My Psychic Powers

Apparently I have a plethora of psychic powers that I've just been too lazy to develop my whole life.  Funny world, isn't it? 

I apparently have the power to molest children with my thoughts through a photograph.  It's strange, but apparently all pedophiles have this power.  It's why the government thinks it's so important that pictures of children should never be in the hands of pedophiles.   At first, I thought this was only supposed to work if the kid was being molested in the photo, but apparently it works just fine whether the kid has ever been molested or not, and the effect isn't blocked by clothing.  Pity it only works on pictures of children, but at least it works long after those children have grown up. 

I've also apparently got laser vision.  If I look at someone long enough, I'll bore a hole right in their bodies like Superman.  Only good explanation I have for the fact that folks work so hard to control which direction I point my eyes.  Weirdly, this one apparently has nothing to do with the powers I get from being a pedophile.  Apparently all men have this ability. 


I hear women get mind reading powers.  I think I'd have more use for that in my everyday life than the heat vision. 

I do at least get the power to unconsciously and undetectably mind control women and children.  It's apparently impossible for either group to refuse to do anything I ask of them.  In fact, apparently I don't need to say a word for it to be me controlling their actions. 

So, any suggestions on a costume for my new career as a Superhero? 

Affirmative Consent

Since this concept has been making its rounds on the various boards and blogs I read, it feels appropriate to weigh in, in detail, on this subject.

Affirmative consent is the idea that avoiding a "no" in a sexual encounter is insufficient for true consent. That only a verbalized "yes" to each and every act performed is sufficient.

I'm actually quite fond of the idea.

The biggest stumbling block I run into when quietly contemplating a better legal situation than the current age of consent, or arguing for its abolishment in open forum, is the fundamental fact that our current system of consent for adults is fundamentally broken. We let adults abuse and manipulate one another in ways that should rightly horrify any human being of good conscience. Thus the idea of exposing children to those culturally and legally sanctioned abuses rightly causes us all to recoil from the idea.

I don't like recoiling from ideas. When I get that impulse, I choose to dig deeper. To find out WHY that reaction strikes me. Because if I recoil, I can't learn specifically what about the situation is so inimical to me, and I can't examine if those distasteful parts can be excised.

The way I figure it, if it isn't acceptable to do inflict something on a five year old child, it isn't acceptable to inflict it on an adult either. If you think we need an age of consent to protect children from predatory adults who would lie their way into bed with them, there is no valid justification for treating those same predators as harmless or even admirable just because they're doing the exact same thing to other adults.

Now, that isn't to say there aren't serious flaws with the concept of affirmative consent. Firstly, like all aspects of sexual consent in this culture, it's gendered, in that males need to get consent, and females need to give it, never the other way around. Not a problem specific to the concept itself, but a problem inherent in our culture and one that rightly needs to be called out whenever the subject of changing the standards of consent come up.

Second is that how far it needs to be taken is never sufficiently defined, nor will its proponents ever submit to limiting cases, always shreaking about their "better safe than sorry" nonsense. Under reasonable standards, this practice could force better communication between sexual partners, make everyone take accountability for their own agency in deciding to participate, and reducing the tragedies that currently result from our current standards of "implied consent". If stretched beyond reasonable boundaries, however, it becomes a standard no one can ever live up to, and thus redefines every sexual interaction as rape, with all the gendered and ageist asymetries that go along with rape accusations in our culture.

Some claim that this standard infantalizes women, because it denies their ability to speak up when something is bothering them about a sexual encounter, and instead relies on the man to ask for confirmation. Aside from the obvious sexism in the idea that only a man would need to be held to this standard (not that it isn't an objective fact of our culture that this would be the case), I actually agree that it's infantalizing. That's why I like it so much.

Maybe if we can get the level of discourse and behavior of the general population to a place where a child would have no difficulty navigating it, why would we need the age of consent or anything to replace it?

What Is And Isn't Predatory Behavior

I was reading an article by Noah Brand on the Goodmen Project blog recently. In it, he details an incident from his youth. He describes it thus:

When I was thirteen, I was approached by a pedophile.

What struck me as I read the account was how absolutely normal and reasonable the behavior was despite being described in terminology meant to arouse disgust and fear.

