Then we have a rapists in our midst who has gotten support and legal advice for free. The exact thing you and I are against.

You and I were even the only ones - I think - to even question his derogatory remarks.

 

PS
I don't mean to say the OP has raped someone, not knowing all the facts. But it's an almost perfect example of rape-culture  - where victims can get blamed - and theory vs. reality when talking about drawing lines and our social norms here on BZ.

PPS
Not going to defend Deneuve or her motives in spite of certain possible implications you might or might-not have made, because she in my humble opinion is a goddess and above such petty squabbling. ☺️

PPPS
This in stark contrast to @muscmtl who may think he's a god but isn't and has acted like a dick and possibly is one in my rather less-humble opinion.

[Guest]

On 8/25/2022 at 8:00 PM, BootmanLA said:

I suspect Deneuve wouldn't feel this way if she weren't a major star able to conduct her own liaisons as publicly as she chooses, with the freedom to reject powerful men if she wants because she knows she's in demand (or was, at least, since she hasn't done a lot of work since her stroke)

I'd like to annotate that Catherine Deneuve's stroke happened in late 2019 (it was reported in the news in November).
The letter she co-authored and helped get noticed by signing it with here famed name was from januari 2018, well before that;
Just to make sure that the unsuspecting reader of this thread doesn't have the misconception that Mss. Deneuve was temporarily not of sound mind when participating in the @MeToo debate. 

With her glorious career - she might feel that it's impolite if I'd mention any number; one also never asks a lady's age -  I'm sure she's very clear-headedly enjoying an early retirement or perhaps merely a brief pause from work.