Thanks! We seem to largely agree. =)
That's fair enough, and that's 90% of our disagreement. But I made sure I reread the section in question a couple of times before I posted, and I'm still confident in my initial assumptions, and that most people would read them the same way.
Now, I'm quite prepared to accept the argument that for the particular character of Wanda "Unwelcome Part" is anything beyond the fingertips, but even if it is the case, what is wrong with respecting that? And if it isn't the case, "Unwelcome Part" means exactly what it would to most members of the population, a supposition that is further bolstered by the nature of Wanda's retaliation.
Most people I know don't like to be flirtatiously touched anywhere
by people they don't find attractive. On the other hand, quite a few enjoy it from people they do
like, even strangers. When 'unwelcome' is a matter of who's doing the touching... well, certainly people should respect it once they find out, but that does have to happen first.
I see your point on the uncroaked, but find it equally likely that Wanda had them lay it on a bit thicker to drive the point home. The whole move is a parody; some exaggeration seems to be expected.
Iunno. It's open to interpretation; there's arguments for either view. Let's call it a known range of uncertainty and agree to disagree. =)
Lol... VERY experienced thank you
Which is why I have very little patience with the "She was giving out mixed signals" school of defence. It is possible to tell is someone wants to have sex with you within 10 seconds of meeting them, and I can still make that distinction while hammered enough that staggering to a urinal is a challenge.
Cool; you must explain that to me some time. In my experience, there's people who clearly are or clearly aren't interested... and then a lot who give neutral signals. Personally, I'm inclined to leave those alone, but I know from experience that that group includes shy/inattentive/flirtatiously inexperienced people whose answer would
be 'yes' if only they were more effective communicators. In fact, I spent a year or so in that group when I first started going out, and I'm rather grateful to have met a few people forward enough to push through that unintentional resistance when I needed them to.
Disagree - you are trying to classify something that is subjectively experienced in terms of it's subjective intention. If I accidentally run someone over, it's different from me intentionally driving them down. But the victim is still run over. The person on the receiving end has the same unpleasant experience regardless of my intent.
Well, sure. But while mostly everybody would agree that being run over is a bad thing, the unpleasantness of being touched is highly subjective. I'll agree that the receiving party's interpretation is the final word in every situation once it's known
, but the fact is that we interact with each other in a lot
of ways without prior negotiation, and every single one of those could
be interpreted as unpleasant. For example, kids are told that addressing people are 'mr/ms' or 'sir/madam' is polite... but I personally hate it when people do it to me. Are they responsible for guessing that? Or for asking me before they speak? Or is it fair - on the general assumption that while being spoken to is potentially upsetting, it is physically harmless - that good intentions are enough until told otherwise?
Where you draw the line with that sort of thing comes down to culture and preference: necessarily subjective, and necessarily arbitrary. Under those conditions, I object to condemning any
set of expectations (or the actions that logically follow from them), however common or esoteric, as immoral; only once someone's preferences are known can anybody be reasonable held accountable for respecting them.
Groping people is controversial in our culture, but it is
physically harmless: negative interpretations may be common and intense, but they remain entirely subjective. So while knowing what I do about our culture I certainly wouldn't advice opening up with it, my argument from above does apply, and I maintain that it cannot be called unethical (which seems implied in 'molestation') without resorting to ethnocentrism.
Oh, and you keep mentioning our "repressed sexual culture"... I assure you that sex clubs have a far dimmer view of that kind of behaviour, because if you can't feel safe chained naked to an inverted cross, where can you feel safe?
Oh, I know. =)
But sex clubs are hardly uninfluenced by sexual repression. In fact, as centers of sexpositive counterculture, they're in many ways defined by it. If this battle were fought, won and forgotten entirely for a generation or two, sensibilities and sensitivities would relax a lot compared to what people on either end of the current divide are used to.