Dating in a rape culture

[Exophase]

And? You seem to have a point that you wish to make.

Nope, too lazy this time. Normally I'd just read the comments section of the article but it doesn't have one, as is the trend these days.

 

[Rebel_L]

I wonder if that's really how people think. Because that doesn't make any sense to me. I can't empathize with that at all.

I'm part of a "group" that was targeted, eg my grandmother had siblings who were killed in the holocaust. But if I'm exposed to something about it I don't feel like I'm suffering the opening of any wounds over it. And I don't believe my reaction in general is any different than anyone else's would be. Because I haven't actually experienced it or suffered because of it.

But maybe this is just me. Then again, being conditioned to feel a certain way could also make someone react more negatively. If you're constantly hearing that your group is oppressed and long suffering and that the world is very unfairly set against them then I'm sure that'll color your views vs if you were never exposed to that.

Let me try a different approach to explaining. Trying to reach equality is a long slow process. Societies mainstream opinions on issues take years/decades to change. Was victim blaming ever right? Why did it take so long to change? Why do some people still not accept it?

People part of a group actively being discriminated against tend to have very emotional responses to the discrimination. Women are not at a point of equality and are still trying to get there. Likely most women alive today have met or seen on tv or read online someone who still has a rape victim blaming mentality. (there are whole countries who still blame women for being raped). When you read/hear a person blaming a women for getting raped because she was wearing the wrong clothing, in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing etc it generally brings out a strong emotional response. When you have seen the conversation over and over again it becomes a fairly conditioned response.

Someone with that kind of conditioning which doesnt actually depend on being raped, but rather on having participated in a repetitive conversation/debate on the topic can easily overact to anything which triggers the conditioning. A conversation about risk factors for sexual assault which considers risk factors which have some overlap with the standard rape victim blamer line of "if you dont do these things its your fault you got raped" can lead to the conditioned emotional response of outrage making it difficult to have that conversation.

The old wound is the conditioned response from having to repeat yourself over and over to different people for the societal mainstream opinion to change. That repetitive conversation is still happening in many places even inside societies where it is no longer the accepted mainstream opinion.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nope, too lazy this time. Normally I'd just read the comments section of the article but it doesn't have one, as is the trend these days.

So what was it that you felt was worth discussing? Personally, I was bored by the article and simply skimmed it.

 

[Rebel_L]

The biggest issue I have with the cartoon is the reaction. Yes, she is protecting herself which is totally fine to do. He did not lash out at her, but the response is unequal.

He thinks it pretty messed up, she responds "Its not my fucking job" and "your being an asshole about this".

The issue is very much about trust. She is saying she does not trust him, and I understand that from her view, but he did not insult her. In the comic, he overreacts and she overreacts to his overreaction to an even greater degree.

He refuses to take her concern seriously, if that is not an insult I dont know what is.

A friend of mines wife has a phobia of dogs. There a lots of a dog owners in the larger group of friends we used to hang out in. The phobia was always well known, yet the dog owners refused to actually make sure their dogs kept a distance from her at gatherings and even got a chuckle out of her being scared of their friendly dogs. Needless to say she doesnt hang out with those people anymore. The rationality of a fear or an emotion isnt the important part, acknowledging that the other person has it is the important thing. Trying to invalidate other peoples emotions is far worse than just name calling, it is the suggestion that they dont matter at all.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Huh?

The characters in the comic, whoever created it made sure every box was checked.

 

[michal1980]

I didn't look at the rest of the website but really like that comic and how it portrays the reality of our "rape culture", although I don't care for that term. It's something I'd share with my teenage nieces. There are a lot of asshole guys out there.

Thanks for being a sexist, and spreading the myth that men are rapists.

 

[realibrad]

He refuses to take her concern seriously, if that is not an insult I dont know what is.

A friend of mines wife has a phobia of dogs. There a lots of a dog owners in the larger group of friends we used to hang out in. The phobia was always well known, yet the dog owners refused to actually make sure their dogs kept a distance from her at gatherings and even got a chuckle out of her being scared of their friendly dogs. Needless to say she doesnt hang out with those people anymore. The rationality of a fear or an emotion isnt the important part, acknowledging that the other person has it is the important thing. Trying to invalidate other peoples emotions is far worse than just name calling, it is the suggestion that they dont matter at all.

Very very different things there. You are talking about being rationally safe (comic) vs an irrational fear (dogs). Its a jerk move to take advantage of something someone cannot help, its another to take offense to a disagreement of a situation.

