Conference quark::mennotes-v1

WhenEVER she says no, sex stops.  Preludes to sex stop.  If that seems
to confuse her, I am perfectly capable of communicating that I don't need
any ambiguity about consent when engaging in intimate relations: signals
are crystal clear, ongoing activities are only to be engaged in under a
condition of mutual consent and desire, or relations don't proceed.  
Period.

Of course, my early experiences in intimacy had not the benefit of such
experiences as give young men grey hair.  On two occasions that I can
clearly recall, the women with whom I was pursuing what I thought were
mutually desired intimacies needed to repeat themselves to get it through
my passion-beclouded brain that further intimacies were not desired.  Once
I *got* the message, though, hey; same as above.  Full stop.  If sex isn't 
mutually desired, then its not enjoyable and its not worth doing.  Now, it
only takes one 'no' for me to get the message.

DougO

    I agree with DougO absolutely: any negatory at any point means full stop.
    
    During my dating years this meant that I generally waited for her to
    take me by the hand and say "Let's go upstairs, big boy", or I would say
    in so many words "Do you want to get intimate in a sexual congressional
    way?" No ambiguity allowed. No seducing, ever. Seducing is wrong.
    
    An unfortunate side-effect of women's traditional role as stoplight
    (red-green-red-green) is they often feel that they are contributing
    sufficiently to the encounter if they don't say no. Excuse me? Would it
    occur to you that I might need some foreplay? Is it my job to touch all
    these parts just so, so you'll let me have my way with you? Have you
    considered taking a moment or two to see that I get aroused too? Do you
    really think that laying there moaning is sufficient??
    
    I remember with some satisfaction the handful of times when I found
    myself in the position of gracious provider of foreplay, and was
    getting none back... so I got up and dressed and went home.

>    way?" No ambiguity allowed. No seducing, ever. Seducing is wrong.

Oh, crap.  Seduction is a form of persuasion.  Persuasion is not coercion.

    I agree with .3.
    
    Seducing can be fun. Being seduced can be fun.
    
    But by someone who you *want* to be with, not by someone who's conning
    you into doing what s/he wants.
    
    	Alice T.

    Men are subject to incredibly destructive mixed messages in this
    regard. You (Hoyt, say) are a wimp if your obey me when I'm being coy
    and want to be wheedled and coaxed. You (Hoyt, say) are a typical
    oppressive male only out for one thing, effecting some degree of rape.
    
    Alice: by someone you *want* to be with, not by someone who's conning
    you. HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE????? Maybe she
    _wants_ to be with me, and is just being a typically coy female. Maybe
    she really wants me to drop dead! Women's great taste for ambiguity,
    for wanting to dangle the bait, for enjoying being desirable even when
    they're uncertain about whether they really want to DO anything. This
    is an incredibly uncomfortable double-bind.
    
    If you don't get that, it's because you've spent your life being
    seduced. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONCERNED THAT YOU ARE OPPRESSING SOME GUY
    BY PRESSING YOUR SEXUAL FAVORS ON HIM???!!! Laughable. It's no fun,
    being responsible for 99% of the initiative in a relationship.
    
    - Hoyt (who has been the friend of many perhaps too many women 
            complaining about oppressive men).

    Hoyt,
    
    I understand what you're saying, but I'm afraid I don't have an answer
    for you. I cannot speak, in generalisations, about how to interpret
    other women. As for myself, I would make it clear how I felt. If I
    wanted someone - and I wanted to do something about it! - I'd make it
    clear to him, directly or indirectly, but he'd know. I just don't see
    any point doing it any other way.
    
    Note that I did talk about seducing from *both* sides - seducing *and*
    being seduced. I do not expect the man to initiate things every time.
    Between myself and my fiance, I reckon it's about 50/50 as to who
    starts things off, depending on what mood each of us is in.
    
    	Alice T.

    
    Why can't men (and women) be more honest and straightforward ?
    
    If a person needs to hear before the date or before they
    go to the others home that there will be no sex, I believe
    that person needs counseling
    
    If a person feels that after spending money on a date that
    sex is resitiution as .0 suggested, that person needs SERIOUS
    help
    
    Responsibility means not manipulating
    IF I want to hold hands, I say that an ask
    IF I want to cuddle, I ask 
    
    The obvious "mixed signals" come when neither person
    says what they feel, and want the other to read their mind for them.
    Dates with people like this are then limited to public places,
    and the questioning is thorough 
    (fyi, .0 this is called taking responsibility)
    
    christopher
    

    Whatever happened to romance? What do you guys expect if you seek sex
    as a prelude to true intimacy? No wonder you get mixed signals! She
    probably has mixed feelings at that stage.
    
    Let's go back to how it used to be when you were in high school: did
    you try to get in her pants on a first date or did you think of her as
    a miracle of nature? Didn't you go through several stages of courtship
    before you even kissed? Come on, the only reason for these type of
    "mixed messages" is the fact that you have entered mined territory
    without a map. If you knew her by then, everything would be totally
    natural and a simple gradual process of the most exciting, mutual
    seduction.

    But what of rape in a marriage? When is the signals in working order?
    Or were the signals ever working right from the beginning? Obvously
    not. 

    <What do you guys expect if you seek sex as a prelude to true intimacy? 
    
    right! that puts it bass ackwards!
    
    sex without intimacy aint' bad but it can't hold a candle to 
    intimacy with sex.
    

It's been quite some time since I've dated, but I don't remember
needing so much processing, analysis, consulting, validating, etc.
as seems to be presently required, in order to correctly interpret 
the information presented at an encounter. Intimacy never seemed to 
be this complicated, or perilous. It almost seems like people have to 
enter into contract negotiations, with full legal disclosure, in order 
that each party's interests can remain uncompromised in the event of 
legal action.

