The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Imperial Union of America]

Well, I am probably a lot more old fashioned than other people in that particular regard, but to be fair, I've found out that the appropriate way to show sexual interest is however the girl feels comfortable expressing herself about sex.

Some women like for you to be direct and go "hey, I know this may sound crazy, but you wanna fuck?" and some women take like for you to be more reserved and wait for them to be ready, meaning that if you talk like you would to the former girl they might plain out reject your advances from that point on and gently drop you. My best advice for anyone would be: do not generalize a woman, try go gauge how she likes to be treated, and express yourself accordingly. If a woman likes for people to be blunt to them, be blunt, if they like for you to be polite but also be subtle in your sexual desire, be subtle in your sexual desire.

Tailoring your approach makes people feel like they matter and they will be more receptive to whatever it is you have to say. Also, if a woman rejects you and says no, move on. Don't whine, don't act insulted. Just move on. Rejection is normal.

There is no single approach to it. Women are people, so they all have their own tastes when it comes to men approaching them. In particular, everyone loves to be listened to, and listening is important when either looking out to have sex, or just looking out to make friends or pursuing a woman for a relationship. Being a good listener will get you farther than trying to play a game.

And relationship "advice" is related to feminism how?

What is feminism but a philosophy on the relationship between men and women?

Naturally, feminism also has ideas on how men should approach women and how sexual interest should be expressed and sexual relationships should be pursued. So it's wholly related.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That would be great if this was 1975, but it's not. Today there are all kinds of people bringing up not merely what is socially appropriate but what is legally true. Some people are attacked openly for even expressing attraction to women of a general type. So women having their own tastes as to how they want to be approached is not really helpful. This is unfortunate because I suspect the average woman doesn't necessarily want things to be this way. I've tried to speak many times around here about how the push for affirmative consent creates confusion, but people who believe in the idea only hear the words and don't consider the application.

Hence why I started out with my approach being old-fashioned. I am rather old-fashioned in many regards.

Also, in so far as to affirmative consent, I find it that the practical application is not so difficult in social settings. It just requires for you to pay enough attention.

I am more of the "wait and see" approach. Meaning I don't have sex from the get go with a woman or want to jump her bones upon meeting her. I create rapport between her and I before figuring out the best way to approach the situation, which is, again, a bit old fashioned.

The average woman wants, above all, to be respected as an equal. This has been true from the time of the Romans to the times of today with feminism. Sure, social norms change, but what people want does not. Women are people, so they will feel like they deserve respect. How that respect is shown differs from woman to woman.

[Costa Fierro]

What is feminism but a philosophy on the relationship between men and women?

It's not really a "philosophy" as feminism as manifested itself politically. I'd call it an ideology, like communism. They share the same broad term but do not confuse Maoists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Marxists etc.

Naturally, feminism also has ideas on how men should approach women and how sexual interest should be expressed and sexual relationships should be pursued. So it's wholly related.

Well, no. Third Wave feminism is more about promoting female sexuality at the expense of male sexuality. The whole "teach men not to rape" thing is only a recent development and is basically used to intimidate men into not approaching women at all.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And relationship "advice" is related to feminism how?

He asked what I thought was the best approach at showing sexual interest in an appropriate manner. I expressed my opinion as to what is an appropriate way to show sexual interest without stepping in on toes.

Feminism isn't just about the law, however, it's also women-men relations. Of which sex is a major part of how men and women view each other. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's appropriate.

[New Edom]

And relationship "advice" is related to feminism how?

What is feminism but a philosophy on the relationship between men and women?

Naturally, feminism also has ideas on how men should approach women and how sexual interest should be expressed and sexual relationships should be pursued. So it's wholly related.

I would argue only this to differ with you: feminism doesn't present any ideas on how men shoudl approach women. What feminism presents are these ideas on male involvement with women in relationships:
1. That men should listen to women more.
2. That men should support women's ambitions.
3. That men should be respectful of women's sexuality.
4. That men should not objectify women.
5. That men should respect women's right to consent.

