Offensive? Me?
On March 31, 2021, a wild misogynist appeared on a CC thread linking to a New York Times article [found here] and asking for peopleâs thoughts and experiences around touch and consent.
The user known as Comfy_Arms dove right in.
"I didn't like her style of writing," he informed everyone, despite her writing style being unimportant to the subject. "It seemed overly laboured to impress the reader with her literary eloquence," he carried on, assuming that Melissa Febos couldn't possibly write so well unless she were making a huge effort, "whereas I prefer a more blunt style."
Ah. He had trouble understanding the article. Is this because he doesn't do well with big words and long sentences? Nooo.
"Her approach to the subject," he continued, "also suggests that she sees it only from her own perspective, such that only women have issues with unwanted touch and only men are offenders in unwanted touching."
Spoiler alert: It doesn't.
Nothing Febos wrote in that article suggests that men never have issues with unwanted touch, or that women are never offenders.
As a personal story by a woman, focused on unwanted touch women receive from men, of course other subjects go unmentioned. Febos never said anything about trans or intersex people, eitherâthat doesn't mean she's denying their existence.
She sees unwanted touch as always coming from men, and only ever being inflicted on women?
Possible, I suppose... but it's an interesting conclusion to leap to.
Things, as might be expected, only go downhill from here. Comfy_Arms carries on to tell a story about an old lady at church repeatedly hugging an unconsenting grandchild, positing that a grandfather could never get away with such behavior (should a grandmother be allowed to? He never asks this question), then goes on to tell another story about his ex-wife, who often didn't want to have sex with him (but always wanted to be cuddled, and cried if he refused).
One day, Comfy_Arms tells us, he came home from work and she wanted to have sex. Naturally, he decides to get her back for all the times she hasn't been in the mood: "I decided to act disinterested so she could experience what rejection of a sexual advance feels like."
Not because he didn't want to have sex, mark youâhe acted disinterested because he wanted revenge.
His wife carried on trying to seduce him, ignoring his apparently nonverbal indications of disinterest until he gave her a clear "no" ...at which point she stopped and, in his words, "began to pout."
The point of this story?
That she didn't take no for an answer until he was clear, firm, and verbal about it. She disregarded the fact that he was obviously not enthusiastically consenting until he made it clear that he was, in fact, unconsenting (and then she tried to emotionally manipulate him into it anyway).
"If the roles had been reversed," he asserts, "I would [have] been sexually harassing her, but apparently a horny woman is entitled to harass others to get what she wants."
Where does he get the idea that anyone is entitled to act like this?
All this, in only one post.
He's not done talking yet.
"The way I read her article," he says, "it seemed to suggest that, to her, all men are gropers and unwelcome touchers." Well, dear me, why did he read the article that way?
"Why would shaking that dude's hand at the cuddle party be bad?" he asks.
Why, he wants to know, would it be bad to do something you don't want to do when you don't have to do it? Well, hmm. Let's think about that. Suppose I don't want to read Atlas Shrugged, and I don't have to read Atlas Shrugged. Would it be bad for me to read Atlas Shrugged? Well, I wouldn't enjoy it. Bit of a waste of time. Might leave me annoyed. So would it be bad? ...Wouldn't be good.
But this isn't his point.
"If you live in society people will interact with you, and often that includes some degree of touch. If that's odious to someone, perhaps living in the middle of nowhere is a better option for them."
Or we could change a few norms? If there's one thing the pandemic taught us, it's that we can interact without touching. Society doesn't collapse if people bow or wave instead of shaking hands. We can make it normal to ask before touching. Build a world where someone who only wants to be touched when they want to be touched doesn't "come across as precious."
This thought appears to be an unthinkable one for Comfy_Arms.
And here we see why!
"Regarding your last question, yes I do think that my wife should have been willing to have sex with me. I was doing my bit to meet her needs, and in turn it's her duty to meet her husband's needs. Meeting each other's sexual needs is part and parcel of the marriage covenant".
A world in which people are only touched when they want to be touched is a world in which Comfy_Arms can't demand sex from his wife when she isn't in the mood.
And that view of marriage! "You promised me all the sex I need when you agreed to marry me"? Really?
"I'm not saying she should have sex with me every time after we spoon," Comfy_Arms clarified. "But she shouldn't be selfish about getting her needs met every night, while leaving her marriage partner out in the cold feeling unloved and rejected for weeks at a time."
"I cuddled you so it's your duty to have sex with me"? Dear heaven. When did she agree to the cuddles-for-sex trade? It doesn't seem like a good one.
Anyway!
Our friendly neighborhood misogynist carries on to describe a scene from a movie in which character A lets character B know that A is sexually interested in B. When A invites their sexual interest, B, to their home, B takes advantage of a brief distraction on A's part to strip naked and lie on A's bed. A, seeing the person they've been doing their best to seduce lying naked on their bed, goes over and strokes B's back.
Comfy_Arms argues that this movie scene is only acceptable because character A is male, while B is female.
