[Dull Spoon]

Well, I can tell you that I don't care for it. I find that I have what I'll call an INTJ aura and I give off a do-not-touch vibe. That deters a lot of random touching, but some fellas get a bit handsy-unexpectedly. I'm a Southern INTJ lady so we opt for the polite (but firm) route first, a Please don't do that...It makes me uncomfortable. I get that these guys aren't doing this to personally offend me- it is just a part of their nature as much as it is NOT part of mine. That is the last warning, though. If they persist beyond that, then I look them dead in the eyes and tell them that I don't want them to touch me. I do not like it and I won't put up with it and simply walk away. This is reserved for jerks, though, and doesn't really apply to people who are over huggers, close talkers, or just touchy-feely types with no real intention of being creepy. I'm not rude about it in average contact cases, although I'd just rather they didn't, but I've found that when I just explain that I don't like it and it is more a personal issue and then carry on-they generally get it and don't repeat the unwanted contact until we know each other well enough and a hug every now-and-again is acceptable.

[SwedenF]

As far as I can see, no one here actually expressed the opinion that it would be ok to continue. It just boils down to what the consequence should be for the guy, and if he just failed to register it, or if he simply didn't care.

I imagine most can agree that if you intentionally do not care and pin the person down, that's bordering towards rape. Whereas simply not realizing as you are too consumed by your physical stuff, is unacceptable/douchey, but not quite rape.

[AnnaMolly]

	Originally Posted by SwedenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I imagine most can agree that if you intentionally do not care and pin the person down, that's bordering towards rape. Whereas simply not realizing as you are too consumed by your physical stuff, is unacceptable/douchey, but not quite rape.

Not really. This:

	Originally Posted by Nightmare To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I disagree. If you have given consent for entry, you essentially provide the 'okay' for the entire act. And it's kind of hard for a guy to.... move? ... mid-orgasm anyway... Indulging in sex is an adult decision. If you cannot commit to such an adult decision the entire course of the act, you shouldn't be doing it. Consent isn't permanent, yes, but not on the scale you're thinking of.

... doesn't exactly sound to me like it's about "simply not realizing that she wants to stop, maybe". Rather, it sounds to me like: "When you agree to have sex with me, you'll have sex with me until I'm done. Your own damn fault if you change your mind, I sure ain't stoppin' the sexin'." Sorry if I'm being a bit aggressive here, but there is just no excuse for an attitude like this. It signifies a blatant lack of empathy and care for the person you're having sex with. Everything that ever happens in your bed should be a nice thing for both of you. To care less about that than about your ""right"" to shoot your load is simply incomprehensible.

Besides, how can you not notice that your partner doesn't want to continue? Are men suddenly turning deaf and blind during sex?

[Moth]

Originally Posted by SwedenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As far as I can see, no one here actually expressed the opinion that it would be ok to continue. It just boils down to what the consequence should be for the guy, and if he just failed to register it, or if he simply didn't care. I imagine most can agree that if you intentionally do not care and pin the person down, that's bordering towards rape. Whereas simply not realizing as you are too consumed by your physical stuff, is unacceptable/douchey, but not quite rape.

Again, according to a definition (well-crafted, in my opinion) intended to be representative of the majority of current statutes in the US, and precedent in several states, continuing sex for an unreasonable period of time after non-consent has been expressed does seem to be rape. Quite. The presumption, one that I'm willing to buy, is that if you're incapable of registering a "no" within a fairly brief period it probably is because you don't much care.

At least in the US, consequences are typically not uniform for all rape convictions. Filing it under that definitional heading does not by extension mean that someone convicted of it would receive exactly the same sentence/suffer the same consequences as, say, a person who jumped an old woman in an alley and held a knife to her throat to facilitate themselves.

(Note for those who might try: bringing up the problematic aspects of public sex-offender registries to me, personally, is preaching to the choir. I'm already in favor of reforming such policies.)

	I imagine most can agree that if you intentionally do not care and pin the person down, that's bordering towards rape.

"Bordering towards"?

And, because I missed it:

	So let's make such a situation less dramatic by labeling it as something other than rape, like 'withdrawl of consent'. This shouldn't have as substantial of legal punishments. After all, she did consent. Rape is totally non-consensual.

Sex (defined simply as having your penis, or anything else, in a sexual orifice at any given point in time) occurring after someone has told you to stop and after enough time for you to withdraw is passed, is totally non-consensual, regardless when you started. See how that works?

