Kyle @kylejack ?active 3 years, 2 months ago
Apologies if my privilege is blinding me, but I’m having a hard time getting concerned about this one. A person was interested in a sexual encounter with someone else, and was discussing the possibility with a friend. He used a physical attribute (and sure, probably one of the attributes that made him interested in a sexual encounter) to specify which person he was talking about.
Should he not have been willing to express interest in her at all? Should he have refused to divulge his interest to the friend? This was a social occasion, not a workplace, so I see the rules and pressures as different. The bridesmaid has no obligation to him as a subordinate employee, or as a coworker, so she’s free to tell him to go pound sand if she’s not interested.
In short, the entry seems to be hostile to non-monogamous sex, in that a person should not feel free to discuss with a friend, in the privacy of a bathroom, the possibility of having [probable one-time] sex with someone.
Of course, I’m aware of the conquest implications of ’having sex with the bridesmaids’, but from what was actually said I don’t think any of that can be accused with any certainty. Men should absolutely speak up when women are being exploited or marginalized, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here.