Note the following:
1. None of the above are necessarily a two way street. Most feminists speaking pubcly believe in patriarchy theory, which means that it is presumed that men have more power than women and therfore that women don't need to concern themselves with how men feel--in fact some feminists would argue women do this too much already.

2. None of the above is related to specific practices. This is because a lot of that stuff is expressed more in negatives than positives, and those negatives are most often expressed by feminists who may disagree in practice or in theory from others.

So yeah, it's a confusing mess.

[Imperial Union of America]

That would be great if this was 1975, but it's not. Today there are all kinds of people bringing up not merely what is socially appropriate but what is legally true. Some people are attacked openly for even expressing attraction to women of a general type. So women having their own tastes as to how they want to be approached is not really helpful. This is unfortunate because I suspect the average woman doesn't necessarily want things to be this way. I've tried to speak many times around here about how the push for affirmative consent creates confusion, but people who believe in the idea only hear the words and don't consider the application.

Hence why I started out with my approach being old-fashioned. I am rather old-fashioned in many regards.

Also, in so far as to affirmative consent, I find it that the practical application is not so difficult in social settings. It just requires for you to pay enough attention.

I am more of the "wait and see" approach. Meaning I don't have sex from the get go with a woman or want to jump her bones upon meeting her. I create rapport between her and I before figuring out the best way to approach the situation, which is, again, a bit old fashioned.

The average woman wants, above all, to be respected as an equal. This has been true from the time of the Romans to the times of today with feminism. Sure, social norms change, but what people want does not. Women are people, so they will feel like they deserve respect. How that respect is shown differs from woman to woman.

There are three ways i've found acceptable to approach women for such relations -- the first one is simply to vaguely reference such activity and see reaction. the second is after physical contact has already been received positively and reciprocated, move forward until stopped or asked to stop. the third involves direct and blunt. Though the third approach is usually only with women that one is very familiar with.

Feminism seems to suggest that you must acquire some sort of written consent beforehand and that at any time after the act, she can rescind permission and have you arrested for rape. In which case you are guilty until proven innocent.

[New Edom]

That would be great if this was 1975, but it's not. Today there are all kinds of people bringing up not merely what is socially appropriate but what is legally true. Some people are attacked openly for even expressing attraction to women of a general type. So women having their own tastes as to how they want to be approached is not really helpful. This is unfortunate because I suspect the average woman doesn't necessarily want things to be this way. I've tried to speak many times around here about how the push for affirmative consent creates confusion, but people who believe in the idea only hear the words and don't consider the application.

Hence why I started out with my approach being old-fashioned. I am rather old-fashioned in many regards.

Also, in so far as to affirmative consent, I find it that the practical application is not so difficult in social settings. It just requires for you to pay enough attention.

I am more of the "wait and see" approach. Meaning I don't have sex from the get go with a woman or want to jump her bones upon meeting her. I create rapport between her and I before figuring out the best way to approach the situation, which is, again, a bit old fashioned.

The average woman wants, above all, to be respected as an equal. This has been true from the time of the Romans to the times of today with feminism. Sure, social norms change, but what people want does not. Women are people, so they will feel like they deserve respect. How that respect is shown differs from woman to woman.

Alright, so are you saying of affirmative consent that people never lie, are never confused, never doubt themselves? No one has ever said "gee grandma, a sweater for Christmas, just what I always wanted" while lying through their teeth and never planning to wear the thing? People never have sex because they care about someone while not actually enjoying the sex? I have yet to ever hear anyone actually practically discuss it. It's amazing how people can on the one hand demand it as a legal certainty and then insist on talking in vague platitudes about it. it woudl be like saying "Try to...drive decently. Just use your head."

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, no. Third Wave feminism is more about promoting female sexuality at the expense of male sexuality. The whole "teach men not to rape" thing is only a recent development and is basically used to intimidate men into not approaching women at all.

Not necessarily.