For a response to the comment on appropriate punishment, see paragraph two of this post.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How about a guy who thinks he might have hurt his penis when she comes down hard but she continues right on pumping because hey he consented and she needs to get hers? Or how about if during a blow job she keeps scraping her teeth on his dick and he says to stop but hey he initially consented so it's ok if she keeps going. Consent stops when someone doesn't want to play anymore. It's their body and their right to say no and expect the other person to comply. I can't believe this has to be explained to people. But I guess that is why there are laws, eh?

If something like that happened to me I wouldn't call rape. I would push her off say "ow, wtf, I told you to stop," and that would be it. Rape to me implies some sort of intimidation/non-consent/taking advantage of someone who doesn't know any better. Like if she said stop, and he held her down, and threatened her, and continued then yes I could see that being rape.

[AnnaMolly]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If something like that happened to me I wouldn't call rape. I would push her off say "ow, wtf, I told you to stop," and that would be it. Rape to me implies some sort of intimidation/non-consent/taking advantage of someone who doesn't know any better. Like if she said stop, and he held her down, and threatened her, and continued then yes I could see that being rape.

I can't BELIEVE I have to spell this out to you. You embody the lack of empathy I mentioned earlier.

See the part I highlighted? Ever, even for a split second, imagined being a woman? In most cases, you can't simply "push off" the guy. Guess what, if that was possible, there wouldn't be that many rapes. Did that ever occur to you? No, of course not ...

Well, to make this simpler for you: imagine having sex with a woman who's a weight lifter and weighs 250 pounds. She's on top of you, riding you intensely, suddenly you feel a huge pain in your penis and you're afraid she may have tore it. You say "Please stop, I think I'm hurt", but she keeps going at it for another 10 minutes while you howl in pain. Still wouldn't call it rape? You gave your consent at the beginning, didn't you?

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Like if she said stop, and he held her down, and threatened her, and continued then yes I could see that being rape.

Which is exactly what's being discussed here, and has been described in numerous posts.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can't BELIEVE I have to spell this out to you. You embody the lack of empathy I mentioned earlier. See the part I highlighted? Ever, even for a split second, imagined being a woman? In most cases, you can't simply "push off" the guy. Guess what, if that was possible, there wouldn't be that many rapes. Did that ever occur to you? No, of course not ... Well, to make this simpler for you: imagine having sex with a woman who's a weight lifter and weighs 250 pounds. She's on top of you, riding you intensely, suddenly you feel a huge pain in your penis and you're afraid she may have tore it. You say "Please stop, I think I'm hurt", but she keeps going at it for another 10 minutes while you howl in pain. Still wouldn't call it rape? You gave your consent at the beginning, didn't you?

Ok, maybe we're imagining this differently. B/c if a woman squirms and the guy has any decency he would stop. I have hard time imagining pumping 3 more times would be considered rape. I just find it odd that people are arguing here at considerable lengths to make it sound like any movement after stop is rape. What happens if he orgasms once she says stop? Those involuntary spasms are rape?? Empathy for the female? What about empathy for the male who couldn't stop the spasms and his life might be in ruins b/c of it? I'm sure if there's a panel of jurors they would consider the multitudes/range of possibilities rather than making it so black and white. Though I generally believe that it does lean a lot more towards stop means stop.

Well in your weightlifter scenario, the person is being held down right? That's different.

[Moth]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I just find it odd that people are arguing here at considerable lengths to make it sound like any movement after stop is rape.

No one is arguing this. It's merely been stated that there conceptually must be a maximum threshold for how much movement is actually required, and how much time it would take, to stop thrusting and pull out. Actually, if there is any eventuality of penetrative sex that we can reasonably expect anyone to understand and to implicitly have consented to in consenting to be penetrated, it's a partner's inability to make their penis magically vanish from inside you, without movement, at the sound of a magic word.

	What about empathy for the male who couldn't stop the spasms and his life might be in ruins b/c of it? I'm sure if there's a panel of jurors they would consider the multitudes/range of possibilities rather than making it so black and white.

The latter is true, so why are you acting as though the former doesn't exist?

	Though I generally believe that it does lean a lot more towards stop means stop.

Of course it does, with certain qualifications we've been over. Rightly so. But even then you still have to prove that "stop" was ever actually said - difficult to do if the sex began consensually and therefore most likely took place in private, making it a he-said-she-said affair. Rape convictions are not an ever-present danger for all men. Often they're less of a danger than they should be for the men who actually commit the crime.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by Moth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The latter is true, so why are you acting as though the former doesn't exist?