By definition, rape has never been desired by the victim. By definition,
all forms of personal violation, assault, harassment, undesired behavior
et al, have never been desired by the victim. This has been the case for
all time. It seems, more recently, there are now more opportunities for a 
man to be accused of *something* in every single attempt at communicating. 
All it takes to begin the accusatory process, is the *interpretation* by
the *victim* that *something* occurred that they do/did not like. It can
be a spoken word, facial expression, touch, change of attitude before,
during, or after an activity, or even the suspicion that any of the above
has occured.

Then there is the reality of *defining terms*; what does cuddle mean?
Is a certain sentence harrassment or sweet-talk? Is a particular touch
an assault or a caress? Is a particular posture lewd, or seductive? At
what point do you inquire as to the medical condition (HIV,AIDS,VD), and
or, safe-sex device, position on abortion, pro-choice/pro-life, gay rights,
and a thousand other contributory vagaries...? After all, we must be 
clear so as not to mix signals! 

 
/Bob

    He: Would you like to go up to Lovers Lane and see the view??
    
    She: Sure.
    
    Scene 1/2 hour later: He and she kissing hugging, fondling in each
    other, both in various stages of undress. She undoes his pants, she
    lifts her dress and removes her panties. He rolls on top of her and
    as he begins to make entry.....she says......".No, don't, I'm not that
    kind of girl/woman." He says in heat, "I'd never think you are" They
    kiss and fondle some more, He again rolls on top, she says, "No, I
    can't, I'll lose your respect." He says, "Never"......they kiss and
    grope some more........sound familiar?????? Typical teenage actions at
    the drive in, submarine races, on the couch????
    
    	Mixed signals...?? I got them from the time I was 13. I can even
    remember one girl I was with said no and when I backed off, she said
    "What's the matter??" My answer was to ask if she wanted to neck, pet,
    'go all the way', or none of the above. She said that she didn't want
    me to think she was easy........
    
    	How do you get around it??? Tell someone outright...." I think that
    you're a swell person, but you should know up front that I do not have
    sex with anyone because of the possibility of AIDS." Once we know each
    other better, and "I" am comfortable enough to engage in sex with you,
    I will inform you." Be an adult and make an adult statement. If he or
    she isn't adult enough to accept your statement, you wouldn't want to
    bed down with them anyway.........tell that to your oldest daughter!
    
    Ken

	I am certain that not all women send such confused/confusing
	signals, but when they send 'em, the situation is
	fraught with danger.

	I can remember being unclothed, in the bed with a girl
	I had been out with several times.  Things seemed to be
	taking the "logical" progression.  Yet, at the "moment
	of truth", she said "no."  I asked if she was afraid, if she
	didn't like it, if she was worried about pregnancy or disease.
	I asked if she had another guy she'd rather wait for.

	I got no answer.  No discussion.  No elaboration.

	So, I took a deep breath, tried to unwind, and got
	dressed.  I took her out one more time, just to see if
	it was the evening, or the situation or something.  We had
	a great time at dinner and stuff, but when it came to
	"that moment" again (after hours of the usual play),
	it was the same story: "No." and no explanation.

	Now, I consider myself a gentleman.  I do not/did not press myself
	on women who were not enthusiastic about it.  But I feel that
	some men may not have done the same amount of soul-searching
	I had done previous to this encounter.  They may have
	believed the girl was adhering to the age-old "No means Yes"
	bit...  If a bit of alcohol had been involved, one of these
	guys with a less-than-well-thought-out approach may have
	pressed for sex a bit more strongly.  Or perhaps the woman may
	have given in...

	I think that it would have been wrong, but the woman would
	hardly have been without blame.

	If this story had been unique....a one-time thing...it might
	be considered an aberration.  But in my "dating" years, I
	encountered no less than three of these women.  They are
	certainly a "type", though they wear no identifying badges.

	My advice to women who play this dangerous game is:

	Do not do anything more than offer a maidenly kiss to a man
	to whom you do not wish to offer more.  Anything more suggestive,
	more sexy, more enticing, is the worst kind of falsehood.

	For what it's worth, I (and I believe, most other men) would
	like to be told up front that things are going to remain
	friendly but non-intimate, if that's the woman's desire.

	We can't read minds, we can't know about all of a woman's
	worries, phobias, past relationships.  We have to depend on
	the signals women send: loud and clear, with no equivocation.

	When the signals are clear, the questions about "date rape"
	will end...

	Regards,

	Steve H

    re: .13 Steve, Steve, Steve
    
    "I took her out ONE more time, just to see if it was the evening, or
    the situation or something."
    
    Do you want me for my body or my mind?  Sex/intimacy means something
    to me, I don't give it freely.  We may have gotten comfortable and
    played but I think I would have done the same your date did.  A test?
    perhaps, to see if I'll just be another notch on your very worn belt.
    I believe your date was being cautious, the fact that you only tried
    ONE more time tells me she had good reason to be.
    
    

>                     <<< Note 702.14 by BAGELS::HAYWARD >>>
>                      -< "You called her ONE more time?" >-
>
>    re: .13 Steve, Steve, Steve
>    
>    "I took her out ONE more time, just to see if it was the evening, or
>    the situation or something."

	You may impugn whatever motives you wish to my actions.  You
	were not there.  You do not now and have never known me.

	The fact is, that despite the mess that was the previous
	date, we still seemed to be attracted to each other.  This
	may be a concept that's foreign to you: 

	Asking someone else out again because you think that, despite 
	a false start, there might be something there.    
    
	Regardless of your Monday-quarterbacking of my behavior,
	the fact remains that the woman behaved irresponsibly TOWARD
	HERSELF....as well as to me.

	Steve H

	P.S.  BAGELS::HAYWARD, I wouldn't ask you out anyway....

    good for you Steve!
    
    (but for the p.s.)

    I always took no to be no.  If she was saying no when she meant yes
    then:
    	1) She's not being honest with herself let alone with you.
    	2) She's playing games ( I don't have time for games ).
    	3) She's got a bugcheck in her cpu.
    	4) All of the above (most likely).
    In any case, the faster and farther away from her I can get the better.
    Oh well, it's been a moot point for the last 10 years anyway.  Glad
    I'm out of that bs.
    fred();

    	It always boils down to 'no is no'! 
    
