Natasha Tori Maru

@Jirh appreciate your thoughts here. I think your approach is nuanced, intelligent and mature. This subject is so charged when I talk about it with my friends. It makes me think of PUA and LMR techniques. If LMR is seen as "token resistance" instead of genuine refusal, it could train some men to blow through women's boundaries. Not all PUA techniques are coercive, and not every instance of persistence is sexual coercion. This is another grey area of consent that really irritates my girlfriends. I can't even bring this up without it being labelled coercion. Even though they will also simultaneously admit they can be nervous or ambivalent - and enjoy being encouraged by a partner. I think many times these grey areas can ( and should) be navigated together. Instead I see parties often walking away with two different interpretations of desire and consent. It usually comes back to mature communication. Dual responsibility to communicate. And here safety has a massive impact. Because some women freeze when the amygdala is activated. Pure survival reflex. I think we really want a model of sexual ethics that protects people from coercion without stripping human intimacy of its nuance. Sound easy... But in practice....

I feel sorry for Dr Roman Yampolskiy. But then again, he signed up for this. Maybe this should be in the humour / off-topic section

@aurum well said. That hatred phase is an expression of feeling betrayed as expressed by my girlfriends. I don't entertain it. Because I don't share it, and I feel as if it fuels the fire. I agree that the ultimate objective is neither submission nor opposition. Healthy endgame to me looks like autonomy with the capacity for genuine connection.

This is really damning if accurate....

Many guys don't know this is how many women are taught by many older generation mothers (boomers, silent generation, X). It is often just accepted as the way it is. Hard to see unless you are raised in it, and then break out of it. I suppose being raised mainly by my Grandad (who was quite a maverick), I didn't get taught to focus on men as a centre part of my life. It took me a long time to understand what other women went through. And even then, I don't fully grasp it.

This is, I would argue, quite common.

Coupled with this, many people will claim it's a total mood killer to be so explicit regarding consent. But then simultaneously argue consent needs to be given. Enthusiastically to boot. I am confused as a woman. Now imagine most men in this scenario. Take into consideration men can have lower EQ and deal with the biological drive for sex overriding rationality...

Hahaha!!!

Consent is so muddy and tricky. I feel it is underdetermined as a "complete" theory of sexual ethics. It is so often presented as a relatively clear binary threshold (most frequently by women).... but human interactions through which consent is communicated/interpreted/understood are often anything BUT binary.

Financial incentive exists. Therefore, allegations may be fabricated. Therefore, the allegations deserve little credibility - this is a non sequitur

@enchanted many didn't choose. They were conscripted.

The series was harrowing. I enjoyed season 1 - but I disliked how they made Jane a "Mary Sue" type character in the later seasons. The concept was great for the first season. I haven't read the novel, but it is on my list. Many people I know couldn't watch the series due to how confrontation it was - EG rape, autonomy removal etc.

What did you think? I'm going to take a look this weekend.

Has anyone seen Russell Brand: In Plain Sight (2023)? It was a channel 4 investigation which examined allegations of rape and sexual assault by multiple women. Includes testimony from people who worked with Brand and investigated his behaviour. This was from 3 years back. He didn't sue for libel over this investigation from what I can find.

This is crazy! I have found that when you ask people about Gay/Lesbian LGBQ acceptance they are all for it and really open. Reasonable. Act like it is nothing shocking - IF - they haven't formed up an idea or concept of who you are as a person. If they have formed an opinion/concept of you already, and have some established history in their mind, it is often filled with assumptions. When you counter the pre-conceived idea or projection of who you are in someone's mind... it temporarily leaves them in a state of confusion as their concept of your truth doesn't marry up with the reality. They literally trip over the gap between idea of you, and who you really are! They go into shock. As long as they are able to reconcile the two; reality/concept - they seem to get over it. When they cannot, it can really reveal an unconscious prejudice! ____ To answer OP: morality is an illusion/construct. Social domain is a construct (not real). Good and bad are relative and not objective. The self is an illusion. Free will is largely an illusion... These four didn't go down so well at a family dinner a couple of months back. The free will one had my brother bashing his hands on the table I am banned from philosophy conversations. That side of the family are Christians - so this was probably... extra