Don't Be That Guy.

[synecdochic]

I keep thinking about the discussions that have come up in the comments to my post about sex-positivism and performative sexuality and the concept of bystander consent, and I keep thinking about all the subtle little cues and clues I personally use to separate Okay from Skeevy when people approach me. Talking in the comments there made me realize

Comments

[jenett]

when male rape is mentioned, that conversation becomes immediately relevant to male victims of rape, regardless of what else is being discussed.

Depends on the initial conversation.

Here? I agree with you that there's no particular gender focus set in advance, and that it's totally appropriate for griffen to bring up the same kind of experience.

That said, it's also clear to me that there are two different - and in some ways, opposing - conversational focuses going on which are (in overly simplified summary) "How to have conversations about sexual abuse", and the initial topic, which was more "How not to be That Guy".

Both are important conversations. But if we spend all our time on the first one, we're not going to get as far on the second one, because we're human. No matter how well we multitask, there's a limited amount of time/energy/ability to meaningfully participate.

They're both good conversations. But I think it's also not unreasonable to say "Hey. This conversation, here, about X right now. Give us a bit, and we'll move to that next." or something else.

That's *hard*. (LJ's structure makes it harder - but it's hard even in person, in a setting with trusted friends who know each other well.) But that doesn't mean it's wrong, bad, or not the best thing to do sometimes. Followup, of course, helps - it's much easier to drop topic B for initial topic A if there's a history of truly coming back to B later.

I agree with you that an honest exchange of opinion is important - Gods know, I spent Wednesday night in a difficult conversation with a dear friend that had me in tears for about half an hour (and where she called me on being That Guy on a specific issue, and quite rightly.)

But that conversation - as good and necessary as it was - also got us off the topic of some other stuff that we also need to talk about. It affected the energy and focus I had on Thursday. There's prep work, reading, and learning I really need to do before I can continue some parts of the conversation with her that is going to take time away from other things that are good, important, and necessary for me.

I'm willing to do all of that, because it was and is important - but I'd be lying through my teeth if I pretended there weren't consequences and costs to that, too. There are costs. They're not tiny.

None of that means that conversation wasn't important and necessary (and I feel *very* good about it, overall) But it is clear to me that there's more going on than "mutual desire for honest conversation." And to my way of thinking - and in my experience - unless we can back up and figure out a few things, we (as humans, very much in general) may keep going around in circles, which can be really frustrating.

What things? (For me, anyway)

a) What are our hopes for this particular conversation?

b) Are those hopes best served by focusing on a particular part of the question (like here, That Guyness vs. a more specific conversation about sexual abuse or rape?)

Both are good conversations, remember - but in a particular time and collection of people, we cannot have all of the good conversations that potentially exist in the world. Which one is where we want to focus right now? Does it make sense to split the conversation? To have some way to come back?

c) Is there stuff that at least some people in the conversation may need to learn/understand/reflect on before they jump in with both feet into the middle? This is where the privilege piece comes in. And the listening.

d) Different communities have different conversations. The flow, structure, and norms are different here in a specific person's journal than they might be in a community with a specific focus, or with people who share a particular common set of experiences. It's also good to keep that in mind, even though that can be hard to define or navigate. (And of course, people differ, too - conversation here works differently than it would in my journal: different people, different talking styles.)

None of it's simple. It's all worth doing. But we can't have every meaningful necessary conversation all at once - that's instant failure. And that means having some conversations Right Now and others Later. Or Not Here. Or some other option.