    	Any woman who allows herself to be in bed, undressed, and beyond 
    foreplay, then says, no thanks can't really be wrapped too tight . The 
    problem is that many men just plain could not believe that a woman 
    would be laying next to him, naked, touching him, allowing him to touch
    her and not be interested in sexual intercourse.
    
    	At the moment a woman senses that she is not interested in pursuing
    the activities any further, whether it be when he reaches for a breast
    or places a hand on her thigh, she should speak up and declare herself
    not interested. 
    
    Ken 

 Gee, Steve, you really seem to be on the defensive. Not that you shouldn't
object to Tami's assessment of the incident in question if you feel an
objection is warranted, but do you really need to be so personal? You wrote
about a situation in a notes conference. You must have expected people
to assess the situation. She did and expressed her concerns. Seems to be
pretty straightforward to me. If you didn't want negative impressions to be
made, you should have kept the situation to yourself.

 And one other thing, you don't know what you're missing.

 On the topic.

 I find that mixed signals are part and parcel of the dating game. I believe
that some of the responsibility falls on men. Men have created and enforced
a double standard relative to male and female sexuality. Men who are
promiscuous are generally regarded as being studs, whereas women who are
promiscuous are regarded as being whores. By doing this, we have made our own
lives more difficult.

 Women are frequently reluctant to be open to casual sexual encounters because
that's how one gets a reputation. And reputations appear to be pretty important
to women, particularly since women are often dependent on men economically.
(This is thankfully becoming an anachronism.) Having a bad reputation reduces
one's attractiveness to the kind of men who are likely to be willing to
enter into long term relationships.

 However, I believe that despite the fact that men bear some responsibility
for this whole mixed signals business, women bear more of the responsibility.
They are usually the ones sending mixed signals. Oftentimes, it seems that
they don't realize how what they do affects us. In many ways, it seems like
men can't win. If you become really attracted to a woman after having become 
her friend, you are in a tough situation. If you make a move and she isn't
into it, you stand a good chance of putting her off and having her decide
your friendship was really just a front for your animalistic wants. Not
acting on such an attraction can drive you crazy. So men often categorize
women into two groups: ones to try to have sex with and ones not to. The ones
not to are usually the ones that either don't attract you or in which you
have invested too much to risk losing the friendship over an overreaction
or misunderstanding. Sometimes it just ain't worth it. And just to mix things
up, every now and then you'll be really attracted to a friend and you'll
throw caution into the wind and make a play and she'll be receptive. And
in discussing things afterward, she'll say stuff like "What took you so long?
I dropped a million hints. I was beginning to think you weren't interested."
Life is so much easier for those who can not care about the person inside...

 So who are the ones who you _do_ try to have sex with? Usually people in
whom you have not invested enough in a friendship to make a prospective loss
too troubling, I guess. There's less risk in finding out if there's any
corresponding interest on her part because there's less to lose if she isn't
interested. It seems like it's alot easier to become friends with someone
with whom you've tried to have sex with and failed than to remain friends
with someone with whom the friendship existed before a sexual advance was
made (whether successful or not.)

 So you've gotta take your lumps if you're a red blooded man that also
believes that no means no and nobody honorable ever forces anyone to 
have sex against their will. (This does not outlaw begging, cajoling and
the like. :-) It can be pretty frustrating to engage in several hours of
foreplay and find out that no release is forthcoming. I can understand why
some guys don't take no for an answer. (I understand, but it is still wrong
and I refuse to have any part in it nor condone it.)

 I have been with women who let me know not to get my hopes up. That is 
infinitely better than the type who entice, engage in double-entendre,
make salacious remarks, lead you on and then look all wide eyed and
innocent as they tell you they aren't interested and had _no idea_ you
were taking it this way. Worse still are the women who dangle the bait
only to see what'll bite and how far they can make a man chase them without
giving anything in return. These are users of the worst kind. I consider
them to be as bad as guys who lie just to use women for sex. 

 My personal approach to this stuff is to listen to the negative messages
rather than the positive messages. It keeps you from getting your hopes
up for nothing. I tend to be pessimistic regarding personal relationships
anyway. It does lead to conversations like "I thought I was going to have
to hit you over the head to get you to notice," but those are better than the
alternative. Of course, this is only a guideline. I reserve the right to
ignore my own rules and get burnt in the process.

 The Doctah

    Re .19
    
    Was that long tirade just to say that you err on the side of caution or
    am I reading you wrong ?
    
    By the way, now, after hearing some specific instances of women/girls
    who object to penetration at the very last minute ( as if one's opinion
    of them, good or bad, was going to change after "that") I understand
    this dilemma better. I can recall a 30-year-old virgin (a Jehova's
    Witness who had several peculiarities) pulling that stunt on me at the
    moment of truth. I left, at 2 AM with a severe case of blue-b**** and
    never dated her again. Several years later, after she divorced some
    jerk who exploited her for her money (her story) we finally became
    lovers for a while (it was still very disappointing). The moral of the
    story? Follow your instincts and don't look back.  

>            <<< Note 702.19 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Turning Circles" >>>
>
> Gee, Steve, you really seem to be on the defensive. Not that you shouldn't
>object to Tami's assessment of the incident in question if you feel an
>objection is warranted, but do you really need to be so personal? You wrote

	In the interest of deflecting further discussion of me
	and my writing, I'd like to say that when I responded with a
	"P.S." to BAGELS::whoever, I was thinking "wry-smile", not "nasty
	retort".  'Nuther case of lost nuances in an electronic
	medium.

	Sorry if I offended, BAGELS:: person.

	On with the discussion at hand....

	Steve H

	So, who'd like to entertain the concept that some
	percentage of "date rape" incidents actually consists
	of situations like I (and others here) have decribed....
	...with perhaps a bit of booze, perhaps a less
	principled male than most of us seem to be.  But nonetheless,
	a situation that is not: "Nice guy turns to savage beast
	with no warning -- former nun assaulted in apartment".

	Anyone care to discuss this ?

