Men's Group

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)

46. No means no to the receiver

Mon May 27, 2013, 07:26 PM

May 2013

Not necessarily from the transmitter. That's what the Muehienhard and Hollabaugh study demonstrated. And despite your best efforts to impeach it, you have not. I'll go with a study conducted by two feminist PhD's over an anonymous internet poster everyday and twice on Sunday.

Just sayin'

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's talk about "Coercive Sex". [View all] Bonobo May 2013 OP

Yesterday I read on DU that preschool boys who knock down block towers are being trained to rape. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #1

It's silly, but the attempt to redefine "coercion" is worse. Bonobo May 2013 #2

If you look at the anecdote, it seems to be missing some info. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #3

Of course something is being left out. Bonobo May 2013 #4

People are complex, and allowed to change their minds. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #5

On EDIT: Read the last line: "He'd gotten her consent after all". Bonobo May 2013 #8

It also demands that we fully understand and teach what those things mean Major Nikon May 2013 #10

If they built the blocks to look like girls and fucked the structure first, maybe. Gore1FL May 2013 #6

What it was was taking an example of shitty parenting and trying to sketch some Warren DeMontague May 2013 #7

I'm not sure that building and knocking over block buildings qualifies as shitty parenting, either. Gore1FL May 2013 #11

No, it was that the parents excused it by saying "boys will be boys", supposedly. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #12

additional clarification: yes, the point of block towers is to build and knock them down. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #13

I appreciate the clarification Gore1FL May 2013 #14

The usual suspects make a big deal about it if the subject is breached Major Nikon May 2013 #9

alert results datasuspect May 2013 #15

I was on that jury too (#5) ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2013 #16

They will continue to engage in it because they know it succeeds occassionally Major Nikon May 2013 #18

Regarding your comment Major Nikon May 2013 #19

Apparently you're a "Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study" Warren DeMontague May 2013 #20

Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study Major Nikon May 2013 #21

Warren farrell fan with a flimsy flawed study Warren DeMontague May 2013 #32

Looks like the beginnings of a C&W hit Major Nikon May 2013 #33

Could be the spark that reignites Randy Travis' career! opiate69 May 2013 #35

What can I say, I'm a poet. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #36

Aw cute, look who agrees with you! redqueen May 2013 #22

Very telling how some believe in the validity of guilt-by-association fallacies Major Nikon May 2013 #24

He's me. SHHHH! DON'T TELL ANYONE! Warren DeMontague May 2013 #25

If you think about it, the only thing stopping you is a $15 domain registration Major Nikon May 2013 #26

the only thing stopping me from what? Wearing yellow shirts? Warren DeMontague May 2013 #27

Hey now! For some of us, the goatee is the best we can do! opiate69 May 2013 #28

Oh, it looks good on you, though! Warren DeMontague May 2013 #29

lmao! Well played, Judge Smails! opiate69 May 2013 #30

When I was growing up, my friends and I lived that movie. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #31

Heh.. my friends and I were more like Dante & Randall.. opiate69 May 2013 #34

Yeah, I was those guys too. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #37

lol opiate69 May 2013 #38

Yeah, I really got a kick out of it at the time. It hit exactly the right spot for where I was in my Warren DeMontague May 2013 #40

That study is from 1988. redqueen May 2013 #39

Farrell's book came out 5 years later Major Nikon May 2013 #44

"the no means no meme is bullshit" - followed by quoting a nearly *30* year old study... redqueen May 2013 #45

It means exactly what the study says it means Major Nikon May 2013 #50

You're still not answering the question. Why do you repeatedly quote a 25 year old study, alongside redqueen May 2013 #51

Let's be clear here Major Nikon May 2013 #63

Yes means yes. It does not mean "no" or even "maybe" lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #41

Are you seriously ignoring the subject being discussed (that "the no means no meme is bullshit")? redqueen May 2013 #42

No means no to the receiver Major Nikon May 2013 #46

Explain why you quote it along with your defense of Farrell being 'quoted out of context'. nt redqueen May 2013 #47

First try reading what was posted with and without context and see if you derive the same meaning Major Nikon May 2013 #48

You quoted him. At length. redqueen May 2013 #49

Based on what? Your opinion? Major Nikon May 2013 #54

Now who's quoting things out of context? redqueen May 2013 #55

Nowhere does that study say "no means no is bullshit" opiate69 May 2013 #59

Are you for fucking real? redqueen May 2013 #62

Are you?? opiate69 May 2013 #71

Even redqueen admitted "no means no" meme was bullshit Major Nikon May 2013 #79

Yep.. exhibit # 531,140,998 as to why I hate "bumper sticker ideology". opiate69 May 2013 #82

I posted the excerpt you are quoting from Major Nikon May 2013 #67

That is precisely the subject. nt Bonobo May 2013 #52

Another thread, in another forum... opiate69 May 2013 #53

ROFL, ... unfuckingreal. No, opiate69, THAT thread inspired THIS one. AS USUAL! redqueen May 2013 #57

Right.. because 3:50 pm today is before yesterday, which was when bonobo started this thread.. opiate69 May 2013 #61

Uggggggghhh... redqueen May 2013 #66

I'll settle this. Redqueen is correct. Bonobo May 2013 #68

No problem with that at all, and thanks for clearing it up. redqueen May 2013 #70

Right.. except... opiate69 May 2013 #72

Consent should be a bright line, clearly communicated and understood. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #43

That nuanced view leans toward yes meaning MAYBE and maybe meaning NO. redqueen May 2013 #56

Question: Bonobo May 2013 #58

Yeah, like when they're married to someone they don't love, but don't want to cheat, redqueen May 2013 #60

Please don't tell me what I WANT to hear. Bonobo May 2013 #65

Actually quite a few of those are saying yes Major Nikon May 2013 #76

There's an awful lot of straw, in that post. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #64

Last year my ass, he posted it today. redqueen May 2013 #69

No you have it backwards Bonobo May 2013 #73

I've said over and over that I don't give a flying philadelphia fuck about Warren Farrell. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #74

You were done some time back Major Nikon May 2013 #75

In no other realm would you expect me to substitute my judgement for hers. lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #80

And looks like somebody else is fond of posting 40+ year old videos. opiate69 Jun 2013 #92

"Have sex with me or I'll give you an F for the semester" is coercive. lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #17

by unpacking the xojane article galileoreloaded May 2013 #23

Bottom line for Radfems is: Bonobo May 2013 #77

Everything that gets posted here goes through the funhouse mirror. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #83

Associative logic tends to make one lose their grip on reality Major Nikon May 2013 #84

It must KILL them... Bonobo May 2013 #85

Im going to stick with my earlier statement. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #86

I heard puppies are kind of gamy tasting Gore1FL May 2013 #87

I only use farm raised puppies Major Nikon May 2013 #88

Here is how Smith college defines sexual assault and consent Bonobo May 2013 #78

Even their definition leaves a lot to be desired Major Nikon May 2013 #81

For me, it's simply being conscientious of what the other person wants or doesn't want. nomorenomore08 May 2013 #89

Yes, we do all know how we should act. Bonobo May 2013 #90

In general, I think I agree with you. And I think splitting hairs over someone's "real intentions" nomorenomore08 May 2013 #91

Try looking at the definition of the word 'coerce' LanternWaste Oct 2017 #93