There are many reasons not to talk about close cases, primarily to save status and avoid friction with those who might disagree with you.
But referring to the fact that people often don’t discuss close cases to wash your hands of your criticism of someone else seems to me writing yourself a blank check for condemnations of others without ever justifying, examining, or even identifying your premises. I doubt that such a license to condemn leads to better behavior.
There are many reasons not to talk about close cases,
I disagree
primarily to save status
As you use the term, status preservation has a strong status quo bias. I don’t like the current status quo. Let Justice be done, though the heavens fall. When we approach a better status quo, we can put in effort to stop there. Yes, I’m aware of the risks of this approach.
and avoid friction with those who might disagree with you.
Arguments are not soldiers. Let’s figure out where to aim before we decide what compromises we are willing to make along the way.
But referring to the fact that people often don’t discuss close cases to wash your hands of your criticism of someone else seems to me writing yourself a blank check for condemnations of others without ever justifying, examining, or even identifying your premises. I doubt that such a license to condemn leads to better behavior.
I’ve gone out of my way to limit my criticism of the OP, and you think I want a blank check? OP is not a rapist, but he sure was acting entitled. Further, the particular way he was acting entitled gives aid to bad actors.
Elsewhere, you said that modern sexual negotiation, based on implicit communication, is dysfunctional. I agree. I don’t think there’s ever been a time when there has not been a dysfunctional sex negotiation dynamic. What negotiation scheme do you suggest society adopt?
Elsewhere, you said that modern sexual negotiation, based on implicit communication, is dysfunctional. I agree. I don’t think there’s ever been a time when there has not been a dysfunctional sex negotiation dynamic. What negotiation scheme do you suggest society adopt?
Be more explicit about your sexual intent both during the act and at other times. Done directly and without approval monitoring or apology, it’s usually well received.
The reasons I listed were what I deemed the actual motivations of people. I don’t share those motivations much. I probably should busy myself with social signaling more, but I don’t.
I’ve gone out of my way to limit my criticism of the OP, and you think I want a blank check? OP is not a rapist, but he sure was acting entitled. Further, the particular way he was acting entitled gives aid to bad actors.
That’s going our of your way not to criticize? You shouldn’t be so shy, so we can get to the point sooner.
I’d say you’re flatly wrong. He has shown no indication of believing he is entitled to having his way in the relationship, and just objects to the assumption that she is entitled to having her way in the relationship. Neither of them is entitled to a relationship with the other, to have sex with the other, or go bowling with the other. He asks, rather reasonably in my opinion, in the context of their relationship:
Why is wanting sex worse than not wanting sex?
He mistakes it for a religious issue, but it’s really the privileging of not wanting sex over wanting it in a relationship, and the privileging of what a woman wants over what a man wants in a relationship.
There are many reasons not to talk about close cases, primarily to save status and avoid friction with those who might disagree with you.
But referring to the fact that people often don’t discuss close cases to wash your hands of your criticism of someone else seems to me writing yourself a blank check for condemnations of others without ever justifying, examining, or even identifying your premises. I doubt that such a license to condemn leads to better behavior.
I disagree
As you use the term, status preservation has a strong status quo bias. I don’t like the current status quo. Let Justice be done, though the heavens fall. When we approach a better status quo, we can put in effort to stop there. Yes, I’m aware of the risks of this approach.
Arguments are not soldiers. Let’s figure out where to aim before we decide what compromises we are willing to make along the way.
I’ve gone out of my way to limit my criticism of the OP, and you think I want a blank check? OP is not a rapist, but he sure was acting entitled. Further, the particular way he was acting entitled gives aid to bad actors.
Elsewhere, you said that modern sexual negotiation, based on implicit communication, is dysfunctional. I agree. I don’t think there’s ever been a time when there has not been a dysfunctional sex negotiation dynamic. What negotiation scheme do you suggest society adopt?
Be more explicit about your sexual intent both during the act and at other times. Done directly and without approval monitoring or apology, it’s usually well received.
The reasons I listed were what I deemed the actual motivations of people. I don’t share those motivations much. I probably should busy myself with social signaling more, but I don’t.
That’s going our of your way not to criticize? You shouldn’t be so shy, so we can get to the point sooner.
I’d say you’re flatly wrong. He has shown no indication of believing he is entitled to having his way in the relationship, and just objects to the assumption that she is entitled to having her way in the relationship. Neither of them is entitled to a relationship with the other, to have sex with the other, or go bowling with the other. He asks, rather reasonably in my opinion, in the context of their relationship:
He mistakes it for a religious issue, but it’s really the privileging of not wanting sex over wanting it in a relationship, and the privileging of what a woman wants over what a man wants in a relationship.