	Steve H

>>	Anyone care to discuss this ?
    
    That's like asking, "Anyone care to commit PC sepuku?" Steve.
    
    Anyhow...
    

    Canada has a new set of laws which define consent.  They also include
    definitions for sexual harassment (let the plaintiff decide),
    applicable sexual history (let the judge decide), and other aspects
    of the legal systems foray into human sexual interactions.
    
    My cousin, who has been a lawyer for seven years, recommends that any
    male looking for an intimate relationship with a 100% guarantee of
    remaining out of court get a signed, written agreement with witnesses.
    
    No guff.
    
    Kris

    The signed written guarantee works if and only if there are no possible
    implications. If she gets pregnant, you're looking at 21 years of child
    support, unless the kid decides to stay in school to age 23 (in Mass.).
    If she catches a disease, it's civil lawsuit time. Condoms are apropos,
    of course. But last night's date gave her herpes and a baby, and last
    night's date is judgment proof (no money!) so she's coming after you.
    You need a video establishing that you wore a condom and it was intact
    after the act. Make sure the VCR has a time-date stamp built in.
    
    Brainstorm! You could get to know her for six months or a year, and
    establish that she's not the kind of creep who would pull something
    like the above!
    
    I recommend the keep-sex-out-of-the-picture-for-quite-a-while strategy
    on the grounds that sex tends to preclude other kinds of growth in the
    relationship. I'm not sure why, but it seems like once intercourse
    starts, it becomes the centerpiece of your joint activities (don't say
    it! :). Conversion from friends to lovers IS hard, I guess. I've never
    done it. So take the position "I think of you as a potential friend and
    lover for life, and want to avoid sex until we're both convinced that's
    likely!"
    
    JMVVVVVHO - Hoyt (V -> very)

      I agree with the Doctah on this. When I go out on a date
    I assume that nothing will happen,so if nothing does, I'm not
    disappointed. If it does, great. I guess I'm lucky in that I can 
    tell from the get go if things are going well or not, but even if
    things look good, I still don't assume anything.
    
    KC

>    Was that long tirade just to say that you err on the side of caution or
>    am I reading you wrong ?

 Well, I didn't intend for it to become a tirade when I wrote it. I was 
genuinely surprised to see how many lines it comprised when I entered,
particularly in light of the things I did not say...

    I wonder if someone can answere this question for me.
    
    If during intercourse a women suddenly has a change of mind and decides
    that she no longer wants sex. Is the "act" now considered rape? 
    
    Just wondering,
    
    Jeffrey.

	It depends on who you ask, now.

	Since Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin maintain
	rape has ALREADY occurred, then you're a rapist, even
	if it's your wife.  Remember, according to them, even
	if she said "Yes, please. Yes, hurry. Yes, more." you
	have committed an act of domination and subjugation.

	But, to avoid being imprisoned, flogged, ostracized, 
	or whatever, the safest thing is to adopt the Shaker's
	approach to relations between men and women:

	Women live in a dorm on one side of town....men in a dorm
	on the other.  No sexual congress allowed.

	Notice that there are no Shaker societies in existence
	any more...

	Steve H

    re .27
    
    I would say it's rape if he continues, despite her saying no.
    
    	Alice T.

Given my understanding of rape laws, the woman changing her mind AFTER
penetration would not be eligible for consideration as rape, as long as
penetration was consensual.

			Steve

    re .27
    
    >If during intercourse a women suddenly has a change of mind and decides
    >that she no longer wants sex. Is the "act" now considered rape? 
    
    	Some of the feminazi pc+ groups would probably say yes, but it's
    	highly unlikely that she could find a jury that would convict 
    	you or a DA that would press charges for that matter. Unless you
        are in Michigan or wherever it was that makes it illegal to have
    	sex with someone with mental illness under *any* circumstances
    	(even if you don't know that they are mentally ill).
    
        IMHO if she's *that* flaky and messed up, best thing to do
    	is to put as *much* distance between you and her as soon and
        as fast as possible.  No tellin what kind of grief she's going
    	to cause next and *who needs it*.
    
    	I need a *woman* as a partner not some messed up psyco that 
    	doesn't know *what* she wants.  CYA or in this case CYB.
    
    	fred();

    The smartest thing (for men and women!) is to get to KNOW prospective
    sexual partners well enough to avoid giving or receiving mixed signals.
    
    Anticipation can be as wonderful as the fast track to the sack.

    Open discussions on sex before the event is best ( and tape it ).
    
    		HAND
    		Wayne

    RE: .33  Wayne
    
    > Open discussions on sex before the event is best...
    
    My God, Wayne.  We agree 100% on something!  Wow!!  :-)
    
    Seriously, I do agree that "being open" is the best solution, even if
    it means a delay in the event itself (until both people feel comfortable
    enough to engage in such openness with each other.)

    I was thinking of this topic earlier this morning and grew to
    recollecting one of the incidents of my youth.  A flash of insight
    hit me when I applied a concept which I hadn't really known at the
    time the incident occurred.  I'm referring to the concept of cognitive
    dissonance, which I understand to mean something that one can't
    understand or recognize (cognition fails) due to extreme unexpectedness
    of the possibility it could happen.  In the vernacular, "mixed signals"
    is a faint approximation of the extreme disparity between the
    expectations in a situation where I had thought an event of mutual
    desire was unfolding; we were both horny college kids, met at a party,
    enjoyed teasing each other, she accompanied me back to my dorm room, 
    we engaged in mutual foreplay, all clothes were off, I was wearing a
    condom...and she said stop.  In the faintest little voice.  
    
    WHAM!  what?  what did you say? "stop" she repeated.  I experienced an
    extreme case of cognitive dissonance.  And stopped.  And lay back down
    on the bed next to her.  And stared at the ceiling, wondering what was
    an appropriate response, if there was one (other than the obvious one
    of having stopped upon her request.)
    