Teach men how to rape, while I think is misguided to a certain respect in certain circles, makes a good point and a good truism. Some men do not understand that a woman, even if she feels uncomfortable, will keep on going along just to get to where they need to be safe and sound, and they find that going along ensures their well being.

Sure, you can say it is her fault for going along, but if you want to be seen in high esteem by the woman you're pursuing it is in your best interests to show respect towards them. If you pursue a woman the onus is not on her to make you feel comfortable, it's yours.

[Wallenburg]

Are people assuming that tumblr is representative again?

I don't see why it isn't, given the majority of mainstream feminists are radical in their ideas and views.

[citation needed]

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hence why I started out with my approach being old-fashioned. I am rather old-fashioned in many regards.

Also, in so far as to affirmative consent, I find it that the practical application is not so difficult in social settings. It just requires for you to pay enough attention.

I am more of the "wait and see" approach. Meaning I don't have sex from the get go with a woman or want to jump her bones upon meeting her. I create rapport between her and I before figuring out the best way to approach the situation, which is, again, a bit old fashioned.

The average woman wants, above all, to be respected as an equal. This has been true from the time of the Romans to the times of today with feminism. Sure, social norms change, but what people want does not. Women are people, so they will feel like they deserve respect. How that respect is shown differs from woman to woman.

Alright, so are you saying of affirmative consent that people never lie, are never confused, never doubt themselves? No one has ever said "gee grandma, a sweater for Christmas, just what I always wanted" while lying through their teeth and never planning to wear the thing? People never have sex because they care about someone while not actually enjoying the sex? I have yet to ever hear anyone actually practically discuss it. It's amazing how people can on the one hand demand it as a legal certainty and then insist on talking in vague platitudes about it. it woudl be like saying "Try to...drive decently. Just use your head."

No, I am saying that women who are pushing affirmative consent want for men to have an emotional connection to them and to feel they are respected in their boundaries and as a person.

People can lie through words about their comfort, but their bodies don't lie about being uncomfortable with someone or something proposed.

I had some funny things happen to me while being with girls in the same room: I'd see them naked and didn't make a move on them. When they asked me why I didn't make a move and that "I was literally begging for it because I got naked for you" I simply said: I understand that is one of the cues for me to actually do something, but I'd rather not risk it unless you give me a blatant signal like grabbing my hand and putting it on your boobs, because you might just want to be naked for a bit and you trust me because I've never been a pervert to you or are changing clothes. I'm not gonna touch you unless I understand that's what you want me to do.

Of course, this is already with them being in a relationship with me, or me dealing with them for a while and they expressing interest in having sex with me. I'm not usually the one who comes forward and makes a blatant move. I expect for them to do that.

[Vassenor]

Are people assuming that tumblr is representative again?

I don't see why it isn't, given the majority of mainstream feminists are radical in their ideas and views.

So it's representative because it fits your narrative. Got it.

But here's a revolutionary idea. If you say that those views are mainstream and not simply a vocal minority then why don't you prove it?

[New Edom]

Alright, so are you saying of affirmative consent that people never lie, are never confused, never doubt themselves? No one has ever said "gee grandma, a sweater for Christmas, just what I always wanted" while lying through their teeth and never planning to wear the thing? People never have sex because they care about someone while not actually enjoying the sex? I have yet to ever hear anyone actually practically discuss it. It's amazing how people can on the one hand demand it as a legal certainty and then insist on talking in vague platitudes about it. it woudl be like saying "Try to...drive decently. Just use your head."

No, I am saying that women who are pushing affirmative consent want for men to have an emotional connection to them and to feel they are respected in their boundaries and as a person.

People can lie through words about their comfort, but their bodies don't lie about being uncomfortable with someone or something proposed.