Apparently if a woman lets a man know she's sexually interested in him, invites him over to her house, is briefly distracted, and comes back to find him naked on her bed, "she would flip out at his brazen presumptuousness, and push him out the door naked, and throw his clothes out after him."
I... find this difficult to imagine.
What do you think, Tumblrites?
Comfy_Arms then points out that A never asked B if touching was okay. "But surely consent is implied when she voluntarily laid herself naked on his bed?" he suggests. "Asking for consent even when both parties are freely and willingly walking the path toward sensual touch seems unnecessary, awkward, and mood-killing."
Sigh.
I propose that if you don't know how to ask for consent in a sexy way, maybe you should read some fanfiction.
Comfy_Arms proposes that "it is important to get past the touch barrier immediately after meeting a woman. (eg, shake her hand, or hug her, or high-five her, etc.) If you don't, the longer you wait the more awkward it will be to begin touching her later."
When it is pointed out to him that it's generally a good idea to lay out terms like "you must have sex with me whenever I want, providing I cuddle you whenever you want" explicitly, rather than just assuming your spouse agreed to this bargain when they married you, this delightful 54-year-old responds:
"In marriage, that's implicit, imho."
Uh... I never heard that. Did our friendly neighborhood misogynist bother to check and see whether the woman he was marrying had gotten the memo? "Wait," she might say, "you thought I agreed to what?"
No wonder they're divorced.
"[T]he expectations of marriage have long been understood by society," Comfy_Arms insists.
I refer you to the gif above.
Oh, but he's nowhere near done yet! Women on the forum begin chiming in with information like "out of the total number of women I've talked to about about sexual assault, the percentage who shared personal stories with me about being assaulted themselves is 100%. And it's not just me. The other women I've talked to have found the same thing is true for them. I'm not sure how I can drive it home to you more than that, man. It is a very serious problem, and yes, it's almost exclusively men who do this to us. The author is talking about the lived reality of a sweeping majority of women. It's unbalanced, and it's unfair, but it's the way things are."
They explain things like "Cuddles and sex are supposed to be mutually enjoyable, not things you give and take from each other and 'owe' each other" and "There's a ton of touch that women are used to receiving regularly from men, that men usually don't receive" and "Most of the time, even the seemingly innocuous stuff turns out to be a precursor to boundary pushing."
They even go so far as to say things like "Regarding what you said about it being your wife's duty to have sex with you - no, I don't think that's how most people see marriage these days, at least in progressive parts of the world" and "women CAN leave in this day and age. Many of us no longer have to stay with abusive partners for financial reasons. It's way past time to revisit and redefine the expectations of marriage."
Women? Disagreeing with him?
The horror. How dare.
Comfy_Arms embarks on a rant explaining that unwanted touch has nothing to do with sexual assault, the article is about touch, not assault, there's no need to bring up the thing that unwanted touch can so easily escalate into when the offender is physically stronger than the person they're touching.
He insists that what he dealt with when he decided to turn down his wife's sexual advances is exactly what women deal with when they get unwanted sexual advances from men. It is!
"[Y]ou refuse to see that this is the same as what men do to women: they take liberties and don't take no for an answer at first. Or are you saying that every woman who's had a man take one liberty has had that situation escalate to sexual assault / rape every time because he never took no for an answer?"
See?
His wife didn't take no for an answer until he put his foot downâmen don't take no for an answer until women put their feet down. Same-same. The only thing that would make it different is if every man who didn't take no for an answer the first time always escalated to rape!
How does that make sense?? I have, legitimately, no idea.
Comfy_Arms goes on to confront the idea that cuddles and sex are supposed to be a mutually enjoyable experience, not trade goods:
"Yet my wife felt I owed cuddles / spooning to her and would pout if I didn't give that to her." See? The perfect argument. His wife thought cuddles were a trade good, so cuddles are supposed to be a trade good. That's how reality works. Checkmate, people.
And the idea that if he wants his sexual needs met on demand maybe he should look into fleshlights?
"I abhor this statement about as much as the statement women sometimes make to men that they should just go to a prostitute instead of complaining that women won't date them. It is offensive. I want a relationship with a person, not with a thing. And I want a mutual relationship, not a business transaction."
Remind me again who thinks "you have to give me sex on demand so long as I give you cuddles on demand" is a standard part of the marriage contract.
Heh.
Then he dives into self-pity.
"I hate having to apologize for being a man," Comfy_Arms wails, "being suspected of bad motives in pretty much any situation where a woman is present, having women cross the road to avoid me because... because what? Because I have a penis?! Or see them avert their eyes when passing me on the footpath because... again because why? All I want is to smile and have them smile back. A bit of niceness in my otherwise dreary day. Is this a frigging crime or something?!
"And finally, with all this talk about asking consent, I gotta say I can't recall a single instance in my entire life where a woman asked for consent before reaching out and touching me. Not that I'm against touch, but there is something to be said for leading by example."
