Jump to content
Scylla Rhiadra

"That is not what I meant, at all": How to Connect Respectfully

Recommended Posts

So, bringing up something that has been hit in passing a couple of times, and hopefully get a bit back on respectful behaviors, something that I never understand is initiating interaction with someone without reading that person's profile. In my case, the very first word in my profile is 'Lesbian.' That is as far as a guy would need to get to know I am not interested. Fortunately I am not often at places with men, but if I go to such places I not infrequently get hit on. Then, if I tell them I am gay, and not interested, they get mad at *me.* Of course, perhaps some men do read my profile, and I get that kind of IM less because of that, but still. Other than a polite, "Hi, how are you?' when I need to ask someone something (and usually even then), if I am going to talk to someone, I read their profile first to try to get a sense of their personality. I feel this falls in line with no assuming whatever about people, and instead spending at least a few minutes to get to know them a little and see where they are coming from.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Is Clothing Probative of Attitude or Intent - Implications for Rape and Sexual Harassment Cases

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1412&context=lawineq

Selene, thanks for this. It's entirely relevant to the discussion here (although the issues we're discussing go, of course, well beyond the legal ones that are the focus of this piece). In some ways, the basic gist of this thread are summed up in this early paragraph (emphasis added)

Quote

The belief that clothing can indicate consent to sexual assault or can invite sexual harassment stems from the empirically proven fact that people infer intent and attitude of others based on their clothes. Because those inferences are often inaccurate, clothing is not probative or relevant evidence of the intent or attitude of the wearer. In addition, the widespread misinterpretation of clothing strongly suggests that introducing it to show intent or attitude will likely be prejudicial.

Because this is a legal study, it doesn't much touch upon what we've all been saying here about "respect," which is a social rather than legal mechanism, but otherwise this is really interesting and useful. Particularly useful is the material relating to the study of how clothing is perceived.

So, thanks!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caerolle Llewellyn said:

So, bringing up something that has been hit in passing a couple of times, and hopefully get a bit back on respectful behaviors, something that I never understand is initiating interaction with someone without reading that person's profile. In my case, the very first word in my profile is 'Lesbian.' That is as far as a guy would need to get to know I am not interested. Fortunately I am not often at places with men, but if I go to such places I not infrequently get hit on. Then, if I tell them I am gay, and not interested, they get mad at *me.* Of course, perhaps some men do read my profile, and I get that kind of IM less because of that, but still. Other than a polite, "Hi, how are you?' when I need to ask someone something (and usually even then), if I am going to talk to someone, I read their profile first to try to get a sense of their personality. I feel this falls in line with no assuming whatever about people, and instead spending at least a few minutes to get to know them a little and see where they are coming from.

Yeah, we've talked a bit about profiles, but only really touched on that subject: they are an important piece in the larger picture of how we "read" each other. As I've noted before, though, I'm always surprised at how some people seem to read from my profile what they want to see, and ignore the bits -- such as the fact that I'm not available for romance or sex -- that they don't want to see. That, or they are actually attracted by the "challenge" that they think I will pose.

The issue of how lesbianism is perceived culturally is, of course, a separate and important issue. I guess one of the problems is that the only exposure that many men have to lesbian sexuality is through porn, and in that case, the so-called "lesbians" are usually actually bi, and just waiting to be finished off by a man -- or, more horrifically, they just don't realize that they are "actually" straight, but need a man to "convert" or "prove" it to them.

The impact of porn on modern sexuality is a BIG subject.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some one ask what are you wearing? Bye Felicia have nice day your pickle is hanging out. 

Your avatar is hot wanna bump? Well you can go bump a bear have nice day. 

 

 

You own yourself know one owns you and you can say yes or no know one can force anything unless you allow this power take your power back. Know matter where you go some may bam thank you mam you don't have to answer them back but yes if they keep up the mute button is their.  They don't come with love you don't need to let them through your door I mean respect feelings of people.   You can’t force a connection.We meet the right people at the right time under the right circumstances through natural vibrations.  This a getaway in bliss ya bumping pixel maybe great for some but great connection is rare with out bumping. 

Edited by Vanoralynna
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nextio said:

You also have to consider location.  If you're hanging out at an adult sex place, then you really shouldn't be offended by people trying to look for sex.  If you're at a club or shopping area, then yes, it's very rude to try and look for some action on the spot.  There's a proper place and time for that and a shopping area isn't one of them.