    And the dissonance was only increased by what she said next. "Nobody
    ever stopped before," said in a kind of wondering tone.  WHAT?  You've
    put yourself in this situation before and actually been raped?  What
    kind of man do you go out with, what kind of man do you think I am?
    How can you put yourself in this kind of situation?  I didn't actually
    ask any of those questions.  I don't really remember what I did say; I
    was rather shocked by both the extreme suddenness of the termination of
    our passionate encounter and by the dizzying juxtaposition with both
    her past experiences and her expectation that I, too, would have
    continued when she'd said "stop".  Obviously she'd met men who had.
    
    OK; I had previously had an emotional relationship with someone who
    eventually revealed to me that she'd been raped several years before at
    the age of 12.  I'd come to terms with my own feelings around consent
    when in the heat of passion; I already knew that I was only interested
    in sharing intimate relations with people who were mutually interested.
    Knowing this, when I heard "stop" I was able to stop.  For a young and
    aroused male without this self-knowledge to have stopped would have
    been even more difficult in this situation, and I submit, unlikely. 
    The expectations at the time the dissonance ("stop") was introduced
    were such that cognition of that negative would in many cases, not
    occur.  A guy could just absolutely refuse to believe what he heard,
    refuse to hear it.  Not because he wanted to rape; but because he was
    expecting that mutual sex was about to occur, wanted it to occur, and
    wouldn't/didn't-want-to-have-to acknowledge that sex wouldn't occur.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anyway; I think we need to actively teach our youngsters not only that
    saying no is anyone's right and privilege; but that hearing it should
    be expected; should be fully assumed as something one might hear from a
    partner at any time.  Because frankly, to someone who was unable to
    cope with the extreme dissonance, who could literally NOT HEAR someone
    saying "stop", the experience would become a prelude to unintended
    rape.  Rape.  RAPE. 
    
    Teach your youngsters well.
    
    DougO

    re. 35

    		"Teach your youngsters well" meant teach your male children
    well to me. Your bias is showing, your young female friend helped create 
    situations where young men were made into rapists (as defined by law).
    Now, in this case I would say she had a major input in setting up a bad
    situation, she should never and I mean never have allow this to go that
    far. I am teaching my sons and daughters not to get in that type of
    situation. Women have to stop playing hormonal games with men, it can be
    very dangerous for both people. Both people's lives can and are altered
    in a negative way. Remember "responsibility for one's own actions".


    			HAND
    			Wayne
    			

    No, Wayne, I said what I meant.  Young male children need to know that
    they can say no and they can expect to hear no.  Young female children
    need to know exactly the same things.  I meant exactly what I said.
    
    DougO

    re .37

    		Clarification understood.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

>    If during intercourse a women suddenly has a change of mind and decides
>    that she no longer wants sex. Is the "act" now considered rape? 
    
    If during intercourse, a woman suddenly has a change of age and becomes
    under 16 years old, is the "act" considered rape?
    
    Ray

    How about the one who was pregnant, then wasn't, then was,
    then...... Wow! talking confusion. Never mind stop/don't don't/stop! :)

There are women who say 'no' and mean 'no'.
There are women who say 'no' and mean 'maybe'.
There are women who say 'no' and mean 'yes'.

The best way to handle it is to assume that any 'no' - no matter when it is
delivered - means 'no'.  Everyone has the right to change their mind even if
the timing is way off.  You also have the right to never have any contact
with this person again.  I would guess that every adult male has
experienced the scenario where a woman gave them verbal ok and then changed
her mind.  I would suggest if this is something that happens frequently
and this is unacceptable to you, you put lots of space between yourself and
her.

patrick

>    before the date?
    
    If we didn't make a date specifically for sex ("your bed, 8 PM sharp,
    I'll be the one wearing a gray Stetson"), I don't see why it should
    come up.
    
>    before she lets you in her place, and if she does do you assume that
>    sex will take place?
    
    Apartments are nice for quiet talks, for cheap food or drink, for
    checking out record collections, for watching TV, for all kinds of
    non-sexual things.  So, no.
    
>    before you spend over $20.00?
    
    I certainly hope that not everyone who spends $20 with me expects sex!
    When I consider the amount of money DEC spent on my relocation, well, I
    wouldn't have a night to myself for WEEKS....
    
    Ray
    
    P.S. -- Hoyt, I said it before and I'll say it again.  We sure meet
    different types of women...  (: >,)

 .37> No, Wayne, I said what I meant.  Young male children need to know that
 .37> they can say no and they can expect to hear no.  Young female children
 .37> need to know exactly the same things.  I meant exactly what I said.
    
    I hear ya, Doug... but I think there's one other crucial ingredient.
    I think that we need to teach young FEMALE children that they can say
    "yes".
    
    Think about it:  Our society spends enormous amounts of energy teaching 
    girls and women a dozen different ways to say "no", but we don't teach 
    them any way to say "yes" EVEN IF THEY WANT SEX!!
    
    I'm sure many of the frustration stories posted in this thread are
    caused by the fact that the women involved were horribly confused about
    what they wanted.  Part of them really, really wanted to have sex,
    while other parts of them remembered that they're not SUPPOSED to want
    sex and that they're supposed to say "no".  Is it any wonder they're
    confused?  Remember:  women have hormones too... it's just that they've
    been saddled with a lot of social baggage to go along with those
    hormones.
    
    I think what we need to do is to teach people to OWN their own
    sexuality.  This means that PEOPLE (men and women) should be free to
    say "YES" when they want it and "NO" when they don't.  Period.  Without
    a lot of outside pressure coming into play (here's a flipside question
    for the men:  how many of you had sex with someone even though you
    might not have wanted to because a man is "supposed" to always want it?
    I'm raising my hand!).
    
    --jim
    
    

    A person who does something totally contradictory to what s/he said
    earlier can be very confusing.
    
    But it's something that has to be accepted. If someone's wishes change
    - male or female - it is simply respectful to go along with that.
    Everyone has a right to change their mind, with or without a reason.
    
    	Alice T.

    Re. .30
    
    You mention your "understanding of the rape laws"...
    It would be very beneficial to all if someone actually wrote the text
    of the law (pertinent paragraphs) on rape in his/her state.
    I know, for instance, that in statutory rape the minimum age varies
    widely from state to state.