I'm not. It's just from the overall tone of the thread, it sounds like such a black and white thing where the guy is the bad guy and the girl is the good guy. I just tend to dislike things sounding so absolute.

[AnnaMolly]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ok, maybe we're imagining this differently. B/c if a woman squirms and the guy has any decency he would stop.

Good thing we agree on that. That is exactly what I have been saying. The important part is "Does the guy have any decency?" I got the impression that many men here, possibly including you, think that having sex entitles them to "finish what they begun". Which makes me question their decency. And no, being a douche does not begin at continuing to have sex with a squirming woman. Getting off of her and being all pissed about having to stop and blaming her for being a fickle bitch is douchey enough.

Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have hard time imagining pumping 3 more times would be considered rape. I just find it odd that people are arguing here at considerable lengths to make it sound like any movement after stop is rape. What happens if he orgasms once she says stop? Those involuntary spasms are rape?? Empathy for the female? What about empathy for the male who couldn't stop the spasms and his life might be in ruins b/c of it? I'm sure if there's a panel of jurors they would consider the multitudes/range of possibilities rather than making it so black and white. Though I generally believe that it does lean a lot more towards stop means stop.

That was covered. Every female poster (that I saw) agreed that in the 4-pump-scenario, the guy in all likelihood isn't to blame for anything. Any jury or judge who'd charge him with rape because of that is one I'd likely consider unjust.

But the fact that we're "counting the pumps" here is sick imo. The attitude is the problem. Your main concern should not be "To what exactly am I entitled to once she drops her pants?". That is a disgusting attitude to have. (Not saying it's yours.) Your attitude should be "How can this be the best possible experience for both of us?" If you notice your partner not enjoying it or wanting to stop, you should not spend a second being pissed or frustrated or trying to figure out how you can still "get the most" out of the situation for yourself. Instead, you should care for the well-being of your partner. This goes for both sexes, obviously. See the penis injury example.

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well in your weightlifter scenario, the person is being held down right? That's different.

... You still do not get it. If the woman wants it to stop, why can't she stop it instantly? Why are we even talking about "four more pumps"? Why not zero? Why doesn't she simply get up and leave? Because she can't get out of the situation so easily.
You having sex with a weight lifter is what sex is like for women most of the time. Even if the guy is light to averagely built, he's likely at least ~30% stronger than a woman of the same height and weight. And mostly he's taller and heavier anyways.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But the fact that we're "counting the pumps" here is sick imo. The attitude is the problem. Your main concern should not be "To what exactly am I entitled to once she drops her pants?". That is a disgusting attitude to have. (Not saying it's yours.) Your attitude should be "How can this be the best possible experience for both of us?" If you notice your partner not enjoying it or wanting to stop, you should not spend a second being pissed or frustrated or trying to figure out how you can still "get the most" out of the situation for yourself. Instead, you should care for the well-being of your partner. This goes for both sexes, obviously. See the penis injury example. ... You still do not get it. If the woman wants it to stop, why can't she stop it instantly? Why are we even talking about "four more pumps"? Why not zero? Why doesn't she simply get up and leave? Because she can't get out of the situation so easily. You having sex with a weight lifter is what sex is like for women most of the time. Even if the guy is light to averagely built, he's likely at least ~30% stronger than a woman of the same height and weight. And mostly he's taller and heavier anyways.

It's an arbitrary number, it could be 1 or 2 pumps. I'm just focusing on the technicality of it if she ever called "rape!" and it went to the courtroom. That's the details they would focus on.

She can't get it to stop instantly b/c there's a number of reasons. Maybe the way the girl said it made the guy think she was joking, maybe her physical reaction wasn't in line with her words. I mean people make judgement calls from verbal as well as physical cues.

[SwedenF]

	Originally Posted by AnnaMolly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... doesn't exactly sound to me like it's about "simply not realizing that she wants to stop, maybe".

Well, I get a different vibe from Nightmares posts. It doesn't seem to me like he is arguing that it's acceptable to keep going, he is just arguing it's not as severe as rape and a man shouldn't have his life ruined over it. I'm looking at the over all picture of a persons posts, not one individual one.

It seems to me this discussion is two sides, both thinking about the same, but being hung up on different parts of it, and it ending up being a discussion about semantics.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying the vibe I get from the guys who replied is not that they are trying to calculate how many thrusts are acceptable, but that they don't want to be labled as rapists for taking a moment to register the situation and react.