Well, we've spoken about context (and, by implication, location) and, yes, it's part of the mix in terms of how we interpret people.

The point is, though, that no one here is "offended" by people looking for sex. What we are offended by is people who simply assume, on the basis of where we are, what we are wearing, or even what is in our profile, that we are automatically available to them. Regardless of all of those things (and really, the only two exceptions I can think of are AFK sims, and in-character role play), it is a reasonable expectation that you begin by establishing, respectfully, whether or not we are "available" and/or interested.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Probably the only "term of engagement" that should always apply is "respect," which of course also implies "consent."

I would use the term "courtesy", but we are probably referring to the same thing. "Respect" has a couple of distinct meanings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Selene, thanks for this. It's entirely relevant to the discussion here (although the issues we're discussing go, of course, well beyond the legal ones that are the focus of this piece). In some ways, the basic gist of this thread are summed up in this early paragraph (emphasis added)

Because this is a legal study, it doesn't much touch upon what we've all been saying here about "respect," which is a social rather than legal mechanism, but otherwise this is really interesting and useful. Particularly useful is the material relating to the study of how clothing is perceived.

So, thanks!

This should stand out in more than just a court room.

Quote

the widespread misinterpretation of clothing strongly suggests that introducing it to show intent or attitude will likely be prejudicial.

It's going to take a hell of a lot more than respect to change attitudes about clothing. It's going to take people not saying things like they wore something to intentionally attract the kind of attention they don't really want or actually doing that. When every human out there stops using their clothing to attract what ends up being undesirable attention (more often than not), then the victims might stand a chance of never being a victim in the first place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vanoralynna said:

You own yourself.

Nope, we don't own ourselves, "we are". Having and being are 2 different concepts. One is materialistic and the other is spiritual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JJack Montreal said:

Nope, we don't own ourselves, "we are". Having and being are 2 different concepts. One is materialistic and the other is spiritual.

Jack, this is very impressive sounding, but I have to admit that I have not the foggiest idea of what point you're trying to make. Can you elaborate?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Jack, this is very impressive sounding, but I have to admit that I have not the foggiest idea of what point you're trying to make. Can you elaborate?

Answering to Vanoralynna, 4 reply above. Was screening the page then saw the statement about "You own yourself, no one own you". So just mentioning "We not owning ourselves, we are". Just doing 12 cents philosophy cuz i am bored.

Edited by JJack Montreal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JJack Montreal said:

Answering to Vanoralynna, 4 reply above. Was screening the page then saw the statement about "You own yourself, no one own you". So just mentioning "We not owning ourselves, we are". Just doing 12 cents philosophy cuz i am bored.

Ok . . . but why are those two concepts mutually exclusive? It is indisputable, I suppose (unless you want to start tying yourself into ontological knots), that we "are." Why can we or do we not "own" ourselves?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ok . . . but why are those two concepts mutually exclusive? It is indisputable, I suppose (unless you want to start tying yourself into ontological knots), that we "are." Why can we or do we not "own" ourselves?

That why its 12 cents philosophy... ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ok . . . but why are those two concepts mutually exclusive? It is indisputable, I suppose (unless you want to start tying yourself into ontological knots), that we "are." Why can we or do we not "own" ourselves?

we can certainly pwn ourselves

(9 cent humour - I got discount)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JJack Montreal said:

Nope, we don't own ourselves, "we are". Having and being are 2 different concepts. One is materialistic and the other is spiritual.

You're assuming that everybody believes in any sort of spiritual anything. 

Also, as long as there are human beings on this planet that believe they have the right to own another human being, then, yes, it is important to rather emphatically state that we own ourselves and cannot be bought and sold. We own ourselves. Period. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JJack Montreal said:

Nope, we don't own ourselves, "we are". Having and being are 2 different concepts. One is materialistic and the other is spiritual.

is probably worth a bit more than 12 cents this :)

you have referenced Plato' s Dualism - that there is the realm of the body, and the realm of the mind (or soul/spirit depending on contextual viewpoint). That the body is material and like all things material it can be owned (by ourselves and by others) and when its dead then its dead forever.  That the mind/soul/spirit is contextually eternal.  Eternal because from the mind comes thoughts/ideas which live on after the body has perished, ideas/thoughts that can be credited to a person long after they have gone, knowing also that those thoughts/ideas can never, in a material sense, be owned by the progenitor in the eternal realm

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That's what, about L$30?

I'm glad I tried the demo first.

