I think it depends on whether the female is fertile at this point. Did the gentleman slip a birth control pill into her soda during the film?
I’m not sure if you’re being serious, but the obvious answer to your situation here is No.
Passivity is realistically a sign of uncertainty or some other essentially neutral position, and therefore is all the more reason for male aggression.
Female uncertainty means the male is in a “do or die” situation. A small change can be the difference between success and failure. Its the IDEAL time for aggression.
When the woman is going to fuck you no matter what, why be aggressive?
When the woman isn’t going to fuck you no matter what, why be aggressive? You’re just asking for a kick to the balls at that point.
But when you’re not sure of the outcome, you’ve got to show the woman that you want her. That she turns you on. That you can pleasure her. That swapping saliva and other bodily fluids is high on your list of priorities.
Female passivity encourages male aggression.
Damn you Koontz, I refuse to let the thread where the phrase “Kalle envy” was coined die out just because of you. Everyone else, please ignore the raving madman and go about your posting again.
I’m becoming more and more convinced as time passes that you are actually a robot of some sort. No human being talks like this, you must be some virile sex robot from the future or something…
-hh
“A woman either wants or does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm.” -BK
Here is what is happening…
#1: I mix comedy and “straight-talk” to a very Post-Modern extent. This kind of style is so new in fact that its often not understood, despite the fact that other people are engaging in it (to a lesser extent as far as I’ve seen). Give it another 10 years and either the style will become understood or it will fade (I’ll still be using it though, regardless). #1 along with my non-standard views on things are the reasons I’m often thought to not be serious. I try to avoid calling humans idiots who only see humans as serious when they speak in a Serious style.
#2: I’m a lot of things, but first and foremost a philosopher. I use inside perspectives but organize my thoughts and speak from an outside perspective.
Inside Perspective of a Man in that situation: “I’m kissing her! I want her! Her breast feels nice.”
Inside Perspective of a Woman in that situation: “Is this right? Do I know this guy well enough? He’s a good kisser though…”
Humorous Outside Perspective: “Look at those two swapping saliva!”
A true philosopher understands all major perspectives but for sake of simplicity selects a single perspective (the outsider one being preferred, usually) to speak from. Also, the outsider perspective is particularly nice there since its funny.
In sex a Man makes declarations and a Woman asks questions. This is partially why I’ve always seen sex as the Woman’s responsibility… another one of those non-standard views that I’m called a loon for having…
That’s not why you’re considered a loon, Koontza-kintay.
:?: :?: :?:
I vote robot from the future…
anyway,
In 89 percent of the academy cases, the alleged assailant was identified as another cadet.
This must be 89% of the 33 incidents reported involved another cadet? Who were the other 11% comitted by, faculty?
I’m also curious to know what the definition of ‘unwanted sexual touching’ is. Mark’s hypothetical situation is a 100 time a day occurance in a college atmosphere and could be a major factor in the statistics. The woman could have said “NO!” and the incident never got reported and never led to rape, but shows up in these statistics to imply there is a widespread problem.
Personally, I don’t find manly women with short haircuts very attractive so I can’t understand why someone would want to grab on a butch girl. Seems to me that a cadet would have better luck in the bar scene in Colorado Springs.
I mix comedy and “straight-talk” to a very Post-Modern extent. This kind of style is so new in fact that its often not understood, despite the fact that other people are engaging in it (to a lesser extent as far as I’ve seen).
I eagerly await the DrCrypt response to this little announcement.
I’ve officially switched to the “Koontz is a troll” theory.
Well, I think you are certainly right about that, but I think your timeline is too short. I think civilization has a degrading effect on classical conceptions of honour, both because it has to (can’t have duels happening left and right) and because it allows one to succeed despite lacking those traits.
Honour is certainly valued heavily (I can speak from some personal experience) in the Marine Corps. Even so, one can detect an undertone of disbelief among many, a lot of people that are just going along with it because it is what is expected and what everyone else is doing. And I don’t think it is an accident that this problem has become so salient at the Air Force Academy; they have long had a reputation, rightly earned at least when my half-brother went there as of 20 years ago, of focusing more on external manifestations of discipline rather than on character and personal moral fortitude. Mind you, this is not true for many of the decent folks within the AF, but I believe it is a very real tendency at the structural level (ie they just don’t prioritize it in recruiting, training, etc).
The second trend though is greater acceptance of women in what was formerly a man’s world. From what I’ve read about the subject (which is admittedly not that much) women are now largely accepted at Annapolis and West Point. Meanwhile the Air Force Academy has goons (including instructors) running around with baseball caps with the acronyms AFABB (or something like that) which apparently stands for “Air Force Academy before there were Bitches”. Boy that’s enlightened. Some people are trying to make the academy as hostile as possible for women. The weird part is that I would have thought that women would have done the best and been accepted the most at the AFA. Physical strength is important in many Army positions, but I would have thought that it was much less relevant in the Air Force.
As usual, it is those whose jobs are most available to women that are the most hostile to them. Still, I would say that in an already oppressive atmosphere like at any of the service academies, the people I know who have attended the USNA at least do not consider it “largely accepting”. I would say it is more like disciplined tolerance.
I’m assuming sooner or later these problems will go away. Consider for example how hard women had to fight for the right to vote. Nowadays, however, it’s impossible to imagine women not being able to vote – just thinking about it boggles the mind – of course women should be able to vote.
I don’t think anyone should vote. Ever. :)
Well, I think we get back to the honour question. I think a modern conception of honour, compatible with most of the sacrifices living in a modern society requires of it, is possible. But until it becomes necessary again, or at least becomes a distant goal again, we are reduced to adaptation. The Marine Corps copes through indoctrination; I don’t think that’s really a viable or desirable option for civilians, although it can’t possibly be worse than the brainwashing in the opposite direction that American society has offered for a long time as public education.
Either way, I still think that the same jerks that make the academy look bad now were around forty years ago. They just took out their wrath on first year males who didn’t complain, rather than on women who do (and should).
I don’t know about chicks with short cropped hair, but I think the bald centauri chicks from Babylon 5 are hot!
ok, yeah, they’re ok…but cadet women are pretty manly in appearance, for the most part. I’ve yet to see a cadet tat AFA or USMA that would be gropeworthy.