I had some funny things happen to me while being with girls in the same room: I'd see them naked and didn't make a move on them. When they asked me why I didn't make a move and that "I was literally begging for it because I got naked for you" I simply said: I understand that is one of the cues for me to actually do something, but I'd rather not risk it unless you give me a blatant signal like grabbing my hand and putting it on your boobs, because you might just want to be naked for a bit and you trust me because I've never been a pervert to you or are changing clothes. I'm not gonna touch you unless I understand that's what you want me to do.

Of course, this is already with them being in a relationship with me, or me dealing with them for a while and they expressing interest in having sex with me. I'm not usually the one who comes forward and makes a blatant move. I expect for them to do that.

So in that situation, the women were exposing themselves to you. They were intending to be sexually provocatrive. Yet you say that an emotional connection is needed first, and then you said you needed them to blatantly make a move. And so here's a good example of the contradictions. The women were in fact being sexually provocative. We're told by feminists that women don't actually do that sort of thing, and yet manhy of us know that women do. However we are also told that even if we think that is happening, we ought not to act upon it. So in fact we are not necessarily acting in the way that women want, but in the way that we have come to feel safer acting. So it doesn't seem to me like anyone is winning but the feminists in this scenario.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hence why I started out with my approach being old-fashioned. I am rather old-fashioned in many regards.

Also, in so far as to affirmative consent, I find it that the practical application is not so difficult in social settings. It just requires for you to pay enough attention.

I am more of the "wait and see" approach. Meaning I don't have sex from the get go with a woman or want to jump her bones upon meeting her. I create rapport between her and I before figuring out the best way to approach the situation, which is, again, a bit old fashioned.

The average woman wants, above all, to be respected as an equal. This has been true from the time of the Romans to the times of today with feminism. Sure, social norms change, but what people want does not. Women are people, so they will feel like they deserve respect. How that respect is shown differs from woman to woman.

There are three ways i've found acceptable to approach women for such relations -- the first one is simply to vaguely reference such activity and see reaction. the second is after physical contact has already been received positively and reciprocated, move forward until stopped or asked to stop. the third involves direct and blunt. Though the third approach is usually only with women that one is very familiar with.

Feminism seems to suggest that you must acquire some sort of written consent beforehand and that at any time after the act, she can rescind permission and have you arrested for rape. In which case you are guilty until proven innocent.

What feminism suggest is not to get written contract, but for you to make sure that she is okay with whatever is going to happen and to be aware that if she, at any point, asks you to stop, you stop.

Most women are going to be comfortable with a guy who is respectful and mindful of them, so although feminism says a lot about theory, in practice you won't find yourself with a woman who won't be okay with sex if you're respectful of them and they trust you.

[New Edom]

There are three ways i've found acceptable to approach women for such relations -- the first one is simply to vaguely reference such activity and see reaction. the second is after physical contact has already been received positively and reciprocated, move forward until stopped or asked to stop. the third involves direct and blunt. Though the third approach is usually only with women that one is very familiar with.

Feminism seems to suggest that you must acquire some sort of written consent beforehand and that at any time after the act, she can rescind permission and have you arrested for rape. In which case you are guilty until proven innocent.

What feminism suggest is not to get written contract, but for you to make sure that she is okay with whatever is going to happen and to be aware that if she, at any point, asks you to stop, you stop.

Most women are going to be comfortable with a guy who is respectful and mindful of them, so although feminism says a lot about theory, in practice you won't find yourself with a woman who won't be okay with sex if you're respectful of them and they trust you.

Maybe some women should grow the fuck up and figure out what they want and learn to be more direct. If they want equality, then they need to learn to act like equals. Men shouldn't have to deal with women like they're skittish horses anymore. If women can try to join the light infantry they can learn to deal with that. It's not worth a sexual harassment charge or an ugly divorce. In this social climate, women who are able to express what they want on their own, willing to pay their own way and be decent friends should be sought after, women who still want to play these childish games can wait for the white knights or whoever to support their emotional neediness if that's what they want.