The first thing he opens with is a description of the man's appearance. He takes special note of the fact that his appearance was so stereotypical of a child predator, and uses it to emphasize how stupid and naive he had been for not recognizing something was wrong.

I should take a moment to inform readers unfamiliar with Noah Brand and the Goodmen project that Noah is the editor-in-chief of the publication, who's stated goals are to hold conversations about men and masculinity and to confront harmful stereotypes about men. Full disclosure, the staff of the Goodmen project, Mr. Brand included, were the inspiration for this blog post.

The encounter itself was a conversation struck up in a fast food restaurant, during which the author was lured to a secluded alley under the pretense of finding job postings. When the man made his sexual interest clear, Noah left.

There are a number of linguistic tricks that the author uses to demonize the man he encountered, and I do encourage any of my readers to look over the original post in detail and see if they can spot them on their own. Anyone who can pick out one I've missed would be doing me a favor pointing it out, so I can be on the look out for the same trick in the future.

The inconsistencies in Noah's story start fairly early on. I suppose being the editor means you don't really get people giving your stuff a once over. He describes the man directing the conversation to what job he would like to have when he was old enough to enter the employment market. He suggests the alley because the local university had set out job postings and want ads there, and that it might give him a better feel for the job market. He later recounts with mock shock that there were no postings that an eighth grader would be qualified for.

For those who missed it, the point was never that he might find a job there, only that he might get a feel for the market which might help him in a future decision on his career path. This is, a bit beside the point, since the trip to the alley was clearly a pretense, but the verbal slight of hand used here is worth making a note of. Tricks like this can hide the actual course of events in a narrative while technically not lying. After all, he never said that the man made up some lie about there being listings he could qualify for, he just set that interpretation up for the reader to jump to on their own if they weren't reading carefully.

So, if we were to strip away all the deceptive language from the original post, what actually happened in this narrative that Noah presents? He was approached in a public place by a man who struck up a conversation. The man convinced him to go to a dead end alley, and there he made his intentions clear with a pickup line. Noah left, and that was the end of it until he saw the man a year later and gave him a dirty look.

I found a few points interesting about what the man actually did, according to Noah. He struck up a nonsexual conversation with a member of his own sex, and arranged to talk someplace private before making it clear his interests were sexual. Given Mr. Brand's current age, I'd like to invite readers to consider what the state of the Gay Rights Movement was when he was thirteen years old, and ask yourselves why you might want to hold off on any obvious pickup lines until you weren't in public.

Noah mentions that he was between the man and the exit when he realized what was going on, which he attributes to luck. I'm not so sure. This wasn't someone who didn't take no for an answer, as evidenced by the fact that when Noah said no, he didn't see the man again for a full year. Given that Noah was ostensibly there to look at the postings at the end of the alley, this man would have had to go out of his way to keep from getting between Noah and the alley's exit. I think he left the out precisely because he didn't want Noah to feel trapped.

If we remove the legal issues surrounding age and gender from the equation, this man did literally everything right, yet the language he's described in invites the reader to imagine a string of infractions that build and build as the narrative progresses. Stories like this contribute to the idea of male sexuality as inherently predatory. His readership must be so proud.

I don't currently support sexual relationships between adults and minors. I hold this position because it is my belief that the social climate is such that even a perfectly consensual, mutually desired, and mutually enjoyed encounter would be twisted by society into something traumatic for the younger party, by a constant bombardment of harmful messages, legal consequences for their lover over something the younger party participated and enjoyed, and so called therapy where they'll be told over and over again that they were raped. I am willing to be persuaded, but for now that's where I stand on the issue.

But I think it's important to distinguish what predatory behavior is and is not, regardless of whether that behavior is legal and/or something I approve of. This man's behavior was not predatory. His interest wasn't reciprocated, but he was far less a predator than your average pickup artist who thinks it's his job to push past a "no" and be forceful enough that the woman he's targeting can tell herself she didn't consent to sex with him, so it isn't her fault.

Taking no for an answer is not what a predator does. I'm getting real sick of needing to state the obvious.

Treating "Yes" The Same As "No"

There is an incredibly harmful narrative that's wormed its way into the mainstream discussion about sexual consent.  The idea that we should ignore "yes" and "no" when it comes to sexual consent.