	Originally Posted by Moth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, according to a definition (well-crafted, in my opinion) intended to be representative of the majority of current statutes in the US, and precedent in several states, continuing sex for an unreasonable period of time after non-consent has been expressed does seem to be rape.

And back to what I just wrote to AnnaMolly. I don't think any of the guys (I think they are all guys at least, maybe I am wrong) is arguing that. The key word there is "unreasonable amount of time".

It's none of my business, I just can't help but notice that both sides seem to say the same thing, but doesn't quite want to see that, as they want it said their way, and both sides express it differently =)

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by SwedenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, I get a different vibe from Nightmares posts. It doesn't seem to me like he is arguing that it's acceptable to keep going, he is just arguing it's not as severe as rape and a man shouldn't have his life ruined over it. I'm looking at the over all picture of a persons posts, not one individual one. It seems to me this discussion is two sides, both thinking about the same, but being hung up on different parts of it, and it ending up being a discussion about semantics. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying the vibe I get from the guys who replied is not that they are trying to calculate how many thrusts are acceptable, but that they don't want to be labled as rapists for taking a moment to register the situation and react.

Yep that's where I was going as well.

[Nightmare]

	Well, I get a different vibe from Nightmares posts. It doesn't seem to me like he is arguing that it's acceptable to keep going, he is just arguing it's not as severe as rape and a man shouldn't have his life ruined over it. I'm looking at the over all picture of a persons posts, not one individual one.

Bingo. Of course, there are many variables as described by other users. One would be pain, and so on and so forth. But generally speaking, I still stand true to my previous statement that one needs to be very careful to willingly engage in sexual activity because it is an adult decision. The sudden 'change of heart' makes things impossibly complicated.

[AnnaMolly]

@ Sweden: I hope you're right
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Nightmare To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Bingo. Of course, there are many variables as described by other users. One would be pain, and so on and so forth. But generally speaking, I still stand true to my previous statement that one needs to be very careful to willingly engage in sexual activity because it is an adult decision. The sudden 'change of heart' makes things impossibly complicated.

Complicated? Sex and its implications are complicated, which is why I actually agree with you that it should be a careful decision. However, I find it the wrong thing to focus on. The important thing is that people should pay attention to their sex partners and their reactions and view consent as something that's of the utmost importance.

Talking about how people should think reaaaally long and hard whether they actually want to have sex because they might not be able to get out of it later, is a bit like telling women they shouldn't dress "provocatively" and go out alone late at night. It might be true and actually sound advice, but if that's the main point of discussion, it feels like putting blame on the wrong person (the victim), and focusing on wrong priorities.
I think the focus should rather lie on teaching men not to rape women (or drastically shunning and punishing them if they do), and teaching "normal" men to be attentive during sex and care about their partner having a good time just as much as they do about their own.

[Moth]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's an arbitrary number, it could be 1 or 2 pumps. I'm just focusing on the technicality of it if she ever called "rape!" and it went to the courtroom. That's the details they would focus on.

Are they really? Because, seeing as no one has proposed codifying a specific time limit or number of thrusts to cite as a technicality, I'd say that lawmakers, judges and jurors will be made plenty aware of the importance of context and probably will find such a tidbit as precisely how many "pumps" followed "stop" pretty paltry in comparison to other details. (If you could even provide evidence of the amount, and you probably could not.) For instance: how many times "stop" was said, whether alcohol was involved, whether overt force was used, whether protection was used, how a man's body weight was used, what reasonable excuses there might have been for not stopping immediately and, again, whether "stop" was ever actually said to begin with.

	And back to what I just wrote to AnnaMolly. I don't think any of the guys (I think they are all guys at least, maybe I am wrong) is arguing that. The key word there is "unreasonable amount of time".

The vague "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable" amount of time distinction serves as much to provide well-meaning, unwitting potential perpetrators with a margin of error as to protect potential victims. The only obvious way to be more fixed in that regard while still preserving the right to bodily autonomy of a potential victim would be to settle on specific numbers as maximums. But that might only make conviction of those with good intentions and slow reaction time more likely to happen, where detailed evidence actually exists.

	Well, I get a different vibe from Nightmares posts. It doesn't seem to me like he is arguing that it's acceptable to keep going, he is just arguing it's not as severe as rape and a man shouldn't have his life ruined over it. I'm looking at the over all picture of a persons posts, not one individual one.

The correct way to state this is that it should not be considered as severe as some other forms of rape and sentencing should reflect that. As non-consensual penetration, it is still rape according to non-archaic standards.

