Male violence and harassment of women

[Stephanie]

The next rite of passage is the routine "phone me when you get home" sign off you say to your friends when you've been out of an evening.

CF

Which is something people never say to men.

Also, something young men never hear: parent to daughter: you're not going out dressed like that.

(The solution to that is to wear a long coat over the skimpy party clothes)

The 2nd statement isn't true. It just depends on how the young man in question dresses & his parents.

And, in all fairness to parents, young blokes would rarely go out dressed in clothes which practically showed their schlong, unlike lasses who will often try and go out wearing something that barely covers their arse.

Oh god don't start all that ffs

[Cardinal Fang]

And, in all fairness to parents, young blokes would rarely go out dressed in clothes which practically showed their schlong, unlike lasses who will often try and go out wearing something that barely covers their arse.

It should be entirely irrelevant what someone is wearing when it comes to their safety. The fact that there are still comments about how people think it not acceptable for girls to wear certain thing shows that's not the case though

CF

[tom p]

And, in all fairness to parents, young blokes would rarely go out dressed in clothes which practically showed their schlong, unlike lasses who will often try and go out wearing something that barely covers their arse.

It should be entirely irrelevant what someone is wearing when it comes to their safety. The fact that there are still comments about how people think it not acceptable for girls to wear certain thing shows that's not the case though

CF

It should indeed, but Tessa felt it was relevant to bring it up in this thread, not me.

[Stephanie]

And, in all fairness to parents, young blokes would rarely go out dressed in clothes which practically showed their schlong, unlike lasses who will often try and go out wearing something that barely covers their arse.

It should be entirely irrelevant what someone is wearing when it comes to their safety. The fact that there are still comments about how people think it not acceptable for girls to wear certain thing shows that's not the case though

CF

It should indeed, but Tessa felt it was relevant to bring it up in this thread, not me.

The thread is about male violence and harassment of women.

While young boys may get comments from parents about clothing, these are unlikely to be related to covering up for their own safety*.

Tessa's comment is relevant because some fathers, either upon noticing their daughters growing up, or observing men looking at their daughter, seek to deal with the problem by telling their daughter to cover up.

*this may be different for LGBTQ+ teens, where safety may be a factor in parents response to outfits

[tom p]

It should be entirely irrelevant what someone is wearing when it comes to their safety. The fact that there are still comments about how people think it not acceptable for girls to wear certain thing shows that's not the case though

CF

It should indeed, but Tessa felt it was relevant to bring it up in this thread, not me.

The thread is about male violence and harassment of women.

While young boys may get comments from parents about clothing, these are unlikely to be related to covering up for their own safety*.

Tessa's comment is relevant because some fathers, either upon noticing their daughters growing up, or observing men looking at their daughter, seek to deal with the problem by telling their daughter to cover up.

*this may be different for LGBTQ+ teens, where safety may be a factor in parents response to outfits

Oh god don't start all that ffs

[basementer]

They wrote it in reply to you, Tom, and that's the second time you've ignored it. Shut up.

[Stephanie]

It should indeed, but Tessa felt it was relevant to bring it up in this thread, not me.

The thread is about male violence and harassment of women.

While young boys may get comments from parents about clothing, these are unlikely to be related to covering up for their own safety*.

Tessa's comment is relevant because some fathers, either upon noticing their daughters growing up, or observing men looking at their daughter, seek to deal with the problem by telling their daughter to cover up.

*this may be different for LGBTQ+ teens, where safety may be a factor in parents response to outfits

Oh god don't start all that ffs

I will point you back to something Grumble wrote (26 March 2021), which no one challenged. It is not far off what me and Tessa have said (except the outcome we mentioned was far, far milder).

I know that when my eldest daughter was born I looked at the girls going out on a Saturday night dressed to the nines in a different way, imagining that she would one day be one of them. In some cultures, here in the U.K. mainly in the past but very much present day elsewhere, this leads to fathers being very protective. It’s not a new phenomenon, and leads to all sorts of abuse up to and including murder. There is a (historically) new aspect in that instead of triggering over-protectiveness it now seems to trigger empathy and a desire to change things for the better.

