unsolicited sexual advances

[Kelliezgirl]

I think most people probably don't think that, although it's not a matter of the First Amendment because the First Amendment doesn't limit the ability of private movie studios to blacklist actors for political reasons.

This thread is more about courtesy, i.e., what people SHOULD say, than about rights, i.e., what people CAN say without threat of punishment by the government, or by powerful organizations.

My point is simply that people often start tossing out "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from accountability/consequences", and accept it without question while simultaneously believing that Hollywood blacklisting was an awful thing.

If we want "consequences" for people freely expressing their thoughts and feelings we ought to consider that we won't always be the ones deciding who suffers those consequences.

 

[SimonDoom]

My point is simply that people often start tossing out "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from accountability/consequences", and accept it without question while simultaneously believing that Hollywood blacklisting was an awful thing.

If we want "consequences" for people freely expressing their thoughts and feelings we ought to consider that we won't always be the ones deciding who suffers those consequences.

I agree with that. In the context of the movie industry, for instance, I believe those who run that industry should foster a culture of tolerance so the products of the industry represent a broad diversity of views.

A private university is not regulated by the First Amendment, but I think it too, because of the importance of academic freedom, has a compelling interest in fostering tolerance and allowing an extremely broad range of views to be expressed without adverse consequences imposed by the university.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I agree with that. In the context of the movie industry, for instance, I believe those who run that industry should foster a culture of tolerance so the products of the industry represent a broad diversity of views.

A private university is not regulated by the First Amendment, but I think it too, because of the importance of academic freedom, has a compelling interest in fostering tolerance and allowing an extremely broad range of views to be expressed without adverse consequences imposed by the university.

We as a society need to return to fostering those beliefs.
We achieve a much better society when the default is "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it."
Rather than "speech has consequences!".

 

[SimonDoom]

We as a society need to return to fostering those beliefs.
We achieve a much better society when the default is "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it."
Rather than "speech has consequences!".

I agree with that. I also that both concepts are reconcilable if dealt with the right way.

Consider the analogy of the "marketplace" of ideas. One should be free to engage in the marketing of ideas, including bad ones.

But bad ideas, like bad products, may come to bad ends. In that sense bad speech has consequences, and that's a welcome thing. But you don't know until you allow the bad ideas to circulate in the first place. I don't trust anybody to be a gatekeeper.

This is quite different from what we were talking about in this thread, though. I firmly believe that 95% of cases where some unpleasantness arises because of a sexual advance can be eliminated by the advancing party just showing better judgment.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I agree with that. I also that both concepts are reconcilable if dealt with the right way.

Consider the analogy of the "marketplace" of ideas. One should be free to engage in the marketing of ideas, including bad ones.

But bad ideas, like bad products, may come to bad ends. In that sense bad speech has consequences, and that's a welcome thing. But you don't know until you allow the bad ideas to circulate in the first place. I don't trust anybody to be a gatekeeper.

This is quite different from what we were talking about in this thread, though. I firmly believe that 95% of cases where some unpleasantness arises because of a sexual advance can be eliminated by the advancing party just showing better judgment.

The problem is certain people seem to delight in making mountains out of molehill.
A certain degree of "unpleasantness" is inevitable.

 

[intim8]

The good old days, when SNL was willing to say those kinds of things. Remember the female teacher/male student skit? When the judge fist-bumped the "victim" and said, "My man"

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The good old days, when SNL was willing to say those kinds of things. Remember the female teacher/male student skit? When the judge fist-bumped the "victim" and said, "My man"

Didn't see that one.

 

[intim8]

Didn't see that one.

 

[AlexBailey]

I wonder if some of the straight guys here would feel differently if other guys were constantly hitting on them.

 

[intim8]

I wonder if some of the straight guys here would feel differently if other guys were constantly hitting on them.

If it's consistent, all the time, then most likely most of them are inappropriate.

 

[AlexBailey]

If it's consistent, all the time, then most likely most of them are inappropriate.

Bingo.

And that’s how many women feel about frequent advances, especially if they have included details about being uninterested in their profile.

 

[nice90sguy]

I wonder if some of the straight guys here would feel differently if other guys were constantly hitting on them.

I doubt that would happen if I made it clear I was straight. And I think fanbabing on authors is an occupational hazard here -- admitedly a lot more so for female writers. It's kind of disingenuous to get all upset about it on this site. Compared to a lot of sites it's really pretty mild here.

 

[AG31]

How/why does one solicit a sexual advance on a site like the Lit forums?

 

[nice90sguy]

How/why does one solicit a sexual advance on a site like the Lit forums?

How - write a sexy story or have a sexy avatar
Why - I have no idea, I'm a happily married man

 

[intim8]

Bingo.

And that’s how many women feel about frequent advances, especially if they have included details about being uninterested in their profile.

Which is a distinction the OP made, between unsolicited and inappropriate. It didn't sound to me like they were rooting for the acceptance of inappropriate advances to women.

 

[nice90sguy]

"They"'re still posting here and can speak for themsleves Honestly... too lazy to scroll, eh?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I wonder if some of the straight guys here would feel differently if other guys were constantly hitting on them.

If they complained about it they'd probably get labeled as a homophobe.

 

[nice90sguy]

This whole thread is Harvey Weinstein's fault, basically. And Dolly Parton's, in "9 to 5".

 

[AlexBailey]

If they complained about it they'd probably get labeled as a homophobe.