    <I know, for instance, that in statutory rape the minimum age varies
    <widely from state to state.
    
    I believe you probably mean the MAXIMUM age
    
    I think that in some states the maximum age is 14, in others the
    maximum age is 16, in some others the maximun age is 17, in some others
    the maximum age may be 18.

>    when should the woman state that she intends for no sex to take place?  

    	The default assumption should be that no sex will take place. Both
    people should indicate in clear unambiguous language when that
    changes.

    		Alfred

    .47 Alfred,
    
    	The problem would still be one persons word agianst anothers. And
    unless it is a documented rape, with pics of bruses, battering, riped
    clothing, etc. it a tuff kite to fly.

    The only solution seems to be to have sex only in front of witnesses
    or only in front of a camera.
    
    I hear that this is done in California alot. :)
    
    Kris

CONSENT, DISSENT, and UNRAPE

While the examples have been very interesting, I feel confused.

Question 1: CONSENT

My basic question is what constitutes consent?
Short of a written consent, what last act (of foreplay, ...) completes
the sufficiency test of consent by her/him ?

And, let me simplify the question further by letting it be the first
intimate encounter between the parties. That is, let us not deal with the
difficult case of rape between husband and wife or intimate old friends.
I   also   understand  (very  vividly)  that  a  consent  may  be  withdrawn
subsequently. 

I hope that we are all kidding when we say that we should require a written
consent or a taped one on audio or video.

Let us also assume that they had dicussed the possibilty before, there was
no objection in principle, and there has been no "STOP" uttered by either
one upto this point in the evening.

Question 2: NULLING A CONSENT

Having given consent, what conditions must be met to null it.

I don't think that "I just changed my mind" should be enough.

Question 3: UNSEX/UNRAPE

Regarding the dissonance that Doug describes in .35, can a case be built
of mental cruelty to Doug? I am alluding to a new class of cases of UNRAPE 
or UNSEX.

Cheers,
Neil

>Question 2: NULLING A CONSENT
>
>Having given consent, what conditions must be met to null it.
>
>I don't think that "I just changed my mind" should be enough.

    I'm not sure I understand this.  Are you saying that if your 
    partner says "stop" and you do, and you then ask why - and if
    your partner's reason isn't good enough(?) that you would then
    continue to have sex against your partner's will?

>Question 3: UNSEX/UNRAPE
>
>Regarding the dissonance that Doug describes in .35, can a case be built
>of mental cruelty to Doug? I am alluding to a new class of cases of UNRAPE 
>or UNSEX.

    Having been in a situation similar to Doug's, I'll freely admit
    the experience was extremely frustrating.  But "mental cruelty?"
    No, I wouldn't go so far as to describe it that way.  I would think
    you'd have to be subjected to the same kind of treatment (by a spouse
    perhaps?) over a period of time to be able to claim mental cruelty.

    If we are still following your scenario (first time between two people)
    it seems there are too many reasons we might be unaware of as to why the
    other person might just....change their mind to just assume that
    person is being intentionally cruel.  Depending on the relationship
    that already exists, I might want to pursue the reasons why my partner
    changed his mind, but slowly with no pressure - it might be something we
    can easily "fix" once the intensity of the situation is relaxed.  On the 
    other hand, I might decide to end the relationship if I felt I was
    being manipulated or used.

    No one has a "right" to have sex with another person.  And why anyone
    would want to have sex with a person who wasn't 100% willing (and
    enthusiastic!) about it is beyond me.  

    /Greg

re: .51

Greg,

Q2: Yes. I am postulating a point of no return. 
In our everyday living we enter into an implied contract which may have
conditions for canceling the contract. For example, when you order your
dinner in a restaurant, you enter into the implied contract of paying
for that item and other things as per the menu. You can not change your mind
half way thru your dinner.

Other examples: You buy a ticket and get on a Roller Coaster ride. Partway
thru you are sick to your stomach and distressed. Can you change your mind
and STOP the ride? Return the ship to shore for sea-sickness? Turnaround the
plane for airsickness?

Similar examples  can  be  given.  The  point  is that the person giving the
consent  knows  what  a normal intercourse is. If the person changes his/her
mind  then  there  has  to  be  a  reason  --  a violation of expectation, a
departure  from  nomalcy,  or  the  like.  In  the case of the restaurant, a
spoiled food.

Q3:

Some legal mind help us here. Greg contends that a single act does not
make a case for mental cruelty. May be not. The point is that Doug suffered
the shock of dissonance, extreme frustration, ... which should amount to 
some crime x. It is at least a disorderly conduct, may be more. Let the
society make it a punishable offense of UNRAPE or UNSEX or crome x.

I am postulating UNRAPE charge as the counterbalance to the questionable
RAPE charge Doug may have been accused of, had he proceeded with the 
implied consent.

Cheers,
Neil

yuck.

I experienced extreme dissonance, but the fact that her expectations and
mine were not the same does not imply that she committed a crime against 
me by telling me she wanted me to stop.  The idea is abhorrent.

DougO

    I reread the basenote to recapture what this string might be about. The
    expression "because you are men with hormones" got to me. Is this as
    opposed to "men without hormones?" Is it "because you are men with
    hormones, and those hormones control your behavior, reducing you to
    semi-animals"? It's not an appealing phrase, IMO.
    
    Be that as it may. I'm interested in raising another sort of mixed
    signal, which is related to the basenoter's issue but extends it. Two
    people meet and are trying to figure out whether they care to know each
    other. A book I'm reading states that a basic and crucial signal to
    send/receive is the "relationship framework" -- which the author
    defines as signifying something like the larger goal of the encounter.
    For some, the goal might be finding someone with whom to copulate that
    evening. For others, the goal might be to find a mate-for-life who
    will help create and parent children and eventually occupy a parallel
    burial plot. Obviously, if the two newly-met people have such disparite
    goals, then there is almost a guarantee that prolonged exposure will
    lead to the confusion, hurt and anger registered in this string.
    