[Bird on a Fire]

Tom, a reminder of Rule 12, in particular:

a. If you’re not of the section of society being discussed, don’t make it about you in the thread.
b. Don’t redirect the topic onto other sections of society.
c. If there are serious things to discuss which are related but off-topic, or about other sections of society, please start a new thread. Don't derail.

And - pre-empting your usual behaviour - there's also:

h. If you are pulled up for falling foul of this rule, do not waste discussion time grumbling about it or arguing the toss. Posts of this nature will be either moved to The Pit or Quarantine. The decisions taken by moderators in response to this rule are final.

[tom p]

Tom, a reminder of Rule 12, in particular:

a. If you’re not of the section of society being discussed, don’t make it about you in the thread.
b. Don’t redirect the topic onto other sections of society.
c. If there are serious things to discuss which are related but off-topic, or about other sections of society, please start a new thread. Don't derail.

And - pre-empting your usual behaviour - there's also:

h. If you are pulled up for falling foul of this rule, do not waste discussion time grumbling about it or arguing the toss. Posts of this nature will be either moved to The Pit or Quarantine. The decisions taken by moderators in response to this rule are final.

Didn't do any of those things, mate. Just challenged Tessa's obviously false assertion that boys are never told what to wear. Just because she has a fanny, and this thread is about male violence & harassment of women, that doesn't mean that she's correct. She would be just as incorrect making that statement in any thread, and you know it.
And Steph is just making up stuff that Tessa didn't say. Steph may think that she implied it, but she didn't say it. Or are we now to respond to imagined subtexts? I can make up some b.llsh.t that Tessa didn't say and respond to that if you want.
Furthermore, even though Grumble thinks one way, doesn't mean that all parents telling their daughters not to go out dressed up in certain clothes is all about dads being overprotective of their daughters because of the violence & harassment that does exist. There are plenty of parents who would tell their daughter not to go out dressed like *that* because the mum doesn't want the neighbours to think that their daughter is a common tart, to use the sort of language that my generation's parents would have freely used.
In short, the posts starting with Tessa's one have been trivial and pointless and frankly should be moved from this thread about serious issues because they are trivialising this serious thing & are obviously wrong.

[Tessa K]

I never said boys aren't told what to wear. There's a particular tone of voice that dads - and mums - use to daughters going out in skimpy clothes and it's that I was referring to.

When boys are told what to wear/not wear it's for different reasons, rarely because the clothes sexualise them and send the wrong signals to predatory men. Some boys may get beaten up for what they're wearing if they're not perceived as 'masculine' enough but that's a different mindset, nothing to do with signalling availability.

The rite of passage is for parents having to accept their daughters' sexuality and the consequences of that. It's also a rite of passage for girls as they begin a new stage in their lives as visibly sexual humans and have to navigate that, both the power it gives and the vulnerability.

[Stephanie]

Tom, a reminder of Rule 12, in particular:

a. If you’re not of the section of society being discussed, don’t make it about you in the thread.
b. Don’t redirect the topic onto other sections of society.
c. If there are serious things to discuss which are related but off-topic, or about other sections of society, please start a new thread. Don't derail.

And - pre-empting your usual behaviour - there's also:

h. If you are pulled up for falling foul of this rule, do not waste discussion time grumbling about it or arguing the toss. Posts of this nature will be either moved to The Pit or Quarantine. The decisions taken by moderators in response to this rule are final.

Didn't do any of those things, mate. Just challenged Tessa's obviously false assertion that boys are never told what to wear. Just because she has a fanny, and this thread is about male violence & harassment of women, that doesn't mean that she's correct. She would be just as incorrect making that statement in any thread, and you know it.
And Steph is just making up stuff that Tessa didn't say. Steph may think that she implied it, but she didn't say it. Or are we now to respond to imagined subtexts? I can make up some b.llsh.t that Tessa didn't say and respond to that if you want.
Furthermore, even though Grumble thinks one way, doesn't mean that all parents telling their daughters not to go out dressed up in certain clothes is all about dads being overprotective of their daughters because of the violence & harassment that does exist. There are plenty of parents who would tell their daughter not to go out dressed like *that* because the mum doesn't want the neighbours to think that their daughter is a common tart, to use the sort of language that my generation's parents would have freely used.
In short, the posts starting with Tessa's one have been trivial and pointless and frankly should be moved from this thread about serious issues because they are trivialising this serious thing & are obviously wrong.