Oh, here we are again! We're right back at the beginning again!
Comfy_Arms also writes a whole separate comment to address a random joke by another poster: "Speaking of touch I bet the last supper was a bit tense, with Jesus relating the bread to his skin and the wine to his blood. I bet no one touched the meatballs."
Blasphemy!
"Why do atheists and antitheists feel entitled to be so offensive to religious people?" Comfy_Arms wants to know. "Go to certain Muslim countries and talk about Allah and Mohammed in offensive ways. I bet you wouldn't dare, because you know what they would soon do to you. I bet you'd be very respectful of their religious beliefs and figures."
Oooh, touchy. What's so offensive about a "this is my body, this is my blood" joke? I once believed entirely in the truth of the Bible, and even then this would've made me snicker a little.
Not Comfy_Arms, though.
"While we're on the subject of respecting boundaries," he scolds, "your comment above regarding Jesus is completely inappropriate and offensive to religious people."
Is it, now? All the Buddhists and Muslims and Jews and Hindu and Daoists and Confucians and Caodaists and Sufis and Yoruba and Äấo Mẍuists and Evenki shamans and what-have-you are gonna be offended by a joke about Jesus?
I somehow doubt it.
Comfy_Arms appears convinced, however, that every other religion on earth cares deeply about the respect his Jesus does or doesn't receive from people who don't believe in said Jesus.
Also... is it just me, or does he seem a little too envious of the head-choppy types?
The woman least willing to let raving misogynists rave uncorrected (shoutout to the rational and well-spoken squeakytoy!) does her absolute best to help Comfy_Arms straighten out the horrible tangle his mind's obviously in, thoroughly and clearly explaining everything from the connection between nonconsensual touch and sexual assault, to the greater threat associated with a physically stronger person touching a physically weaker one without consent, to the entitlement apparent in a man who gets upset when someone else refuses to have sex with him, to the fact that women don't exist to give strange men a bit of niceness in their otherwise dreary days.
"If you feel upset to be denied access to any part of a woman's body as if it were your right, whether that's because of marital duties or otherwise, then it does say something about how you see her, whether you're aware you have that mindset or not. My remark about the fleshlight is only as offensive as the way you speak about women."
Comfy_Arms hates it when women cross the road to avoid him, don't meet his eyes when passing him, don't return his smiles?
"If you don't like it, tough. Women do these things because we need to keep ourselves safe, and we've learned through experience, and through sharing experiences with other women, that a lot of strange men aren't safe. You can blame women for looking out for their own safety, or you can help us solve the problems that make us need to be on the defensive. Also, female strangers don't owe you smiles. We don't exist to be a pleasing backdrop in your life."
As might be anticipated, this does not go over well with our local misogynist.
In his final postâthe last before the thread itself was closedâthe misleadingly named Comfy_Arms goes on an all-out attack, seamlessly blending entitlement, hatred of women, and a certainty that he's the victim with quotes from the Christian bible.
Wait for it, it's stunning.
(Image description below cut)
That's right, folks!
The only statement Comfy_Arms has made this entire time that could possibly be any reflection on his attitudes toward women's bodies had to do with dating. He's being unjustly attacked.
Furthermore, the women who treat him as a potential groper or rapist are bearing grudges.
How unbiblical!
"Help, help, I'm being oppressed! I haven't said anything offensive about women, and yet you claim I have! I never said female strangers owe me smiles, I just said I want women to smile at me and I become upset when they don't! I'm not a dangerous person, can't you tell just by looking at me? Why do women treat me with caution? It can't be because they're trying to protect themselves from predators and have no way of knowing what kind of person I am just from looking at me, no! They're bearing a grudge against all men, that's why they take precautions around me!"
And that lovely bit about women. If they don't think they exist to be a pleasing backdrop in men's lives, what do they see as the purpose of their existence in society? Just to exist? Be themselves? Like men? Not to owe a debt to anyone or anything simply by virtue of existing, but only once they've been given something worthwhile?
Blasphemy. They must owe someone something.
"You don't owe men anything. Do you owe women anything? Do you owe society anything?"
What do you mean, "Not until they've given me something I value"? You mean it's every man for himself and every woman for herself and to hell with everyone else? If someone is hurt or lonely, it's not your problem and you shouldn't have to do anything, not the slightest thing to help that person?
What do you mean, "Not exactly, but I do decline to be a host for parasites"?
You're a selfish, self-absorbed person who wants to create a loveless everyone-for-themself world! How dare you not admit that you exist to soothe men's pains and ease their woesâthat you owe it to them because you're a woman and they're men! It may shock you to learn that you exist for a reason: "Man was not created for woman, but woman for man." So there! Bible says so! Take that!
And not just as a sex slave or a toy, either!
My wife owes me sex and she owes me companionship, and she owes me help, and she owes me loveâand you know what, I'll give her those things too (on my own terms), because I'm a good person!
Comfy_Arms, everybody. A good, Christian man. Anyone interested? He's single!