    My question is "How do two strangers communicate their 'relationship
    frameworks'?" My disposition would be to bring it up in so many words,
    before making arrangements for a second encounter: "I'm interested in
    finding my mate-for-life..." (I'd leave out the burial plots part :). I
    know the _real_ world, however, prefers hinting. "Boy, I sure mistype a
    lot of s's, w's, and x's since I took my wedding ring off" or "Say,
    your name would be perfect for my daughter, as soon as I get one!"
    Perhaps even greater subtlety is called for.
    
    Any advice? - Hoyt

    	Before I had sex with anyone we had already agreed how many
    children we would have. Don't people talk any more?
    
    (actually, the agreement was for five, but we have ended up with only
    three for medical reasons).

    re.55
    
    I brought up women's responsibility toward men when in a dating or
    getting together situation.  And by stating "because you are men with
    hormones" I meant that women need or should recognize that and take
    some kind of responsibility or appreciation for that.  Perhaps my
    thoughts aren't going to come out exactly right but this type of thing
    has bothered me.
    
    I had gone for an annual health check, and the nurse counciled me on
    the dating scene.  You get the lecture whether you want it or not. 
    Anyway, she actually told me that as a woman, you had to take extra or
    special precaution when with men, because they are different when the
    topic of sex comes up.  You can't deny that many men are paying
    customers for sex from women more than the other way round.  And that
    there are many profitable dance/strip joints and on and on.
    
    I'm not condemning this, only recognizing it and admitting that this is
    true and right out there!  I think many women have capitalized on it as
    well as demoralized from it.  Depends on the frame of mind.
    
    What bothers me, is when or how does one gracefully not give mixed
    signals?  Does just because I let a man in my home after 11pm for a cup of
     coffee entitle him into believing that I want sex with him.  I should think
    not, but from my own experiences and apparently from some of these sex
    trials, that is in fact the assumed intent.
    
    I guess I may have gone in a few different directions, but maybe you
    can understand what I mean anyway?
    
    cindy

    
    Re .57 cindy
    
    >What bothers me, is when or how does one gracefully not give mixed
    >signals?  Does just because I let a man in my home after 11pm for a cup of
    >coffee entitle him into believing that I want sex with him.  I should think
    >not, but from my own experiences and apparently from some of these sex
    >trials, that is in fact the assumed intent.
    
    I believe that this is one area where women as well as men have been
    harmed by the "sexual revolution".  There is not longer a clear
    (relatively) set of rules for social behavior.  By the "old standards"
    a woman wouldn't let a man into her home, especailly late at night,
    unless she was comfortable with him being there and, yes, probably
    intended to have sex with him, and this didn't happen until after
    a considerable "getting to know you" period.  You didn'e even kiss
    on the first date let alone have sex.  It was fairly understood that
    there would *not* be sex for the first few dates at least and a
    woman *usually* didn't string a man along until he was well into
    the chemistry of the situation to tell him no--and then no did mean
    no.
    
    I think that men as well aw women are finding out that a "getting
    to know you" period isn't such a bad idea.  Men, as well as women,
    are more and more vulernable to "mixed signals" and/or to the 
    consequences of having sex with someone they don't know very well.
    
    fred();

    re.58
    
    You make a good point.  When the rules have changed or there are no
    rules, it can get confusing.  I would imagine that new rules for these
    type of social engagements will ensue.
    
    cindy

    re .56, I can't even begin to understand how you could possibly know
    that you even wanted to have children with someone that you hadn't even
    had sex with yet, let alone decide on how many children!  I, for one,
    certainly wouldn't plan a life with someone until I found out whether
    I thought he was good in bed or not!
    
    This doesn't mean that I think people should make a practice of leaping
    bed with strangers, but I think your view is the opposite extreme. 
    Somewhere in the middle seems more sensible to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    >What bothers me, is when or how does one gracefully not give mixed
    >signals?  Does just because I let a man in my home after 11pm for a cup of
    >coffee entitle him into believing that I want sex with him.

 It's really not too difficult. Try the honest and up front approach.

 "I've really enjoyed this evening. I'd like to invite you up for a coffee,
but I don't want to give you the wrong idea. I am only interested in coffee.
Are you interested in coming in for a coffee?"

 Maybe it's a little rough, but after the third of fourth time you say it
you'll have made the minor adjustments necessary to make it flow and be "you."
It's the leaving things open for the possibility of sex coupled with the
innuendo and such that gets guys confused. I think if you are straightforward
about your feelings, it will take alot of pressure off the guy. Maybe he'll be
a little disappointed at first, but if he is a quality person that will
end in under a minute. And with the weight of "will she or won't she?" off
his mind, he may end up being alot more at ease and fun to be with. Guys have
to _constantly_ fight biological urges as well as deal with psychological
issues when on a date. Of course, men can indeed suppress these urges without
much trouble if they put their minds to it. What makes things difficult is 
when men allow themselves to fantasize about their date to the point where
a physical response develops. It's alot harder to suppress the instinct when
it has been allowed out of the bottle.

 The Doctah

    re: .60
    	Well, maybe I just do things the wrong way round. We had a joint
    bank account before we had sex, too. It seems to work out for us - we
    have been married for over 20 years now, and still enjoy each other's
    company (and sex).
    
    	From the discussion here I get the impression that sex is the only
    important thing in a sexual relationship. Being backwards way round I
    regard mutual trust as being the most important thing in a relationship
    - any relationship - even a sexual relationship, and it takes time,
    discussion of moral values, and many other things to really establish
    that sort of trust. Discussion of whether you want to breed should be
    part of that if the relationship seems to be developing in the
    direction of sexual.
    
    	We have a couple of friends who used to be married to each other
    but are now married to different people, and the reason for the split
    was that they discovered too late that one expected children from the
    marriage and the other didn't.

    re .62, I think that any couple who is still happily married after 20
    years is just plain lucky, regardless of what they did first or last. 
    Regardless of how careful one is about choosing a partner, 20 yrs. of
    happiness is rare.  
    