What's that?  That isn't mainstream, you say?  That's rapist talk?  Why yes, that is rapist talk, but that doesn't mean it isn't mainstream. 

I am, of course, talking about those underage individuals who desire and pursue sexual relationships with older individuals.  The very fact that the age of consent exists as a law is proof of the existence of such individuals, since you don't make laws against things that never happen.

The politically driven policy is to treat the kids who said "yes" exactly the same as the ones who said "no".  I'm not talking about the adult not having sex with the kid, for those of you still unsure where I stand on that.  I'm talking about how society is to treat those kids who did end up having sex with someone in violation of the age of consent. 

What happens when you treat someone like a rape victim?  They start acting the part.  So much of the trauma that comes from rape stems not from the mere act of forced sex, but from the societal reaction.  To take one example, the feelings of bodily impurity that may come about naturally when someone is forced into sex are added to by a cultural narrative that says that a person who has been raped will never be the same again.  If the person didn't feel violated or sullied before, the cultural narrative can do the job of making them feel violated retroactively all on its own. 

By treating "yes" the same as "no", we make damn sure that everyone who said "yes" and meant it ends up exactly as traumatized as the ones who said "no" and meant that. The pattern is so consistent, an alien observer would be forced to conclude that was the point. 

The virgin/whore false dichotomy is at the root of a lot of harmful ideas the mainstream of society has about sexuality, and here we have yet another example.  The people pushing the agenda of treating those young people who honestly and enthusiastically said "yes" precisely the same way we treat those who've been the victims of force or coersion aren't doing so because it's healthy for those kids. They're pushing that agenda because in their narrow minds the only other option is to call the kid a slut and move on with their day. 


There is no inherent need to make such a child devalue his/her own choices and judgements.  There is no value in making that child feel vulnerable and exploited. If we were actually concerned with the health and sanity of those kids, we would be looking for any way to make them feel safe and empowered, rather than deliberately imposing a victim narrative on those who haven't reached that point naturally. 
The crime of rape is the crime of ignoring another person's explicit consent.  Whether they said "yes" or "no", the rapist does what he/she was going to do anyway.  Consent is all about the importance of that distinction.  By ignoring that "yes", we're making sure that whether they said "yes" or "no", someone is going to ignore their opinion on the subject and mistreat them accordingly.  

Nice Guys, Bad Boys, and Rape Culture

Human beings are social creatures.  We build our identities based on our relationships with the people around us.  To the extent that our biology dictates anything, it dictates that we will care about what other people think. 

Shunning and shaming have been used to enforce social and legal standards throughout human history and across cultural lines.  Solitary confinement of prisoners has been rightly called torture, and permanent brain damage has been documented as a result of it.  

It will come as news to no one that men and women get different social messages when it comes to sex.  Men are told to have it, or else.  Women are told not to have it, or else. 

That "or else" is not a trivial thing.  No one will beat you, imprison you, murder you, or otherwise do physical violence to you if you don't conform to these ideals (usually), but that doesn't translate into the ability to break from your assigned role without consequences.  And as I noted, the consequences of social ostracism are very real for social creatures like human beings. 

The more observant of you will have noted that the gendered expectations above are contradictory.  Men are supposed to have sex with women, but women aren't supposed to have sex with men.  It's impossible for both these outcomes to be happening simultaneously.  No matter which way it comes down, someone will end up hurt and shunned. 

In that context, I think I have an explanation for that old chestnut, "nice guys finish last" as it applies to dating. 

Women want to have sex, but are told repeatedly that doing so will have negative social consequences.  The term slut shaming has been used in feminist circles to describe this very real and not at all unreasonable concern women have.  By consenting to sex, a woman opens herself up to shaming and ostracism. 

Pickup artists figured this out a long time ago, and they've picked up on how women manage to have sex while attempting to shield themselves from the worst consequences of slut shaming.  They never unambiguously consent to sex.  Pickup artists council giving a woman plausible deniability, so that she'll be able to say "it just happened" when all is said and done, so she won't have to deal with the social consequences, many of them internalized, that come when she chooses to consent to sex.  