[Wallenburg]

Maybe some women should grow the fuck up and figure out what they want and learn to be more direct. If they want equality, then they need to learn to act like equals. Men shouldn't have to deal with women like they're skittish horses anymore. If women can try to join the light infantry they can learn to deal with that. It's not worth a sexual harassment charge or an ugly divorce. In this social climate, women who are able to express what they want on their own, willing to pay their own way and be decent friends should be sought after, women who still want to play these childish games can wait for the white knights or whoever to support their emotional neediness if that's what they want.

You say this as if this is not already how it works.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, I am saying that women who are pushing affirmative consent want for men to have an emotional connection to them and to feel they are respected in their boundaries and as a person.

People can lie through words about their comfort, but their bodies don't lie about being uncomfortable with someone or something proposed.

I had some funny things happen to me while being with girls in the same room: I'd see them naked and didn't make a move on them. When they asked me why I didn't make a move and that "I was literally begging for it because I got naked for you" I simply said: I understand that is one of the cues for me to actually do something, but I'd rather not risk it unless you give me a blatant signal like grabbing my hand and putting it on your boobs, because you might just want to be naked for a bit and you trust me because I've never been a pervert to you or are changing clothes. I'm not gonna touch you unless I understand that's what you want me to do.

Of course, this is already with them being in a relationship with me, or me dealing with them for a while and they expressing interest in having sex with me. I'm not usually the one who comes forward and makes a blatant move. I expect for them to do that.

So in that situation, the women were exposing themselves to you. They were intending to be sexually provocatrive. Yet you say that an emotional connection is needed first, and then you said you needed them to blatantly make a move. And so here's a good example of the contradictions. The women were in fact being sexually provocative. We're told by feminists that women don't actually do that sort of thing, and yet manhy of us know that women do. However we are also told that even if we think that is happening, we ought not to act upon it. So in fact we are not necessarily acting in the way that women want, but in the way that we have come to feel safer acting. So it doesn't seem to me like anyone is winning but the feminists in this scenario.

Yes, I didn't make a move because I do not know what they were wanting to do. I wasn't paying attention at the moment other than "oh she's naked, I wonder what she's doing?" so I didn't want to make a move I'd regret later because I ruined the moment and now she feels apprehensive towards me because I was aggressive.

A woman being naked in front of a man usually implies trust. I want to keep that trust intact, so that's why I suggest for them to be more direct about it. It's not that you cannot act on it, is that you have to make sure that's what they want you to act upon. It's not a contradiction, really, if you look at the context. I didn't know that was them being sexually provocative, so I played it safe.

Also, you should know better than everyone that what feminists say is not a hard-and-fast rule, it's what they know from experience. If none of their acquaintances do that, that doesn't mean every woman doesn't. But that's where the emotional connection comes in. What the girl likes or doesn't like to do to express sexual interest, she'll let you know because she trusts you. Maybe not the first time, but after a talk about it she will let you know "this is what I do when I feel the hots for you".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What feminism suggest is not to get written contract, but for you to make sure that she is okay with whatever is going to happen and to be aware that if she, at any point, asks you to stop, you stop.

Most women are going to be comfortable with a guy who is respectful and mindful of them, so although feminism says a lot about theory, in practice you won't find yourself with a woman who won't be okay with sex if you're respectful of them and they trust you.

Maybe some women should grow the fuck up and figure out what they want and learn to be more direct. If they want equality, then they need to learn to act like equals. Men shouldn't have to deal with women like they're skittish horses anymore. If women can try to join the light infantry they can learn to deal with that. It's not worth a sexual harassment charge or an ugly divorce. In this social climate, women who are able to express what they want on their own, willing to pay their own way and be decent friends should be sought after, women who still want to play these childish games can wait for the white knights or whoever to support their emotional neediness if that's what they want.

And tell me, when or why is trust and respect for other people "immature" that you need to imply that they should grow the fuck up from it?

I didn't know being disrespectful was the mature way to act upon a desire. This is news to me, actually. I never said women should play games. What I did say is that women expect respect and they desire to trust their sexual partners. I cannot tell you how to gain the trust and be respectful to all women because women are not a hivemind.