Her saying she wanted to meet up somewhere that made her more comfortable does imply that she does not trust him. For good reason, but the implication is one of not trusting him.

His response is to say that he disagrees with her being so safe which is a comment on her personal decision to be more safe than he believes she should be. Not much of an insult other than to say he disagrees with her. The implication I'm sure the writer wanted to make was that he was saying she was messed up, but in real life it could mean very different things. He could mean her value judgement is incorrect and that she is being too safe.

Her response to him saying she is being messed up is is to say "its not actually my job to fucking educate you. You're already being an asshole about this". She could have said, "look, I would feel safer being in public for our first meet up. It would make it more enjoyable for me". Instead she gets pissed off because he does not know something. What a shitty world to live in where someone not knowing something causes others to jump all over your shit.

The whole premise is not that we blame victims of rape, but blame women as victims. People blame victims. If a guy is flashing cash walking down the street and gets mugged, you better believe people will say "well next time don't wave your cash around like an idiot!" Society believes that while the guy does not deserve to be robbed, he also brought upon risk that could have been mitigated by his own actions.

Now, I don't want to be lumped in with the crowd that thinks getting a girl black out drunk and raping her is okay either. But, the reality is that there is some personal accountability in a persons actions. If a girl goes to parties every night knowing that some girls get rapped and she still gets black out drunk every time, I would have less sympathy for someone who tried to be reasonable but had something put in their drink. I bet you would too. Neither of the girls actions makes the charge or rape any less, but it does not elicit as much sympathy.

 

[DougK62]

Thanks for being a sexist, and spreading the myth that men are rapists.

What sort of fantasy world do you live in? Back in reality we realize that there are bad people in the world and folks should use reasonable common sense measures to protect themselves.

 

[Ancalagon44]

The "mythical rape culture" is pretty clearly shown for women in the comic by the risk analysis the woman has to go through on where and how to meet. It's contrast to how a man would behave in the same situation is implied.

I'm sure if a woman you were interested in wanted to pick you up for a first date you wouldn't be thinking twice about it. Nor would you be concerned about being drugged and raped if you went back to her place.

The woman on the other hand needs to be. Her concerns in the comic don't appear to be irrational to me. Nor would a man in a similar situation be irrational for not being concerned about being drugged and raped.

And that's the "rape culture" in a nutshell. The burden of risk lies only on the woman and if she doesn't take the risk seriously she'll be potentially berated for allowing the harm to occur and if she voices her concern over the risk she'll be berated for being untrusting and overly fearful. At least by some.

Doesn't seem fair to me.

That isn't rape culture though - that is reality.

The reality is that men are physically stronger than women and can more easily overpower them.

This does not mean that the average man is likely to rape. This does not mean that rape is anywhere near as prevalent as it is made out to be. The whole 1 in 5 statistic is complete bogus for example.

You want to know who rapes? Criminals. Your average man is not going to rape just because the opportunity presents itself. How many times have you thought to yourself, "Man I'd like to rape that woman". Never? There you go.

The media tries to create the image that your average man is a ticking time bomb crawling with rape fantasies and repressed urges. This is what rape culture implies to me. And it is not true.

 

[mikeymikec]

That isn't rape culture though - that is reality.

The reality is that men are physically stronger than women and can more easily overpower them.

This does not mean that the average man is likely to rape. This does not mean that rape is anywhere near as prevalent as it is made out to be. The whole 1 in 5 statistic is complete bogus for example.

You want to know who rapes? Criminals. Your average man is not going to rape just because the opportunity presents itself. How many times have you thought to yourself, "Man I'd like to rape that woman". Never? There you go.

The media tries to create the image that your average man is a ticking time bomb crawling with rape fantasies and repressed urges. This is what rape culture implies to me. And it is not true.

Phew! Now that we have your made-up definition of what rape culture means, we can completely forget about this other one. /s

The article does not define "rape culture" as being that most men will rape given the opportunity. Nor does it mention the statistic you mentioned. Perhaps you'd like to read the OP article and get back to us? Try not to break out in hives because the headline contains the term you don't like.

 

[MajinCry]

Phew! Now that we have your made-up definition of what rape culture means, we can completely forget about this other one. /s

The article does not define "rape culture" as being that most men will rape given the opportunity. Nor does it mention the statistic you mentioned. Perhaps you'd like to read the OP article and get back to us? Try not to break out in hives because the headline contains the term you don't like.

