I am not a patient man. I am nearly fifty. I tend to date women who are of a similar age. I do not take them to raise, I expect them to be raised, mature adults. I expect them to know their own mind, have their yes mean yes, their no mean no, and be willing to abide by it, for whatever consequence be it good or ill. Say what you mean - mean what you say.

Unless you are asserting this is an unreasonable expectation for the female of the species, I don’t find this out of line at all.

Lindsay: As I said to Daisy, I agree 100%.

And supposing a man tells a woman he does not want to get married. She tries to pressure him into matrimony via the usual methods (witholding sex, calling him dehumanizing names such as “commitmentphobe”)–is he being raped?”

No they are not, rape is the physical violation of someone’s body. A man can control the birth control by using a condom. If you physically hold someone down and force an object into their body and that person are not strong enough to physically resist you, what other options he or she have? The same with the marriage issue. If a man doesn’t want to get married and his girlfriend is pressuring him, he can leave the relationship. However, a victim of rape ends up a victim rape (instead of a victim of attempted rape) because she/he doesn’t have any control in the situation.

(I used “you” generally. I am not implying that you would rape someone.)

However, I would also recommend changes in the way both boys and girls are socialized with respect to dating and sex. I’d like both sexes to see sex as something mutual, for both parties’ pleasure and active participation, not as something the boy does to the girl. With that in mind, boys would be taught to be more mindful of girls’ responses, whether by reading cues (if they have that ability) or by asking them how they feel. Likewise, girls would be taught to be more vocal and forthcoming about what they’re feeling and what they want. Currently, our culture has a hostility to women’s bodies and women’s pleasure that makes it hard for girls to state plainly what they like in sex.

I will also point out that the current model for “dating” involves a lot of play-acting and dishonesty that makes it hard for people with Asperger’s to understand what is being asked of them in relationships. I would rather see dating become a process of negotiation, in which both parties state, clearly and baldly, exactly who they are and what they want, than a romantic pageant where they both try to fit into roles that they aren’t going to maintain as the relationship matures. (Also, those of us with Asperger’s don’t even know what the roles are! You’ve all been handed scripts, but we are ad-libbing. It would be nice if you all dropped the scripts and started ad-libbing too; maybe some beautiful original dramas would start being acted out).

So, in summary: Honesty and mutuality are good, and steps should be taken on both sides to foster them. Aspies will benefit, too, if those steps are taken.

I said that your argument was a strawman because unless I misinterpreted Hugo’s post, I read it to be addressing rape and how to avoid it. I read it to be addressing rapists or potential rapists (of the entitled kind) and women (calling them to be more clear in their “yes” if they do indeed want to have sex. He also is not calling for legal definition of rape to be changed and based on being able to read emotional clues. If we agree that people with Asperger’s don’t fit into the definitions of “rapist,” focusing on the repercussions that his definition of consent will have on them is intentionally drawing attention away from the main points, rape and consent.

In such cases, these are personal problems, where the person in question would better be served in therapy than attempting relationships. It is not a sound basis for public policy or law”

I agree that a person who doesn’t know how to say no would be better served in therapy than in relationships. However, the reality is that many are not in therapy, many who are don’t make any progress and a large marjority of THESE women are in this state because of having been dominated by men for so long.

I do not advocate that a woman who consentually has sex with a man and then regrets it later should be able to charge him with rape unless at some point she said stop and he didn’t stop. However, what Hugo is suggesting…that anything but an enthusiastic yes means no…would actually decrease the likelihood that a woman will consent to sex, regret it in the morning and charge the man with rape. So, what’s the probrem? Unless I read him wrong, he is not advocating policy based on this definition of rape. He is advocating personal behavior that would decrease the likelihood of miscommunication and regret after the fact.

“Buggar that. I’m a busy man with no time for coy games. And no patience for them. ”

Then why are you always here commenting?

And *NOBODY* in feminism ever tries to silence anyone who questions it…

I am not attempting to silence you. I was just pointing out that your priorities are reading and arguing here rather than communicating patiently with your partner.

But there are some universals I stick to: the radical equality of women and men; the principle that sentience and the capacity to feel pain and pleasure should determine worth rather than mere humanity; the notion that individual autonomy and self-discovery are fundamental goods and may require rejecting — for a time — communal values.

OK:

Equality: I ask only that you understand that some cultures have achieved a deeper, richer expression of that equality than our own, and that you therefore recognize that cultures exist that we should learn from, rather than attempt to teach. Pleas google Haudenosaunee and Clan Mother for an example.

Animals: I think you’ve already shown a tolerance for people and cultures with a different relationship to animals from your own.

Self-discovery: again, different cultures have different paths, many deeper, harder, and richer than our own. I support your resisting the notion of an unexamined life as necessary or perhaps even appropriate. I certainly don’t think people should accept the notion that their culture tells them they do not need, or should not pursue, what you call autonomy and self-discovery. I simply insist that more than one path exists.

…that is what I’m trying to do, which is offer this liberal/evangelical fusion in as compelling a way as I can, trusting that those whom I reach out to will take it, reformulate it, and bring it into their own communities in their own unique ways.

Hugo, if you really want to do this, then we don’t have any serious disagreement. I certainly have no objection to you offering your own solution, your own vision, with the understanding that they work for you, and that they may well work for many other people. I don’t object to your willingness to judge cultures when they do actual harm, either. I object only to your dictating the way you believe people should think and feel, without considering or honoring the reality of human and cultural diversity.

For example, when I challenged you on your post about “enthusiasm not consent”, I tried to reformulate your basic premise, that everyone has an obligation to put their relationship with others, and the rights of other people, ahead of their own pleasure, to fit the needs of people who don’t have the same ability to read other people’s emotions you do. You refuse to accept that reformulation. As I read your position, it comes down to a claim that everyone has to do the kind of “emotional work” you feel comfortable with, on your terms. I have proposed a reformulation. Daisy has proposed a reformulation. If you can’t agree with it, can you explain exactly why? And more generally, how does it work to hope that people reformulate your ideas when you don’t accept the reformulation?

While I have this thing cranked up, I’d like to ask a question here: if “no” means “no”, then if a man tells a woman that he does not want to have children, and she lies about using birth control–is he being raped?

And supposing a man tells a woman he does not want to get married. She tries to pressure him into matrimony via the usual methods (witholding sex, calling him dehumanizing names such as “commitmentphobe”)–is he being raped?

Over and over again, I have said that I acknowledge diversity on a great many issues. I am a Christian universalist, hoping that all will be saved regardless of whether or not they know Jesus as I know Him. But there are some universals I stick to: the radical equality of women and men; the principle that sentience and the capacity to feel pain and pleasure should determine worth rather than mere humanity; the notion that individual autonomy and self-discovery are fundamental goods and may require rejecting — for a time — communal values.

Those aren’t negotiable as principles, even though many folks I know and love don’t share them. But I will not stop advocating for them, even as I try (and need to try harder, I admit) to spin the message in a way that is culturally sensitive. Good evangelism, after all, is speaking the language of those whom you are trying to reach.