Admittedly off-topic, but it’s a hot-off-topic, so maybe we have some leeway.

I hadn’t heard of the problem you mentioned, probably because it is such a small population. I hope my post didn’t give the indication that Obamacare was a flawless bill, because there’s a lot wrong with it. In all honesty it’s a better budgetary bill that it is a health care bill.

The broader point, though, is that there are legitimate criticisms of the bill (give away to insurance companies, the problem you mentioned, no public option…), but among them are not STALINOBAMAHITLER DEATH PANELS!!

Likewise, there are legitimate criticisms of any given harassment policy, but among them are not EVIL KILLJOY FEMINISTS WANT TO OUTLAW SEX!

Mixed Thunderfoot up with the video bloggette who appeared on FTB at the same time (with link to incoherent anti-feminist rant)

I think my comments still stand. I COULD comment on any of the subthreads, but could anyone follow the argument through the maze?

Perhaps the biggest threat of writing codes of conduct is that it can’t be done without doing some critical thinking about our actual conduct. Real life is riven with unexamined assumptions.

Men and women hurt each other feelings ALL THE TIME, in the smallest and most aggravating ways. Everyone has their own grudge stories. The root issue here is not the problems of sexual etiquette in the modern world

This is about the Sanduskys and Father Flotskys in the atheist community. We should not be having this much trouble dealing with this shit. Trolling by the equivalent of Bill Donohue (the pro-rapist papist) and personal resentment catalogs from basically ‘normal’ people are mistaking the primary issue: there are bad people out in the real world and we have to deal with them.

All this worry about actually, you know, having to respect people’s stated wishes is fucking creepy – why, exactly, is this a bad idea? Why SHOULD it be okay to not respect clear statements of boundaries, something that cannot be done without clearly establishing those boundaries first?

It’s a bit strawmanny to go from “it’s not necessary to always have to explicitly ask before kissing someone” to “it’s okay to not respect people’s stated wishes”. I’m pretty sure jamessweet is just arguing that consent can happen without actually asking. In the kissing example, for instance, starting to lean in for a kiss is a way of obtaining consent without asking for it per se: if they don’t respond enthusiastically you’ll stop and not actually kiss them (and probably apologize for misreading them), but if they do, they’re freely indicating that they’re down with it, and actually more so than if they’d given verbal consent, since people often agree to things they don’t actually want when explicitly asked.

This method can fail for someone with a hard time reading social cues, but it errs on the side of caution: if the person you’re trying to kiss doesn’t realize what you’re indicating, they’re not going to lean in to kiss you, so the cue for you to go ahead isn’t given and you’ll have to fall back to asking. It’s pretty robust, as long as the initiator does wait for an enthusiastic cue, which I’m pretty sure is the way things normally work.

The worry isn’t about having to respect people’s stated wishes – the worry is about how cumbersome it would be to have to ask explicit permission for everything, even when we honestly do have solid reason to believe we can drop it without causing anyone discomfort. (For instance, when we’re with people we know very well, we generally already understand their boundaries and they’re comfortable enough with us to tell us immediately if we were to inadvertently violate them; and people can indicate clearly through their own behaviour that they’re, for instance, perfectly down with hugs or casual touching, without you asking them about it.)

But at the bottom line, I very much agree with the point that sexual harassment policies should be strict so that genuine victims have solid leverage even against sleazebags who claim to have been responding to imagined social cues, in the understanding that technical violations where all participants were careful about their cue-reading and everyone enjoyed themselves aren’t going to be reported anyway.

I would say, if you do not have a well-established relationship where boundaries are well understood, always go for the explicit verbal consent. If you’re in a long-term relationship where you know the other party clicks hir heels three times when ze wants to be kissed, then go ahead and kiss hir when ze clicks hir heels three times. However, if you just met somebody at a conference … go ahead and ask.

I have heard women complain about guys asking explicitly before they kiss, but ONLY when they were in an established relationship with the guy in question – they felt they were far enough in the relationship where they felt that verbal consent every single time was overkill. I have never heard/seen a woman complain about a guy asking for verbal consent on the first encounter.

The idea that it’s romantic to kiss a woman – which whom you do not have an established relationship – without first asking explicitly – is a part of rape culture where it’s considered romantic for a guy to sweep in and take a woman, regardless of what she thinks. The corollary – that it’s okay if a woman kisses a guy without the guy’s permission, is based on another socially destructive notion – that men are always sexually available (in reality, they are not, and not with every woman, and possibly not with any woman).

Off-topic response @comment #37

I am somebody who objects to HCR based on some of the policies. For example, it effectively bans catastrophic health care insurance, which for many people is the most affordable option, and instead forces them to buy health care policies which are overpriced (or pay the penalty for not having health care policy because the government outlawed their most reasonable option). For example, my mother has reached the age of 65, but she is not eligible for Medicare (long story). Catastrophic health care insurance would have been her best option … but now it’s not an option any more. She seriously had to face the possibility that she would have to go without health care AND pay a penalty for it because the government removed all of her practical options (Medicare and private catastrophic health care insurance). She eventually decided her best option was to ‘buy into’ Medicare … she pays out of pocket what is usually paid by the taxpayer, but it’s still a better deal than her (awful) alternatives. Still, catastrophic health care insurance MIGHT have been a better option than buying into Medicare. I recognise that the subset of U.S. citizens who are 65 or older AND are not qualified for Medicare is small … at the same time, I’m not going to support a law which screws over my mother.