Guys slapping each other's asses has become somewhat of an accepted practice within the context of sports, from what I understand. Maybe participating there is implied consent? Even within that context, if a guy said, "Hey, teammates, please don't slap my ass, it makes me uncomfortable," shouldn't that preference be respected? Don't people have a right as to who gets to touch their property (including their body)? Same goes for a "non-hugger" who doesn't want to be greeted with a hug.
Most workplaces have implicit and/or explicit policies on touching co-workers. Even on the shoulder or the back could be considered harassment if it's done without their consent or specifically against it. This goes both ways. Women touching men in ways they don't want or gay men/women touching other men/women in ways they don't want. To me, it's all about consent and the importance of respecting that.
From my perspective, the reason it's different is because women everywhere are saying "Don't touch my ass without consent."
The rest of your comment, to me, is a beautiful rant. I love the passion you have for this topic, and I agree on many levels that sexuality in our culture is really messed up and has been for a very long time. As you know, I'm still coming out of the "trauma" of religious views on sexuality myself, as is my wife (though from my perspective she's still quite stuck, comparatively). I'm certainly open to the idea that my own biases cloud my judgements on this topic.
In many ways, it sounds like you're advocating for a Garden of Eden approach where we can all live without clothes if we so choose with no "private parts" at all and no stigma towards sex because it's as natural as breathing, eating, or shitting. That's quite a jump for most people to grasp, but I think I can appreciate where you're coming from, and I see how that view would immediately remove a lot of psychological trauma.
I really do like your rant, but I still get caught up on the concept of consent. If a women doesn't want to be treated like a piece of sexual meat, and someone gives the "can I grab your ass?" sign, how is that not offensive to them? It seems to me you're telling all women, "Your preferences are wrong, and you are a victim of the society you're in. You should always be open to being objectified by men because that's a good, natural thing." You may be right, but that's quite presumptuous, IMO, to speak for all women (especially as a man) and to tell them what their preferences should be.
Again, I'm not saying you're flat out wrong, and I'm doing my best to keep an open mind about your views and how you may have discovered something which will take the rest of humanity a while to catch up to. I agree with much of what you're saying about how messed up our victimization thinking is, our unhealthy perspectives on sex, and how many of the "solutions" only create more victims.
I'd like to separate out the concept of consent from the concept of toxic views of sexuality. I do agree with you they are closely related, but I don't think they are the same thing. Many more women may give consent much more freely if they were healed of their trauma as you describe. Until then, I still think we should respect their preferences. I can see how this creates a catch 22 where making a big deal out of things could actually make the problem you're describing worse.
When I see women on Twitter, Steemit, and other social sites being treated horribly (doxed, rape threats, death threats, etc) even after they've been completely clear about their preferences, I have to think the problem you're addressing may not be the same problem many feminists are working against. Maybe it is, and I'm just not seeing how your proposed solution would help in those situations.
Either way, I'll definitely be thinking about this in more detail.
Luke, I hate to say you’re arguing in bad faith, but...you kinda are. When you ask questions I answer them directly even when I know you won’t like the answer. When I ask questions you instead create a strawman and slay it (at least you have this time) or else answer a question I’ve not asked.
Of COURSE someone who has communicated that they don’t which to be touched shouldn’t be touched by anyone with that fore knowledge. Do you seriously think I’ve ever argued otherwise? That’s not my point at ALL.
And of COURSE there are instances where even a pat on the back can be a violation of self sovereignty. But again, that’s not my point!
My point is that 99 percent of the time, people HAVEN’T given the other person fore knowledge that they don’t wish to be touched. And 99 percent of the time, a simple pat on the back is NOT taken as a threat or a violation of sovereignty or as something improper. So, rather than deal with the general rule, you keep diverting to the exceptions to that rule so as to avoid my questions.
My question involves the “normal” circumstances where the guy doesn’t know that the women doesn’t want to be touched. In that instance, why is it safe to assume that a pat on the back is okay but a pat on the butt is not? Please go back and read my rant again and try to answer the questions that I actually asked.
You KNOW that I’m the first to defend women who are being abused, who are treated in ways they don’t wish to be treated. Ironically it was ME who interceded to help protect @techslut from berniesanders! So, again, please stop focusing on the truly abusive instance where you and I are in complete agreement and deal with the far more common instances that I’ve outlined multiple times now.
Your raised the issue of implied consent. It’s a good point, but again it avoids my question. My question is why is there “implied consent” for back pats but not butt pats in instances where the patter has no fore knowledge? Isn’t the answer just BECAUSE SEX? And isn’t that a conditioned (through trauma) response rather than a “natural” and healthy one?