Anyone been following Russell brand’s rape trial?

[Wilhelm44]

17 minutes ago, integral said:

Dont worry elon wont ban his accounts.

He will, he has no choice. 

[Jirh]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Coupled with this, many people will claim it's a total mood killer to be so explicit regarding consent. But then simultaneously argue consent needs to be given. Enthusiastically to boot. 

I am confused as a woman. Now imagine most men in this scenario. Take into consideration men can have lower EQ and deal with the biological drive for sex overriding rationality... 

Thank you for bringing up this topic.

Like you said, it is tricky. I think it's one of the most under-discussed topics in sexuality, even though it's one of the most important ones.

I think many women find it difficult to be explicit about consent mainly because it conflicts with social ideals of purity and good/accepted behavior. Women often feel like they must maintain some level of resistance to sexual desire, and that's understandable for many reasons.

Also, I would imagine explicitly asking for consent to feel like resetting the woman's emotional state, because subconsciously she knows if there was a real connection, there would be no need to ask, he would just get her and know what she needs and do it without asking. It disrupts the flow of the connection she thought was there, which would likely kill her mood. This is because optimal emotional connection doesn't rely on verbal language, but on subtle body language and reading between the lines.

Also, for some women, saying 'no' actually feels more empowering than saying 'yes', because it's easier to say yes, not as much agency in allowing than in disallowing. And in this case, saying 'no' feels like total freedom and ownership of own body.

Lastly, saying 'no' to the right person could be an expression of experiencing a profound level of safety. For some women, saying 'no' can be particularly difficult because they're used to being compliant from a young age. It feels risky and wrong to stand up and assert themselves as a free human with a free choice. It feels like rebellion against the rules.

For me (an ex low EQ male), I think it's better to have at least one flirting session with a girl before assuming attraction. She must be comfortable flirting with me first. Then she must voluntarily let me get close enough to her for physical escalation. This is partly why I generally prefer waiting a few dates before any physical contact and a month or a couple of months before sex. This way everything is clear, and I'm sure I won't be misunderstanding or crossing any lines by mistake. And even then, sometimes I ask before I do something new. Like I put my hand somewhere and look into her eyes and ask her if it's okay. Only once that was met with a firm no. And I respected that.

Edited 17 hours ago by Jirh

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Jirh appreciate your thoughts here. I think your approach is nuanced, intelligent and mature. This subject is so charged when I talk about it with my friends.

It makes me think of PUA and LMR techniques. If LMR is seen as "token resistance" instead of genuine refusal, it could train some men to blow through women's boundaries. Not all PUA techniques are coercive, and not every instance of persistence is sexual coercion. This is another grey area of consent that really irritates my girlfriends. I can't even bring this up without it being labelled coercion. Even though they will also simultaneously admit they can be nervous or ambivalent - and enjoy being encouraged by a partner.

I think many times these grey areas can ( and should) be navigated together. Instead I see parties often walking away with two different interpretations of desire and consent. It usually comes back to mature communication. Dual responsibility to communicate. And here safety has a massive impact. Because some women freeze when the amygdala is activated. Pure survival reflex.

I think we really want a model of sexual ethics that protects people from coercion without stripping human intimacy of its nuance. Sound easy... But in practice.... 

[Heaven]

32 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Jirh appreciate your thoughts here. I think your approach is nuanced, intelligent and mature. This subject is so charged when I talk about it with my friends.

It makes me think of PUA and LMR techniques. If LMR is seen as "token resistance" instead of genuine refusal, it could train some men to blow through women's boundaries. Not all PUA techniques are coercive, and not every instance of persistence is sexual coercion. This is another grey area of consent that really irritates my girlfriends. I can't even bring this up without it being labelled coercion. Even though they will also simultaneously admit they can be nervous or ambivalent - and enjoy being encouraged by a partner.

I think many times these grey areas can ( and should) be navigated together. Instead I see parties often walking away with two different interpretations of desire and consent. It usually comes back to mature communication. Dual responsibility to communicate. And here safety has a massive impact. Because some women freeze when the amygdala is activated. Pure survival reflex.

I think we really want a model of sexual ethics that protects people from coercion without stripping human intimacy of its nuance. Sound easy... But in practice.... 

Sometimes I think the solution to all this behavioral issues is raising consciousness. Lack of empathy is the cause. The me verses you.

[Jirh]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Jirh appreciate your thoughts here. I think your approach is nuanced, intelligent and mature. This subject is so charged when I talk about it with my friends.

It makes me think of PUA and LMR techniques. If LMR is seen as "token resistance" instead of genuine refusal, it could train some men to blow through women's boundaries.

Why is it so charged? Any thoughts on this?