[New Edom]

Maybe some women should grow the fuck up and figure out what they want and learn to be more direct. If they want equality, then they need to learn to act like equals. Men shouldn't have to deal with women like they're skittish horses anymore. If women can try to join the light infantry they can learn to deal with that. It's not worth a sexual harassment charge or an ugly divorce. In this social climate, women who are able to express what they want on their own, willing to pay their own way and be decent friends should be sought after, women who still want to play these childish games can wait for the white knights or whoever to support their emotional neediness if that's what they want.

And tell me, when or why is trust and respect for other people "immature" that you need to imply that they should grow the fuck up from it?

I didn't know being disrespectful was the mature way to act upon a desire. This is news to me, actually.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And tell me, when or why is trust and respect for other people "immature" that you need to imply that they should grow the fuck up from it?

I didn't know being disrespectful was the mature way to act upon a desire. This is news to me, actually.

What the hell are you talking about?

I was talking about how women expect respect and they desire to trust their partners, and how affirmative consent is not that hard to follow if you keep those two things in mind. You then came out of left field and tell me that women still want to play childish games and that they can wait for a white knight or whomever to support their emotional neediness. I gave anecdotes only to make my point about being respectful.

So, why bring that up if I was specifically talking about women wanting to feel trust with their partners and that they are respected, unless you disagree with what I am saying and you don't think respect and trust are relevant to a healthy relationship?

Times don't change, only the expressions do. Times have not changed from when my dad was an 18 year old chasing women to 2016. Only the way women feel they are being respected and the ways they express trust has, but women wanted the same thing out of my 18 year old father 50 years ago than they do from a 27 year old in 2016.

[Chestaan]

What the hell are you talking about?

I was talking about how women expect respect and they desire to trust their partners, and how affirmative consent is not that hard to follow if you keep those two things in mind. You then came out of left field and tell me that women still want to play childish games and that they can wait for a white knight or whomever to support their emotional neediness. I gave anecdotes only to make my point about being respectful.

So, why bring that up if I was specifically talking about women wanting to feel trust with their partners and that they are respected, unless you disagree with what I am saying and you don't think respect and trust are relevant to a healthy relationship?

Times don't change, only the expressions do.

I think Edom means that women should be more straight forward about wanting sex, rather than giving subtle hints or whatever. Although in my experience, which has been limited to sex within relationships, women usually are pretty open about the fact they want sex.

[New Edom]

What the hell are you talking about?

I was talking about how women expect respect and they desire to trust their partners, and how affirmative consent is not that hard to follow if you keep those two things in mind. You then came out of left field and tell me that women still want to play childish games and that they can wait for a white knight or whomever to support their emotional neediness. I gave anecdotes only to make my point about being respectful.

So, why bring that up if I was specifically talking about women wanting to feel trust with their partners and that they are respected, unless you disagree with what I am saying and you don't think respect and trust are relevant to a healthy relationship?

Times don't change, only the expressions do.

I do think they are relevant. I just don't think that what your'e talking about is measurable. I find that a lot of people talk this way, especially supporters of feminism. They talk about trust as though it's this intuitive thing that you just know, rather than being based on measurable actions. They throw out these anecdotal moments like women walking naked in front of people. What if you have known other people that did this just as a form of exhibitionism? Is this really a general principle someone can rely on? How can you possibly know a woman is enthusiastic if women are inclined to pretend?

Respect and trust are built on consistent behaviour and integrity, on fair play and give and take. You need to know what is expected from others and to be expected from yourself for there to be trust and respect. And women ought to earn that as well. Feminists so often presume on integrity from women while almost never defining what that looks like.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I was talking about how women expect respect and they desire to trust their partners, and how affirmative consent is not that hard to follow if you keep those two things in mind. You then came out of left field and tell me that women still want to play childish games and that they can wait for a white knight or whomever to support their emotional neediness. I gave anecdotes only to make my point about being respectful.

