IamNotCreepy wrote:One thing that I think gets lost in this is that they had been drinking, and I am sure that it's more difficult to pick up on the the non-verbal cues or parate the mixed signals while intoxicated. I'm not trying to excuse his behavior, but I think that added context is needed.
People who have been drinking maybe more likely to be pushy to initiate sex and not have the presence of mind to consider that they are making the other person uncomfortable -- especially if they are going into the situation under the assumption that this is going to be a hook-up.
When she leaves the door open for more sexual activity in some unspecified time in the future, someone might think, "Okay, it's been 15 minutes, maybe she more in the mood for it now."
I think this is definitely a case of differing assumptions, misread signals, and poor communication.
Out of all the articles I've read on this, I think this one comes closest to my thoughts on the matter.
I agree with that, and that this is the closest article to my thoughts on things. Except, of course, again. As with most articles, the fact that he kept doing the same things after she explicitly said no is glossed over or ignored.
Grimstone wrote:She consented multiple times to oral/making out/etc. she only said no to penetrative sex and they never had penetrative sex and when she told him she was done making out/oral things stopped and he called her a cab. There was no coercion, no threats, no forcing of anything.
I don't buy the argument that "no" only covers penetrative sex. Their clothes were back on. They were watching Seinfeld. She'd said no to sex. It wasn't the first time in the evening that she'd said no to sex. And I also don't buy the argument that not saying no is in the same category as active consent. That doesn't make it rape. I'm just not about to put it in the same category as "yes."
sidenote:
Spoiler: show
Someone can come across as predatory without ever issuing a threat. Whenever she expressed discomfort, he said something to placate her and kept saying "let's just chill." To most people, chill does not mean oral sex. He acknowledged she was uncomfortable, and then kept pressing. She said, verbally, that she didn't want to have sex, and he kept pressing. I'm not denying that he got mixed signals. I'm saying that is irrelevant; the response to mixed signals is not to shove your dick in someone's face, or try to finger them after they have said "no." And calling a cab for them, eventually, when they stand up to go do it themselves, does not negate that. He is absolutely a hypocrite if he behaves this way and then stands up and claims to be an advocate for women. And I think it's just fine to call him out on that. Instead of using his platform to try and do some good in the arena of mixed signals and affirmative consent, he misrepresented what she said to him and shifted responsibility. You can acknowledge mixed signals and still say, "but my response to mixed signals should have been to make sure I was understanding her."