It's not trivial. You don't seem to be understanding, so I'll patiently try again. Girls suddenly being perceived in a sexual way is linked to comments about them looking like "tarts" or over protectiveness, and that view around their sexuality or perceived availability can then lead to other more serious incidents. Hence why Grumble wrote what he did.

I shared it to demonstrate that no one had an issue with that topic of conversation when it was originally posted, so there should be no issue with it being discussed now.

Please try to remember that women posting on this thread are at times drawing from lived experience.

[jimbob]

Yup.

I know that I don't observe it very often because it is often targeted at lone women or girls.

I do know that women worry about that. And from experience. I also remember, first at university, and then other occasions, where another student told me that she'd not walk down a route where I felt so safe, it hadn't even registered as a possible threat.

[basementer]

Tom, please shut up and listen to yourself.

[Tessa K]

You're never too old to be violent

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62754384

[Tessa K]

Sexual choking aka strangulation of women by men without consent is becoming more prevalent.

Even with full consent, few people realise how dangerous it is.

https://tinyurl.com/4ep859f9

[Grumble]

Sexual choking aka strangulation of women by men without consent is becoming more prevalent.

Even with full consent, few people realise how dangerous it is.

https://tinyurl.com/4ep859f9

What’s the point of that? I thought choking was meant to heighten the pleasure of the chokee, but without consent that would at the very least be alarming.

[Tessa K]

Sexual choking aka strangulation of women by men without consent is becoming more prevalent.

Even with full consent, few people realise how dangerous it is.

https://tinyurl.com/4ep859f9

What’s the point of that? I thought choking was meant to heighten the pleasure of the chokee, but without consent that would at the very least be alarming.

There's an assumption, mostly based on p.rn, that women want it.

[Grumble]

Sexual choking aka strangulation of women by men without consent is becoming more prevalent.

Even with full consent, few people realise how dangerous it is.

https://tinyurl.com/4ep859f9

What’s the point of that? I thought choking was meant to heighten the pleasure of the chokee, but without consent that would at the very least be alarming.

There's an assumption, mostly based on p.rn, that women want it.

I’m obviously not watching the right p.rn.

[shpalman]

There's no link or citation for "Sexual choking has become increasingly prevalent in mixed-sex p.rnography" in the story either, even though there are studies linked which say that more people are doing it or having it done to them.

[noggins]

I think the article is mistaken trying to couple righteous condemnation of a dangerous practice,- horrifying when nonconsensual - with an odd view of consent and desire.

[The problem here is not only that women are being choked during sex without giving consent, but that a lot of the time they are “consenting” not because they derive their own sexual pleasure from it, but because they think it turns the guy on.

Separating true consent from the desire to give your male partner sexual satisfaction is difficult

I think one should have a crack at what one’s partner likes, with reciprocality. But not, of course, if its something that can kill you.

[EACLucifer]

I think the article is mistaken trying to couple righteous condemnation of a dangerous practice,- horrifying when nonconsensual - with an odd view of consent and desire.

[The problem here is not only that women are being choked during sex without giving consent, but that a lot of the time they are “consenting” not because they derive their own sexual pleasure from it, but because they think it turns the guy on.

Separating true consent from the desire to give your male partner sexual satisfaction is difficult

I think one should have a crack at what one’s partner likes, with reciprocality. But not, of course, if its something that can kill you.

It's something I've been asked to do before. I've always said no. There just isn't a way to do it safely. There are a couple of things one can do safely to create a similar effect, depending on what the exact effect desired is. Spoilered in case some people find them TMI.