Thats the premium exclusive VIP content.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we own  our choices. And we own the consequences  of  the  choices we make .Free will.   It is up to each of us to go deep inside ones soul and find out why we do say respond react to what ever is in our world on this journey.  IF one makes a choice based  on a modeling behavior /learned behavior /   one need to look inward to see if that the  true choice if we had not been exposed to that behavior and told this was the proper thing to do ,,, would one chose that behavior or something completely different  behavior once one has clear sight of other choices .   I have found the greatest behavior is to do all with compassion empathy and love

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yeah, we've talked a bit about profiles, but only really touched on that subject: they are an important piece in the larger picture of how we "read" each other. As I've noted before, though, I'm always surprised at how some people seem to read from my profile what they want to see, and ignore the bits -- such as the fact that I'm not available for romance or sex -- that they don't want to see. That, or they are actually attracted by the "challenge" that they think I will pose.

The issue of how lesbianism is perceived culturally is, of course, a separate and important issue. I guess one of the problems is that the only exposure that many men have to lesbian sexuality is through porn, and in that case, the so-called "lesbians" are usually actually bi, and just waiting to be finished off by a man -- or, more horrifically, they just don't realize that they are "actually" straight, but need a man to "convert" or "prove" it to them.

The impact of porn on modern sexuality is a BIG subject.

Yes, now I recall you mentioning that people twist your profile into the opposite of what you intended. I wonder if some of that is really disingenuous though: they know what you meant, but twist specific things against you, prosecutor style. I agree that the 'challenge' aspect, the gamesmanship of 'scoring' might be part of it, too, though.

I didn't even think of the porn angle, lol. I am sure you know the saying that when men see two women together their reaction is either 'ewwwww' or 'can I join?"~

I have always thought that most of the women in mainstream lesbian porn were probably str8, really. They are just acting, and the script is written by str8 men for str8 men. There are a few actual lesbian porn sites written by women for women, with gay actors/participants, with a far wider range of gender expression. But sorry, I wander OT as I am wont to do, lol. :$

In the end, I do agree that porn can have a big impact on how people approach each each other, along with other cultural factors and gender expectations, as people have been discussing. I just don't really think of it that much, not really being into porn very much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Caerolle Llewellyn said:

In the end, I do agree that porn can have a big impact on how people approach each each other, along with other cultural factors and gender expectations, as people have been discussing. I just don't really think of it that much, not really being into porn very much.

Horny teenage boys are dumb. We know this. With the internet, porn is everywhere and because the industry isn't making near the money it was in the 80s and 90s because it's all stolen and reposted and free, studios don't have any incentive to make porn with any production value (or realism) so it is, for the most part, terrible. Especially the free crap teenage boys watch. 

My coming-of-age was in the 80s, and porn wasn't so easy to get hold of... except that I had six older brothers who were absolutely terrible at hiding their stash. It was mostly magazines, and a few VHS tapes that belonged to my gay brother. The stuff in the magazines, which still objectified women, was far more erotic than the average tube clip teenage boys are watching today. They at least somewhat depicted a woman's pleasure. And the gay porn? Some of that was downright romantic. 

Was my image twisted by viewing these things so young? Possibly. The truth is that until I actually had sex, I really didn't know what I was supposed to expect even though I'd seen it a lot. There are other things that colored my view of sexual relations, too, at the time. Like most other girls and women, I was sexually assaulted on a date. I also had a very creepy boss at my first job that, with the benefit of age and hindsight, sexually harassed me on a daily basis. I was a painfully shy teenager and let things happen that I shouldn't have because I wanted to be liked. 

I also had a kick-ass first wave feminist mom who raised me and her boys to respect everyone equally. From her, and my amazing dad who supported my mother is doing some really controversial things in a small southern town in the 60s and 70s related to race relations and openly and proudly supporting her gay son (Dad had a little harder time but by the time I was born, he was just as supportive). She simply wasn't going to allow us to go out into the world without a healthy dose of self-respect and respect for others.

I think my point here is how much of the way boys reaching adulthood, and men, treat women can be blamed on watching really awful, unrealistic porn and how much can we blame parents who don't model healthy behavior and attitudes and teach their children to respect others and not accept anything less in their own treatment?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know everyone's excited to get one of my famous creative thread locks, but, if we can't keep the personal insults out, avoid Adult tangents, and steer the discussion on-topic, I'm going to have to lock the thread with something so uncharacteristically boring, everyone will be sad.

Don't make everyone sad, y'all.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...