The guy sure loves his straw men and trigger words.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Phew! Now that we have your made-up definition of what rape culture means, we can completely forget about this other one. /s

The article does not define "rape culture" as being that most men will rape given the opportunity. Nor does it mention the statistic you mentioned. Perhaps you'd like to read the OP article and get back to us? Try not to break out in hives because the headline contains the term you don't like.

Well what does rape culture mean?

When someone says that a rape culture exists on American college campuses, what do they mean? In your own words.

 

[mikeymikec]

well what does rape culture mean?

read the op article for christ's sake!

 

[1prophet]

And who is promoting this rape culture, Liberal Hollywood (fifty shades of grey), the porn industry, the religious right, amateur cam models, etc.?

 

[Ancalagon44]

read the op article for christ's sake!

I did read it, I read the entire thing. It references "rape culture", but does not define what she means by it. She says she refuses to go to this strange guy's house on a first date, which is completely rational. Doesn't mean that a "rape culture" exists.

Why don't you tell me what you think rape culture means, then?

 

[mikeymikec]

I did read it, I read the entire thing. It references "rape culture", but does not define what she means by it. She says she refuses to go to this strange guy's house on a first date, which is completely rational. Doesn't mean that a "rape culture" exists.

How is it that you've asked what "rape culture" means a number of times and yet you feel sufficiently knowledgeable to claim that one doesn't exist?

Does it strike you as perhaps unnecessary and a little odd that many people go to extraordinary lengths to find a reason to (directly or insinuation) blame the victim in the event that they've been sexually assaulted, or, on the flipside, how many people immediately jump to the opinion that one who takes precautions is in some way accusing a prospective date or some stranger of being a rapist? Have you heard of the idea that women sometimes give out fake phone numbers to avoid "offending" someone (the "offence" might also result in the woman being assaulted)?

The amusing graphic that Paratus posted describes the problem from another angle:

 

[MajinCry]

Mikeymike ownin' this thread. Keep it up ma homie.

 

[Rebel_L]

Very very different things there. You are talking about being rationally safe (comic) vs an irrational fear (dogs). Its a jerk move to take advantage of something someone cannot help, its another to take offense to a disagreement of a situation.

Her saying she wanted to meet up somewhere that made her more comfortable does imply that she does not trust him. For good reason, but the implication is one of not trusting him.

His response is to say that he disagrees with her being so safe which is a comment on her personal decision to be more safe than he believes she should be. Not much of an insult other than to say he disagrees with her. The implication I'm sure the writer wanted to make was that he was saying she was messed up, but in real life it could mean very different things. He could mean her value judgement is incorrect and that she is being too safe.

Her response to him saying she is being messed up is is to say "its not actually my job to fucking educate you. You're already being an asshole about this". She could have said, "look, I would feel safer being in public for our first meet up. It would make it more enjoyable for me". Instead she gets pissed off because he does not know something. What a shitty world to live in where someone not knowing something causes others to jump all over your shit.

She doesnt start the escalation, he does. She tells him twice she wants to meet in public, once subtly and once saying almost exactly what you suggest she should say. I dont think there is a dating site out there that doesnt recommend that you have your first date in a public place. He would have to have been living under a rock to not know that (and he demonstrates with his attack on her that he is not living under that rock). His insistence to pick her up and take her to his place is a huge red flag.... it would even be a red flag if the genders were reversed.

As for her rationally safe approach.... if you read her risk assessment its all about how much fear you have of the consequences. I used a phobia in my illustration because the guy obviously thinks that she is having an irrational reaction, she is worried about what might happen and he thinks its silly, just like the dog owners think its silly to be afraid of dogs. And just like the dog owners in my story he is inconsiderate and ridicules her fear.

The long winded explanation in the cartoon is there to try and show some people that its perhaps not as unreasonable a fear as they thought which would make it easier for someone to feel some empathy towards the woman, but regardless of the fear being rational or not, the behavior of the guy in the cartoon is never acceptable.

The whole premise is not that we blame victims of rape, but blame women as victims. People blame victims. If a guy is flashing cash walking down the street and gets mugged, you better believe people will say "well next time don't wave your cash around like an idiot!" Society believes that while the guy does not deserve to be robbed, he also brought upon risk that could have been mitigated by his own actions.