What labels do women get when they turn advances down?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

What labels do women get when they turn advances down?

None, why do you ask?

 

[nice90sguy]

And that's the key: Not giving a fuck about rejecting, or about rejection.

 

[djrip]

We as a society need to return to fostering those beliefs.
We achieve a much better society when the default is "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it."
Rather than "speech has consequences!".

Both are true. You can't eliminate unpleasant consequences to speech without restricting the freedom of speech of the responding person. If someone says something a second person doesn't like, the second person is free to respond that they don't like that. They are free to not associate with that person. That's a consequence. To prevent that consequence, we would have to prohibit the second person from expressing their view.

 

[R. Richard]

I think you are right that there is a lot of nuance in this topic, but not about some of the specifics...

First I think we probably want to have a distinction between sexual, romantic, and friendship advances - 'Hey want to come to a movie with me on Friday?' could be any of the three. 'Hey, bitch, you are now my sub' less so. That was kind of what was being discussed in the USA (wait, cool anacronymn - that Unsolicited Sexual Advances) to Women thread.

Then there's the matter of unsolicited. This can be kind of a grey area. If a person is sitting alone at a bar 'hey can I buy you a drink?' isn't exactly solicited, but it's not entirely unreasonable either. On the other hand, saying to someone who is clearly at the bar with a romantic partner, 'hey, how about ditching that loser and coming with me?' is unsolicited and rude.

I'd agree there are times where a person is clearly 'soliciting' advances, just not from me and in which case my advances may indeed be 'unwanted'. Similarly if a person is hot enough those advances are going to be 'wanted' whether they're appropriate or being actively solicited at that moment or not.

Then of course there is the appropriate/inappropriateness of the advance. Perhaps this should just be about what is said and how it is said. I'd argue that, as a man, sometimes 'hot' women consider approaches by 'inferior' men inappropriate on their face, just because of the perceived mismatch in quality. And in fairness, if such women are getting approached all the time by darn near every man they meet, you can see why they dislike it - but in this overthought post, it should strictly come under unwanted rather than inappropriate.

An author who is publishing stories here, but is not taking part in the personal section, is not 'soliciting' requests for sexual/romantic advances, so it's pretty weird to approach them as such. I think a lot of the stories on those board show that the advances starts as or quickly became inappropriate.

"On the other hand, saying to someone who is clearly at the bar with a romantic partner, 'hey, how about ditching that loser and coming with me?' is unsolicited and rude."
Rude and stupid. I used, "A nice girl like you wouldn't realize that sitting there with a flaming faggot like wimp boy is rude to wimp boy, but maybe gets rude boy a date with nice girl or a date with a spectator. after rude boy beats the crap out of wimp boy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

How/why does one solicit a sexual advance on a site like the Lit forums?

Some folk here have things like "40yo woman looking for FWB" in their profiles or sigs; it's a bit more common in some areas outside AH. Responding to something like that would be a solicited advance.

 

[FeralSmile]

We as a society need to return to fostering those beliefs.
We achieve a much better society when the default is "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it."
Rather than "speech has consequences!".

I think you're ignoring a lot of nuance there. Voltaire is great! Big fan. But almost nobody single-mindedly pursues that fight to defend all speech at all times. I sincerely doubt you do.

Do you go on social media and argue in favor of Nazis and antisemites being able to freely express their bigotry? Why not? If you really will fight to defend everyone's right to say anything at all, where do you draw the line?

Do you post here arguing passionately that rape and bestiality and underage porn absolutely must be allowed? I mean, doing so would be consistent with Voltaire's proposition, wouldn't it?

But you don't do that, I imagine, because that aphorism is an oversimplification; it's a nice general principle but it only applies in some places.

What I think you're not accounting for there, and what I was getting at with the posts you took issue with above, is that there's a profound difference between the freedom of speech allowed by the government, and the freedom of speech that private individuals and companies offer. In the former, yes, free speech is free speech, and very little is and should be forbidden. Censorship imposed by governments is innately bad in almost all cases. That's the point of the First Amendment. But in the latter, you probably don't seriously expect Literotica to publish stuff that the owners find morally or legally objectionable, just as you probably don't expect to be able to walk up to your boss, insult them to their face, tell them you plan to do your job as poorly as possible, complain about how the company does nothing of value... and still keep your job.

Because speech does have consequences. It must. That's how societies work. That's how interpersonal relationships work. That's how people work.

And these ideas aren't in conflict the way you seem to suggest: you can both be anti-government censorship, and fight to prevent it, but at the same time allow private individuals the right to impose consequences for speech as they choose. And you can support that right even if you don't agree with their choices! Even if you think their limits to free speech hurt society, or are immoral! You can hate the Hays Code but still agree that it was lawful, and think it hurt America while still thinking the MPPA had the right to do it.

I support free speech. People should be able to say what they want, in general. But that doesn't mean you have a right to come to my house and write on my walls. And that's precisely the same as e.g. Literotica being within their rights to impose rules restricting speech here. AND... speech does have consequences, in the form of feedback and social and political and economic and legal repercussions. Because it must. Because not having any consequences is literally inconceivable in this world we live in.

And, returning at long last to the topic, you have the right to make unwanted advances in a rude and offputting way, but you should also expect rejection and sometimes anger and disgust.

It's a fun topic, but it's, again, a lot more nuanced than citing Voltaire and moving on.