Spoiler:

If the desired effect is having someone else in charge of one's ability to breathe, then it it's reasonably safe to cover the mouth and nose for a few seconds - the top in this situation should know how many the maximum number is going to be and to count to that and no more before letting go.

If the desired effect is the sense of being controlled and commanded by being held by the throat, roughly the same effect can be safely achieved by gripping and controlling the jaw instead, which doesn't carry the same risks as putting pressure on the throat does.

In both cases you should both know in advance what signals "stop"

In general, people need to talk to each other more, and to communicate more about sex before, during and after. Not just to "get consent", it's not just a switch, a box to tick then blunder on. It's a continuous process where consent is the bare minimum, but better communication generally means better sex and less risk of harming each other. That doesn't always mean verbal, with a long term partner it can be body language in the heat of the moment if you've worked out you are both happy communicating that way by that point in your relationship. But there's some things that even then should always be explicitly discussed, and breathplay is one of them.

[Tessa K]

I think the article is mistaken trying to couple righteous condemnation of a dangerous practice,- horrifying when nonconsensual - with an odd view of consent and desire.

[The problem here is not only that women are being choked during sex without giving consent, but that a lot of the time they are “consenting” not because they derive their own sexual pleasure from it, but because they think it turns the guy on.

Separating true consent from the desire to give your male partner sexual satisfaction is difficult

I think one should have a crack at what one’s partner likes, with reciprocality. But not, of course, if its something that can kill you.

It's something I've been asked to do before. I've always said no. There just isn't a way to do it safely. There are a couple of things one can do safely to create a similar effect, depending on what the exact effect desired is. Spoilered in case some people find them TMI.

Spoiler:

If the desired effect is having someone else in charge of one's ability to breathe, then it it's reasonably safe to cover the mouth and nose for a few seconds - the top in this situation should know how many the maximum number is going to be and to count to that and no more before letting go.

If the desired effect is the sense of being controlled and commanded by being held by the throat, roughly the same effect can be safely achieved by gripping and controlling the jaw instead, which doesn't carry the same risks as putting pressure on the throat does.

In both cases you should both know in advance what signals "stop"

In general, people need to talk to each other more, and to communicate more about sex before, during and after. Not just to "get consent", it's not just a switch, a box to tick then blunder on. It's a continuous process where consent is the bare minimum, but better communication generally means better sex and less risk of harming each other. That doesn't always mean verbal, with a long term partner it can be body language in the heat of the moment if you've worked out you are both happy communicating that way by that point in your relationship. But there's some things that even then should always be explicitly discussed, and breathplay is one of them.

All true. Also, just because someone consented to something once doesn't mean they want it every time. Consent and negotiation are ongoing, even with a regular partner.

If control is what's wanted, a firm grip on the back of the neck is safe and effective. Also, (TMI)

Spoiler:

a pillow over the face. No risk of damage. Obviously you have to carefully monitor the time.

I read recently (properly researched) that even if someone appears OK post choking they can drop dead some time after, especially if there are unknown medical conditions. It really is Russian roulette.

I'm told there is no safe equivalent in terms of the sensation by people who gave done it but maybe some sensations are best not experienced. If you want to try any kind of BDSM, p.rn is not the place to learn the necessary skills or consent communication.

[Woodchopper]

Those are all good suggestions.

But isn't it the case that some people enjoy hypoxia without the BDSM elements? I was too sensible to try it but I remember that asphyxiation games were popular among teenagers in the 80s. A way to get high when they were a bit young for booze and drugs.

[Tessa K]

Those are all good suggestions.

But isn't it the case that some people enjoy hypoxia without the BDSM elements? I was too sensible to try it but I remember that asphyxiation games were popular among teenagers in the 80s. A way to get high when they were a bit young for booze and drugs.

It depends on your definition of BDSM/kink. In the broadest sense, asphyxiation would count in any context as a form of play (which is not always sexual). But ymmv.

The article should have mentioned women doing it to each other or to men if safety were the only concern but when it's a man doing it to women there are other elements of control, abuse and general male unpleasantness.

[Tessa K]

New(ish) words to describe male sexual abuse:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-63811380