Now, I don't want to be lumped in with the crowd that thinks getting a girl black out drunk and raping her is okay either. But, the reality is that there is some personal accountability in a persons actions. If a girl goes to parties every night knowing that some girls get rapped and she still gets black out drunk every time, I would have less sympathy for someone who tried to be reasonable but had something put in their drink. I bet you would too. Neither of the girls actions makes the charge or rape any less, but it does not elicit as much sympathy.

And your cash example would be another classic example of victim blaming, and it would be just as wrong. Its a natural reaction to feel less empathy for anyone you think is behaving foolishly, but when it comes to the actions of others, the personal accountability has to be on them.

 

[sm625]

The world has changed so much since I was a young man, and so little of that change was for the better.

It really hasnt. What has changed is that young people today dont know anything. They have no common sense, and they have no connection to our "prim and proper" past where dates were always chaperoned. It is common sense to always have a first date in a very public place. No female should ever date a man who even dares to ask her to just "hang out" at his place on the first date. This was as true 60 years ago as it is today.

 

[realibrad]

She doesnt start the escalation, he does. She tells him twice she wants to meet in public, once subtly and once saying almost exactly what you suggest she should say. I dont think there is a dating site out there that doesnt recommend that you have your first date in a public place. He would have to have been living under a rock to not know that (and he demonstrates with his attack on her that he is not living under that rock). His insistence to pick her up and take her to his place is a huge red flag.... it would even be a red flag if the genders were reversed.

Right. As I said, his overreaction was met with an even greater overreaction. Her being safe has some implicit meanings. Her actions say "I dont know you well enough to trust that you wont assault me". She is right to be that way, but it also carries the implicit meaning. She understands that he does not know her life but gets pissed off that he is ignorant and says her fucking and asshole comment. That is an even bigger overreaction. He has not lived her life and as such does not understand her fears. She does not need to explain anything to him if she does not want to, but its an asshole way to react to people.

As for her rationally safe approach.... if you read her risk assessment its all about how much fear you have of the consequences. I used a phobia in my illustration because the guy obviously thinks that she is having an irrational reaction, she is worried about what might happen and he thinks its silly, just like the dog owners think its silly to be afraid of dogs. And just like the dog owners in my story he is inconsiderate and ridicules her fear.

ok.

The long winded explanation in the cartoon is there to try and show some people that its perhaps not as unreasonable a fear as they thought which would make it easier for someone to feel some empathy towards the woman, but regardless of the fear being rational or not, the behavior of the guy in the cartoon is never acceptable.

He is wrong sure. Read your comment, and then read her reply of the fucking and asshole part. His response is not immoral, its just wrong. He could be an asshole, or he could just not understand her situation.

And your cash example would be another classic example of victim blaming, and it would be just as wrong. Its a natural reaction to feel less empathy for anyone you think is behaving foolishly, but when it comes to the actions of others, the personal accountability has to be on them.

Stealing a candy bar is just as illegal as rape, but they are not as equally wrong.

The legal personal accountability is on the attacker. That is why the attacker goes to jail and not the victim. The problem is that what is foolish exists on a continuum. Wearing a bikini and walking down the street in the US might get some looks. Doing that same thing in Pakistan will get a very different reaction. Morally she has every right to not be raped. Yet, people will say that doing that thing in Pakistan is foolish. The reality of the world is that people have to decide what is worth the risk. A woman should be able to not have to worry about being raped, but criminals are gonna criminal. We should speak out about it, but lets not pretend that victims are always 100% not responsible for things that happen.

The very fact that you think people can be foolish means you understand that some things are taking on risk. Its unfair, but that is the world we have. Lets improve it by all means, but lets also not absolve people from some of their actions.

 

[bshole]

well I do agree with the point of the comic. 1st date do not go to his apartment for the date. that's a bad idea.

ANYONE would be a little put off by that. Meet in public at a bar, resturant, bowling alley. something. it's best for both parties.

True story, my first date with my wife was in the back of her Dad's station wagon. That was in 1990. There is NOTHING at all wrong with sex on the first date. If a girl wants sex and the boy wants sex, why in the hell would you wait? Nonsensical.

 

[realibrad]

How is it that you've asked what "rape culture" means a number of times and yet you feel sufficiently knowledgeable to claim that one doesn't exist?

Um, thats easy. You should not believe in something until you have been given evidence. You cant provide evidence to support an idea that is not established.

So, first you have to establish what qualifies as a "rape culture".

Then you need to support that we live in a rape culture with evidence.

If you cant establish what rape culture is, then you dont need to provide data for or against.