Mince words if you like. It's simpler to expand an existing definition of non-consensual sex than to create a whole new category, so the R-word will continue to be used officially. Anyone who doesn't want it on their record or reputation should refrain from beginning or continuing intercourse if non-consent has been expressed.

	She can't get it to stop instantly b/c there's a number of reasons. Maybe the way the girl said it made the guy think she was joking, maybe her physical reaction wasn't in line with her words. I mean people make judgement calls from verbal as well as physical cues.

Taking a moment to comprehend the message is a valid reason. Taking a moment to break momentum and stop thrusting is a valid reason. Taking a moment to pull out is a valid reason. Not hearing the first time is a valid reason. "Uncontrollable spasms" are hypothetically a valid reason, though talking about an orgasm as if it's a grand mal seizure is unrealistic at best.

Hearing what the woman has said and choosing not to believe it is not a valid reason. Sexual communication is never really quantifiable unless one accepts that the verbal should serve as an unconditional override, because words have firm semantic meanings that tones and gestures do not. If someone were convicted of rape after testifying, "I heard her say 'stop', your Honor, but I thought maybe she was joking and plus she was kind of groaning too and arching her back, and you know what that means," I would not protest it. He chose to make his judgement call using the least specific and certain cues available to him, and he made a mistake, even if he didn't intend to.

	The sudden 'change of heart' makes things impossibly complicated.

Adults obsessively worrying about their ability to comprehend and respond to one-syllable words like "stop" and "no" within a time frame that isn't suspicious seems like a far more serious complication to me.

[SeverusSin]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You need to change your password. Someone is getting into your account and posting this:

Erm, it still doesn't say that I supposedly think everyone should be free to touch anyone regardless of personal boundary. I said touching was as a required and a basis for human interaction and to get over it. That's all. I love these attempts at inferring things that aren't there...

[Saggita]

	Originally Posted by SeverusSin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Erm, it still doesn't say that I supposedly think everyone should be free to touch anyone regardless of personal boundary. I said touching was as a required and a basis for human interaction and to get over it. That's all. I love these attempts at inferring things that aren't there...

So you are saying that everyone should get over their personal boundaries because touching is required... Dudebro, touching is not required if the other person doesn't want any touch. How difficut is to understand how to respect other people's boundaries?

[JustMel]

An attorney who is no longer in our office defended a statutory rape case a few years ago. The boy was charged, tried and convicted and now registers as a sex offender. Because his victim was 15 and he 17 and because her parents chose to say they'd had sex based on the mother's "overhearing" them discussing having had sex this boy was convicted of sexual assault on a minor/statutory rape. The girl was not of the age of consent so her parents, who allowed them to date for more than a year, discussed birth control options with them, etc chose to withdraw their "consent" and had the boy charged. Now he is labeled a rapist for the rest of his life. I have a serious issue with that. I regularly check the sex offender registry because I have little girls and I want to know who is around. Statutory rape does not invoke the same disgust factor as "fondling/touching a child under 12" or "sexual assault on a child under 8" or "sexual battery. 6 counts", "carnal knowledge of a child under 12" etc. But the ones that really scare me are the ones that simply state "Any reason that required registration in another state/locale".

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by SeverusSin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I find the admission of violence upon unauthorised touching to be quite alarming, especially because if a man was received an unsolicited yet innocent touch by a woman and he reacted violently the thread responses would be a lot different, coming from women especially.

I get affected strongly by being touched. It can often instinctively make me act revulsively, like a leper touched you. With women, it is more difficult, because it often ignites awareness of the reproductive instinct in me, and makes me aware of just how out of control it could make me, and what I might do out of being controlled by a powerful emotion. Many times, I have pulled away sharply from a woman's touch, I was not expecting, and so was unready for. So far, it has made several women feel very uncomfortable. A few times, I saw the woman crying her eyes out soon after.

I try to keep it under control.

However, so far, no-one has accused me of anything for it.

However, I have been asked for a f*ck from a few drunk women, calmly turned them down, and then seem them turn so violent, that they had to be forcibly thrown out of the environment by the staff.

So I don't think that it's rejection of unauthorised touching you have to worry about.

[SeverusSin]

	Originally Posted by Saggita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you are saying that everyone should get over their personal boundaries because touching is required... Dudebro, touching is not required if the other person doesn't want any touch. How difficut is to understand how to respect other people's boundaries?

I understand how to respect other people's boundaries and never once in my life have I fell victim to unauthorized touching or touching anyone else inappropriately. I'm just saying, touching is no big deal to me, I don't exude awkwardness by my very response to what is base human interaction in such a repulsive manor. The personal boundaries thing is personal, but our reaction to things is learnt behavior and not always reasonable. That's it.