    I don't think sex is the *most* important aspect of a sexual
    relationship, but, on the other hand, if I were going to enter into a
    relationship that was going to include sex (as most marriages do), I'd
    want to make damn sure I was going to enjoy the sex before I agreed to
    the relationship.  I think it's pretty obvious most people today feel
    this way, since very few people today marry someone they've never had
    sex with before.
    
    I think people should definitely discuss the issue of whether to have
    children or not, before they get married.  But, I don't think it's
    important to discuss the first time a couple has sex, since I would
    assume that most first encounters are for the purpose of pleasure and
    not for procreation.
    
    I didn't mean to criticize your reply but, to be honest, it just struck
    me as though it was coming from the dark ages or something compared
    with today's typical values.
    
    Lorna
    

    	I suppose it is just a matter of priorities. I would share a bank
    account with someone before I would share a bed with them because I 
    know where I would be hurt most by a misplacement of trust. The fact
    that prostitution is such a successful industry shows that many men can
    enjoy sex with a fairly wide range of partners, so as a man I would
    assume that I would enjoy sex with almost any woman. Is it specifically
    a female attitude that they need to check their partner's sex
    performance before entering into a relationship that might include sex?
    
    	Dave (who is still in the dark ages and has none of today's typical
    values ;-)

    RE. -1
    Dave,
    
    Don't let Lorna get to you with her jabs about "dark ages". She does
    that sometimes when she encounters a view that does not appeal to her.
    Her last two notes on how she wants to make sure that the man is good
    in bed before she allows him to "pass that VERY FIRST FILTER" are
    pretty clear. Pretty crass too. If men selected women in that fashion
    we would all marry only experienced prostitutes or sl*ts.

    re Note 702.63
    <I think that any couple who is still happily married after 20
    <years is just plain lucky, regardless of what they did first or last. 
    <Regardless of how careful one is about choosing a partner, 20 yrs. of
    <happiness is rare.  
    
    I don't know whether to accept that as envy of my "good luck" in being
    married 24 years 
    			!!!TODAY!!!
    or as a dismissal of the good sense I used in proposing to my wife and
    the (good) sense she exercised in accepting my proposal.
    There has never been a time in our marriage when I regretted marrying
    my wife, there have been times that I wondered: "_whatever possessed
    her_"?
    The good luck was in meeting her at the right time in our lives.
    Everything else was other than luck.
    
    				herb

    I would expect a man, before having sex with a woman and vice versa, to
    discuss the possibility of their sexual encounters producing an infant. 
    Shouldn't the man ask the woman if she's using some kind of birth
    control or shouldn't the woman and the man, (if this is in fact, their
    first sexual experience together, for pure joy) insist on using a
    condom or condoms?
    
    If two persons love each other, I think they will discover how to
    please each other in bed.  And more than likely, after the effects of
    the first times together, this sex thing probably becomes a little less
    important.  And even if it doesn't, no person stays the same, we all
    change as do our relationships within the unit.
    
    I've forgotten what this topic is.
    
    cindy

    re .66, Herb, in any case, congratulations on being happily married for
    24 years.  I think it's quite an accomplishment in this day and age,
    and I am probably a little bit envious of anyone who has achieved that. 
    Just because I think it's ultimately a matter of luck doesn't mean that
    I discount efforts that individuals have made towards making their
    marriages happy ones.
    
    re .65, you seem to know me so well....it's really rather amazing,
    considering I don't know you at all!  (how did that happen?)  
    
    re .64, funny.  :-)
    
    What an interesting concept - that you would expect to enjoy sex with
    just about any woman!  Wow!  That never occured to me.  My experience
    in life would not lead me to assume that I would enjoy sex with just
    any man - my recollections range from the sublime to the ridiculous -
    so I guess that's why I'd be more interested in checking it out first.
    
    And, it would certainly take a lot more trust on my part to share a
    checking account, than a bed.  Maybe it's a case of priorities, but
    maybe you just have more money than I do!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I don't recall ever enjoying sex with my first wife, to whom I was
    married for two years.  The saga of the first time I had sex with her
    is hilarious but, unfortunately, much too personal and embarrassing for
    me to recount in public.  In fact, my current wife (of 21 years as of
    last Sunday) is the only person to whom I've ever told the story.
    
    And there was one other woman with whom having sex turned out to be a
    non-event.  All the other experiences I can remember have been
    enjoyable.  So I can say that for me, sex with a woman is definitely
    not always enjoyable.  It depends on the woman and, I guess, on the
    relationship.
    							- Vick

    The worst sex I ever had was still great.
    
    My parents are still very happy at 35 years and counting. I think a key
    to their happyness is the either one would do ANYTHING for the other
    and that they completely trust each other.
    
    -j

    This whole issue of consent and dissent is not a problem for
    people who don't play mind games.

    They way I figure it, if the partner doesn't indicate "no", and
    is awake and conscious, then it's ok to proceed.

Re: .71

Analogous situation.  Person A is standing in Person B's bedroom,
holding a .44 Magnum on Person B.

Person A:  Is it okay with you if I go ahead and rob you?

Person B:  (scared shitless, says nothing)

Is it okay with person B if Person A robs him or her?

I think not.

-dick

 Maybe having sex with you is like having a .44 magnum pointed at your head.

 This is not so for some of the rest of us.

If you have the law on your side, use it.

If you have moral righ ton your side, use it.

If you have neither, impugn your opponent's character.

Thanks, Doctah.  I'll remember the lesson.

-dick

 How can you claim that I impugned your character when you yourself provided
the (obviously questionable) analogy? If you are that uncomfortable having
your analogies applied to yourself, perhaps you might more carefully craft
them.

 You directly compared Mike Z having sex with someone with armed robbery. Having
the comparison made with you as the subject should not have evoked such an
acrimonious response, unless the analogy was invalid.

    re .71, I agree.  That's the way I always looked at it.
    
    Lorna
    

    re:.72, -dick

    So you think of me as a 44 magnum?  I'm flattered.  ;^)