 

[mikeymikec]

Um, thats easy. You should not believe in something until you have been given evidence. You cant provide evidence to support an idea that is not established.

If you don't know what a term means, it makes no logical sense to say that whatever the term describes doesn't exist.

It would be like me saying "quantum theory is bullshit" if I don't even know the basics of quantum theory.

 

[Rebel_L]

Right. As I said, his overreaction was met with an even greater overreaction. Her being safe has some implicit meanings. Her actions say "I dont know you well enough to trust that you wont assault me". She is right to be that way, but it also carries the implicit meaning. She understands that he does not know her life but gets pissed off that he is ignorant and says her fucking and asshole comment. That is an even bigger overreaction. He has not lived her life and as such does not understand her fears. She does not need to explain anything to him if she does not want to, but its an asshole way to react to people.


He is wrong sure. Read your comment, and then read her reply of the fucking and asshole part. His response is not immoral, its just wrong. He could be an asshole, or he could just not understand her situation.

He says "wow, I think its pretty messed up that you're just default assuming that Im a creepy rapist or something"

He actually accuses her of calling him a rapist, its a strawman. It also demonstrates that he is at least somewhat familiar with the dangers of meeting strangers in private places controlled by said stranger. He is actually being an asshole. As for the end I think you need to re-read the ending. The long winded conversation including calling him an asshole are party of the long winded rant she has in her head because shes fed up with people like the guy. Her actual response is

"yeah, your right, lets not bother" Shes angry, and has every right to be, but still acts rather courteously.

Stealing a candy bar is just as illegal as rape, but they are not as equally wrong.

The legal personal accountability is on the attacker. That is why the attacker goes to jail and not the victim. The problem is that what is foolish exists on a continuum. Wearing a bikini and walking down the street in the US might get some looks. Doing that same thing in Pakistan will get a very different reaction. Morally she has every right to not be raped. Yet, people will say that doing that thing in Pakistan is foolish. The reality of the world is that people have to decide what is worth the risk. A woman should be able to not have to worry about being raped, but criminals are gonna criminal. We should speak out about it, but lets not pretend that victims are always 100% not responsible for things that happen.

The very fact that you think people can be foolish means you understand that some things are taking on risk. Its unfair, but that is the world we have. Lets improve it by all means, but lets also not absolve people from some of their actions.

For me

Foolish = purposefully increasing your risk of an unwanted outcome without adding any upside.

Legal/illegal = as compared to laws

moral/immoral wright/wrong = as compared to your moral code

foolish is completely subjective, depends on how you value things. I for instance think its foolish to buy in store warranties on items that I have the funds to easily replace, to me insurance/warranties are not worth getting unless you cant afford the loss, the cost of such a service is done at a for profit and you will benefit in the long run if you opt out. Some people value the peace of mind that warranties/insurance can offer them, or value reducing unexpected expenses more than me, or who knows what else and get them. Some people may think they are saving money in the long run and get them, its simply about perception.

legal issues tend to be the most straight forward as everyone is working from the same page at least.

Morality is far more tricky, not only do peoples moral codes vary somewhat from person to person, morality is at its core intent based. As we can never truly know the thoughts or intent of others we can really only make absolutely certain morality judgments on our own actions. I dont agree with you that there is any sort of sliding scale in morality though, you are either acting according to your values or you are not.

The law deals primarily with how we interact with one another and is largely based on actions rather than intent. You can with good intention break the law and with bad intentions follow the law. Morality is about intent, and foolishness/wisdom is mostly about how well you collected and applied the knowledge relating to a situation.

If that women in her bikini in Pakistan is suffering from alzheimer's disease and woke up thinking she is in living in a beach house in California and walked out the door while her nurse wasnt paying attention would you still call her foolish? Victim blaming is making a moral judgement against a class while the nature of a moral judgement needs that to be made on an individual basis. To have a decent idea of what someones intent or what they did and didnt know requires a far more detailed level of examination than any news story will ever contain. To spread blame to a victim is to make a judgment on intent of that person, something which you will never be able to do with actual certainty unless that victim was you.

 

[realibrad]

If you don't know what a term means, it makes no logical sense to say that whatever the term describes doesn't exist.

It would be like me saying "quantum theory is bullshit" if I don't even know the basics of quantum theory.

No. It would be like saying Quantum Bunny Theory is bullshit unless someone can define what that means.

Do you have a way of defining rape culture vs other culture(s)?

If not, then there is not a reason to believe in something if you cant define it and cant support it.