Now, that's a problem for nice guys.  Nice guys care about sexual consent.  They care whether the other person is uncomfortable, and will always seek explicit, unambiguous consent at every stage of a relationship.  And as a result, they're unintentionally denying women the ability to pretend that "it just happened." 

Bad boys, of course, provide all the plausible deniability a woman could ask for.  They demonstrate at every stage of the relationship that they do not respect other people's boundaries, so a woman with one never has to consent to anything. 

It's a tidy arrangement, but for one simple fact.  Sex without consent is rape, and women employing this strategy are never having explicitly consensual sex, by design.  I can think of no clearer an example of rape culture than the fact that our standard relationship model involves women putting up boundaries explicitly so that men will push through them. 

Meanwhile, nice guys are being told they're defective. 

Remember those messages men get that tell them just as strongly and just as often that they are supposed to be having sex?  So they start asking questions about why they are failing to get sex, often aggressively, because they are being shunned and shamed.  Men aren't inherently sexually aggressive beasts any more than women are asexual ice queens.  We're both trying to conform to social expectations because there are very real consequences to us when we don't. 

So what answers do nice guys get?  They get told about confidence, that jerks are confident, so they're more attractive than a nice guy who's feeling like a failure.  But that's wrong.  It isn't a lie.  It's just wrong. 

You look at a nice guy and try to see what's wrong with him, and you don't see any flaws.  He's decent, caring, sensitive, and has his shit together.  But you have to tell him something because what he's doing obviously isn't working, and you are a decent person and don't want to see him continue to be hurt by his romantic failures. 

You look at what possible positive traits he could be lacking, and the only thing you can find is that maybe he's lacking in confidence.  So you tell him to work on himself, try to be happy alone so that confidence can build up and then he'll naturally be attractive because that was the only thing you could perceive that might be even slightly wrong with him.

But that perception that nice guys lack confidence is rooted in two errors.  First is that lack of confidence is an effect, not a cause.  He lacks confidence because he's being subjected to shaming and ostracism for failing to conform to his gender role.  He's experiencing exactly the same social pressure that you try to avoid when you worry over being called a slut.  That's what is eating away at his self esteem, and the only way out of that trap is to either conform to his gender role and succeed at having sex, or to recognize the gender role for what it is and reject it outright. 

The second error is mistaking a willingness to push through boundaries as "confidence".  Being unwilling to push past boundaries and make someone else uncomfortable isn't lack of confidence.  That's respecting the other person as a human being, and accepting the words and signals telling you that your advances aren't wanted. 

So, with all that mess, what is a nice guy to do? 

First off, you're a decent human being.  Don't change that fact.  Yes, pushing past women's boundaries in order to let them avoid slut shaming is what they want, but letting them play that game only makes it harder for them to come to own their sexual choices and desires. 

Second, you're a decent human being.  Decent human beings don't slut shame.  When a woman agrees to have sex and owns that decision, never make her feel like she did something wrong.  When someone else makes a woman feel like she did something wrong by agreeing to sex, that person is part of the problem, and needs to be called out not just because he's being an asshole and hurting that woman, but also because he's perpetuating the system that makes women think they need to be able to say "it just happened". 

Third, and this is going to be the hardest part for decent human beings.  Don't let a woman say "it just happened."  When a woman uses those words, I recommend (and have used) the following script:

W: It just happened.
M: Were you raped?
W: No...
M: Then it didn't "just happen."  You made a choice, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I realize that this is hard to say, but the truth is, you're doing a woman no favors by letting her hold on to her deniability with you.  Because whenever you're told "it just happened," it's because she's afraid that if she told you she chose to have sex, you would slut shame her.  This script tells her that you are not going to slut shame her, and that she doesn't need to pretend. 

This won't get you sex. 

That isn't what the goal is.  You're a decent human being.  You will feel like shit if you start pushing past boundaries and having sex without explicit consent.  If you were willing to do that, you wouldn't be a nice guy having this problem in the first place. 

This is about confronting the underlying problem that leads to all those boundaries being put up in the first place.  The goal is to get to the point where women have the confidence to say they want sex when they do. 

You want to have sex with women who want to have sex with you and aren't afraid to say so.  Pushing past boundaries, no matter why they were put up won't get you that.  Breaking down the cultural expectations that are telling women they're wrong to want sex with you might.