So, why bring that up if I was specifically talking about women wanting to feel trust with their partners and that they are respected, unless you disagree with what I am saying and you don't think respect and trust are relevant to a healthy relationship?

Times don't change, only the expressions do.

I think Edom means that women should be more straight forward about wanting sex, rather than giving subtle hints or whatever. Although in my experience, which has been limited to sex within relationships, women usually are pretty open about the fact they want sex.

Depends on the woman actually.

I've met women who are subtle about the fact they want sex. I've also been with women who are very direct about the fact they want sex. It's part of how they grow up more than anything. Women from old-fashioned households are subtle, women who are more modern are more open.

[New Edom]

I was talking about how women expect respect and they desire to trust their partners, and how affirmative consent is not that hard to follow if you keep those two things in mind. You then came out of left field and tell me that women still want to play childish games and that they can wait for a white knight or whomever to support their emotional neediness. I gave anecdotes only to make my point about being respectful.

So, why bring that up if I was specifically talking about women wanting to feel trust with their partners and that they are respected, unless you disagree with what I am saying and you don't think respect and trust are relevant to a healthy relationship?

Times don't change, only the expressions do.

I think Edom means that women should be more straight forward about wanting sex, rather than giving subtle hints or whatever. Although in my experience, which has been limited to sex within relationships, women usually are pretty open about the fact they want sex.

That is what I mean.

[Chestaan]

I think Edom means that women should be more straight forward about wanting sex, rather than giving subtle hints or whatever. Although in my experience, which has been limited to sex within relationships, women usually are pretty open about the fact they want sex.

Depends on the woman actually.

I've met women who are subtle about the fact they want sex. I've also been with women who are very direct about the fact they want sex. It's part of how they grow up more than anything. Women from old-fashioned households are subtle, women who are more modern are more open.

But this is what causes problems with consent. The whole yes means yes thing means that the only acceptable form of consent is a straightforward yes. But if someone, man or woman, is more subtle about wanting sex and would balk at the question "would you like to have sex?" how can you ever meet the yes means yes definition of consent?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I was talking about how women expect respect and they desire to trust their partners, and how affirmative consent is not that hard to follow if you keep those two things in mind. You then came out of left field and tell me that women still want to play childish games and that they can wait for a white knight or whomever to support their emotional neediness. I gave anecdotes only to make my point about being respectful.

So, why bring that up if I was specifically talking about women wanting to feel trust with their partners and that they are respected, unless you disagree with what I am saying and you don't think respect and trust are relevant to a healthy relationship?

Times don't change, only the expressions do.

I do think they are relevant. I just don't think that what your'e talking about is measurable. I find that a lot of people talk this way, especially supporters of feminism. They talk about trust as though it's this intuitive thing that you just know, rather than being based on measurable actions. They throw out these anecdotal moments like women walking naked in front of people. What if you have known other people that did this just as a form of exhibitionism? Is this really a general principle someone can rely on? How can you possibly know a woman is enthusiastic if women are inclined to pretend?

Respect and trust are built on consistent behaviour and integrity, on fair play and give and take. You need to know what is expected from others and to be expected from yourself for there to be trust and respect. And women ought to earn that as well. Feminists so often presume on integrity from women while almost never defining what that looks like.

That is because when talking about 3.5 billion people and more by the day, you can't just say "oh yea, this is what 3.5 billion women are prone to do".

I only offer my experiences as an example of what a particular situation looks like. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not offering my experiences as a way to understand the entire gamut of human experiences and emotions of 3.5 billion people because I do not know them.

"Respect and trust are built on consistent behaviour and integrity, on fair play and give and take. You need to know what is expected from others and to be expected from yourself for there to be trust and respect." is as vague as what I said. So that means that if a woman expects you to hit her every day at noon and at 6pm across the jaw with a closed fist, and for her to slug you one as well, consistently, for the rest of your life, and you both do it without a miss, is that respect and trust?

You accuse me of talking about unmeasurable things while you make the same mistake.