Then I guess I don't have tons of emotional baggage about being accosted by men. I don't have experiences of rape. I don't have experience of people overstepping my personal boundaries. I also am fairly confident in my reasonable expression of those boundaries and no one as of yet has fallen foul of this. I've never had to be violent to anyone for overstepping my personal boundary or felt vulnerable due to someone getting too close. I just don't have those issues, people connecting, clicking and interacting friendly with or without touching its all the same.

For example it doesn't bother me to see a guy walk up to a lady and lightly touch her without saying "M'Lady would it be deemed too forward of me to lightly tap your elbow in an attempt to get your attention?". From the responses on this thread, it seems like many woman are sitting waiting to punch the guy in the gut and scream "How dare you assume touching me in any way is a reasonable way of getting my attention!". Excuse me for thinking her response as unreasonable as if the guy had walked over to a lady and grabbed her violently.

Anyway that's the last example of my point I am willing to give. After this, whatever opinion others have of my position is fine, I have no desire to control what you think of my approach...it doesn't matter that much in the scheme of things.

[firebee]

Originally Posted by SeverusSin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I understand how to respect other people's boundaries and never once in my life have I fell victim to unauthorized touching or touching anyone else inappropriately. I'm just saying, touching is no big deal to me, I don't exude awkwardness by my very response to what is base human interaction in such a repulsive manor. The personal boundaries thing is personal, but our reaction to things is learnt behavior and not always reasonable. That's it. Then I guess I don't have tons of emotional baggage about being accosted by men. I don't have experiences of rape. I don't have experience of people overstepping my personal boundaries. I also am fairly confident in my reasonable expression of those boundaries and no one as of yet has fallen foul of this. I've never had to be violent to anyone for overstepping my personal boundary or felt vulnerable due to someone getting too close. I just don't have those issues, people connecting, clicking and interacting friendly with or without touching its all the same. For example it doesn't bother me to see a guy walk up to a lady and lightly touch her without saying "M'Lady would it be deemed too forward of me to lightly tap your elbow in an attempt to get your attention?". From the responses on this thread, it seems like many woman are sitting waiting to punch the guy in the gut and scream "How dare you assume touching me in any way is a reasonable way of getting my attention!". Excuse me for thinking her response as unreasonable as if the guy had walked over to a lady and grabbed her violently.

You're the one who created her response. If you don't like it, write it differently next time.

Your lip service to respecting other people's boundaries is substantially undermined when you then immediately go on to state (at substantial and amazingly passive-aggressive length) that to have them is to be a socially disastrous basket case and that enforcing them is the equivalent of a series of increasingly unlikely violent responses to increasingly innocent actions.

For that matter, your ability to perform basic reasoning is called into question when you apparently decide that it seems perfectly reasonable that those of us responding to you in this thread are routinely clubbing people for looking at us -- in that case we'd have to be hermits or living in a lesbian commune (not that the invitation isn't open!) for the streets not to be running with blood.

If nothing else, one would think that daily curb-stompings of doe-eyed innocent men would at some point add up to experience in the ways of fighting.

[Cyfy]

Now, I'm a guy, but just so that we can get a little perspective on the situation, I don't particularly like touching with someone I don't know either. I'm sure I'm not as bad about it as some of the other people here, but I even avoid brushing up against people in a crowd. I like to reserve touching for times when they are really warranted as expressions of intense emotion, that way they have more power behind them and mean more.

I think that general discomfort around touching is probably a trait of the INTJ's highly rational, not to mention reserved, personality. As a rule, we as INTJs despise things that are contrived and meaningless, so when an action that we perceive as something intimate occurs between two people who are not intimate, we are immediately repulsed.

On a completely different note, I'm a writer, and I recently wrote a short story where this exact topic is brought up. In one scene, an INTJ character is having a hard time, so one of the other characters gives her the requisite motivational speech. While doing this, he puts his hand on hers, but she gives him a look that says, "I have a very large knife that I use for times like this," causing him to withdraw his hand and go on trying to make her feel better. I wrote this into the scene because I wanted to make it perfectly clear that there was not a romantic interest between the two characters. Okay, they may have had a mutual crush, but that was inevitable considering that the characters were teenagers, and I did try to underplay that aspect of the story so that I could focus on developing them as characters in their own rights rather than as just another teen romance couple. Again, just a random note that I thought was vaguely relevant to the topic at hand.