This is the first time I hear about this concept of "token resistance". My first impression is that I don't like it. And it doesn't feel compatible with what I have experienced. Honestly, it feels more like pressuring or coercion (not okay at all) or trying to get there ASAP (barely okay, but far from ideal). So, I'm your on friends' side on this.

When I say no that means yes, I mean a 'no' in a clearly playful way. Very distinguishable. It's almost like literal butterflies come out of the girl with every no.

And yes about communication, it is the key to all of this. I often lay groundwork before ever touching a woman. Like, I find a way to tell her what to expect about what we are about to do next time we meet early before the date, both to give her room to feel comfortable and to let her imagination do some work. And I gauge her response from there and adjust.

For example, I might say something like: "Next time we meet, I'm gonna roll you up and eat you up like a sandwich". And her response would be: "No way! You can't have me!" while giggling or emojis if we're texting.

Edited 13 hours ago by Jirh

[Lyubov]

11 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Consent is so muddy and tricky. I feel it is underdetermined as a "complete" theory of sexual ethics.

It is so often presented as a relatively clear binary threshold (most frequently by women).... but human interactions through which consent is communicated/interpreted/understood are often anything BUT binary.

It really is. And a lot of the things that drive attraction and passion and the subtitles of sex can be difficult to map to the way consent is presented in law and legal proceedings. 

There isn't a romance novel on earth that is written around a woman that meets a guy and they communicate openly and consent is given verbally and they live happily ever after in their perfect little world of clear communication. Most romance novels have a man forcing himself on a woman, kissing her neck, she says no but her body says yes, all that nonsense. 

Many women are turned on by a men pushing, being the forward force, no words, connection, etc. Law and consent and judgements have a very hard time mapping to this. 

Nothing I am saying here is excusing his behavior nor that there are real problems when it comes to communication and sex. This is simply all we got though, the best we can do as of now is have our laws and hold a trial. 

[Leo Gura]

Brand is a corrupt devil:

 

[Leo Gura]

Brand looks to be a pure bullshit artist.

[integral]

WTF the last thing on earth i would do if i had his kind of money was pay someone to wake me up. 😂

Feels like a power play, he likes having everything revolve around him. King brand

Edited 3 hours ago by integral

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Scroll to 8minute mark for count 6 - the most damning part. Judges sentencing.

His damning arrogance and behaviour sounds like it has played a part in the harsh sentencing. Pattern of behaviour with a lack of contrition.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Joseph Maynor]

Wow you all seem really hung up on this.

[JoshB]

@Natasha Tori Maru i feel like consent is also a spectrum, obviously no is no. But there are also degrees to yes. 

A house wife might say yes to her husband of 20 years because its routine. 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by JoshB

[integral]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Wow you all seem really hung up on this.

I went to the office yesterday and some random guy was talking about how the world is all messed up because russel brand (a rich guy) was convicted.

Edited 3 hours ago by integral

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Brand is a corrupt devil:

 

PA are almost always abused by rich people. I have seen it first hand. It's messed up. They work nonstop. It's basically a job that you think because you are adjacent to wealth and sorta working under the principal of power that it will somehow help you or "you'll have a good contact", but nah, they view PAs the same as cleaners and taxi drivers.
 

Edited 3 hours ago by Lyubov

[Jodistrict]

20 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Scroll to 8minute mark for count 6 - the most damning part. Judges sentencing.

His damning arrogance and behaviour sounds like it has played a part in the harsh sentencing. Pattern of behaviour with a lack of contrition.

 

The judge went over the top with his eloquent speech.  Precise and clear, the opposite of Brand’s word salad.  He is Sir Joel Bennathan - knighted by the Queen in July 2023.  In the trial, he dotted every i and crossed every t.   I don’t see an appeal’s court overturning his decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Bennathan

Edited 3 hours ago by Jodistrict

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Jodistrict said:

The judge went over the top with his eloquent speech.  Precise and clear, the opposite of Brand’s word salad.  He is Sir Joel Bennahan - knighted by the Queen in July 2023.  In the trial, he dotted every I and crossed every t.   I don’t see an appeal’s court overturning his decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Bennathan

I agree. He appears to have applied respectful diligence and grace with the content and style of delivery. Even considering the impact of the jail time on Russells children. Conscientious.

[Seed]

https://youtu.be/wiXS3J3LeOA?is=VNEp_0AXLxe7jU5m

anyone watched this?

sooo facinating. 

[Seed]

Brand New Netflix doc dropped today.

so fascinating 

 

@Leo Gura

 

 

[Leo Gura]

Jeez, Netflix are such grifters. Cashing in on the scandal so quickly.

Like vultures circling a dead elephant.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Seed]

@Leo Gura I know.

they were ready and waiting! Poor sod only got jailed a week ago! 

It’s weird they knew the verdict ahead of time though.