For a certain subset of horrible men, there are few things more infuriating than the fact that women they find undesirable can turn down men for sex. For this upsets their primitive sense of justice: such women should be so grateful for any male attention, these men think, that turning down even the most boorish of men shouldn’t even be an option for them.
Consider the reactions of some of the regulars on date-rapey pickup guru Roosh V’s forum to the story of Josh and Mary on the dating site Plenty of Fish. One fine December evening, you see, Josh decided to try a little “direct game” on Mary.
That’s what the fellas on Roosh’s forum call it, anyway. The rest of us would call it sexual harassment.
Josh started off by asking Mary if she “wanted to be fuck buddies.” She said “nope,” and the conversation went downhill from there, with Josh sending a series of increasingly explicit comments to Mary, despite getting nothing but negative replies from her.
After eight messages from Josh, with the last one suggesting he would pay her $50 to “come over right now and swallow my load,” Mary turned the tables, noting that she’d been able to deduce his real identity from his PoF profile, and asking him if he wanted her to send screenshots of the chat to his mother and grandmother. He begged her not to.
As you may have already figured out, from the fact that we’re talking about this story in public, Mary did indeed pass along the screenshots, and posted them online.
Poetic justice? Not to the fellas on Roosh’s forum. Because, you see, Mary is … a fat chick.
While dismissing Josh as a “chode” with “atrocious game,” Scorpion saved most of his anger for the harassed woman:
Look how much she relishes not only shooting him down, but damaging his reputation with his own family. She’s positively intoxicated with her power. Simply spitting bad direct game is enough to unleash her vindictive fury.
“Bad direct game.” I’m pretty sure even Clarence Thomas would consider what Josh did sexual harassment.
At any point, she could have pressed a single button and blocked the man from communicating with her, but she didn’t. She didn’t because she enjoys the feeling of power she gets from receiving attention from guys like this and then brutally shooting them down. It makes her feel much hotter and more desirable than she actually is in real life. She’s not there to meet men; she’s there to virtually castrate them for her own amusement.
I’m guessing here, but I’m pretty sure that nowhere in Mary’s profile did she encourage the men of PoF to send her explicit sexual propositions out of the blue. And I’m pretty sure she didn’t hold a gun to Josh’s head and force him to send a half-dozen sexually explicit harassing messages to a woman he didn’t know.
Athlone McGinnis also relies heavily on euphemism when describing Josh’s appalling behavior:
I don’t think its primarily the revenge she’s after, its the validation. She is enjoying the power she has over this guy and wielding it brutally because it shows she can maintain standards despite her weight and the doubtless numerous confidence issues that stem from it. In blowing up this guy for being too direct in his evaluation of her sexuality, she affirms the value of her own sexuality.
Oh, so he was just being “direct in his evaluation of her sexuality.”
In short: “I am wanted, but I have standards and can choose. I have so much agency despite my weight that I can go as far as to punish those who approach me in a way I do not like rather than simply blocking them. I’m teaching them a lesson, because I’m valuable enough to provide such lessons.
So apparently in Mr. McGinnis’ world women who are fat aren’t supposed to have agency? They’re not supposed to be able to choose? They’re supposed to drop their panties to any guy who offers to be their fuck buddy or tells them to “suck my dick?”
Also, I’m a victim bravely standing up against online bullying/harassment-look at me!”
Yeah, actually, she is. Get used to it, guys, because you’re going to see a lot more of this in the future.
This isn’t just a laughing matter for her. She needs to be able to do this in order to feel worthwhile. She has to be able to show that even she is able to maintain standards and doesn’t have to settle for just any old guy asking for any old sexual favor simply because she resembles a beached manatee.
And it’s not a laughing matter for you either, is it? You’re actually angry that a woman said no to a sexual harasser — because you don’t find her attractive. And because Josh — from his picture, a conventionally attractive, non-fat fellow — did.
Mr. McGinnis, may a fat person sit on your dreams, and crush them.
This. So-called rape prevention tips are largely focussed on stranger rape. They don’t help one iota in dealing with intimates, friends, colleagues, relatives … the ones who commit most rapes.They don’t even acknowledge that an aggressor has the immediate advantage because of the victim’s shock and fear, or the aggressor’s likely greater social position and capital, the unlikelihood of the victim being believed … yeah, these “tips” are bullshit.
But it’s MISANDRY to tell a man how not to rape, because it assumes all men are idiots. Obviously, rapists are a subspecies, and “normal” men never rape because they all know what rape is, duh, and they all know it’s bad, always and in any context.
Or so the very offended men and boys at university said, when a feminist group had a discussion about the success of the “don’t be that guy” campaign.
The same men and boys of campus who responded to a poll about sexual assault which indicated pretty strongly that many of them, as well as women and girls, really don’t know what constitutes rape/sexual assault. Urgh.
Yeah, there’s certain subjects where the “academic standpoint” isn’t valid. Especially when it deals purely with hypotheticals that don’t necessarily reflect real-life incidences, which has a drastic effect on a person. I’ve certainly seen people argue from an “academic standpoint” why torturing another human being is okay or why getting rid of minimum wage is a good idea – that doesn’t take away the fact they’re degrading the very real outcome for many people for the sake of a rhetorical game.
I don’t want to sound anti-intellectual, but there’s some shit you just can’t be utterly dispassionate and distant about. Being told I need to be “polite” in a discussion with someone who plays “Devil’s Advocate” for shits and giggles doesn’t hold any water to me, particular when the other person is justifying horrible things. Being civil to uncivil ideas just enables the people who hold those ideals to push them onto others – and that shouldn’t happen when it is that detrimental to our thinking as a society.
QFT, amen, rock the fuck on with your bad self.
QFFT
hellkell – awww. 😉
Most of this is nonresponsive to what misery is saying. The plain fact is there certainly is a “best” way to resist an ongoing physical attack, just as there is a “best” way to deal with a stalker, etc. This is true whether you’re talking about a sexual assault or just vanilla assault.
Training yourself to deal with pressure situations can result in clear thinking and good strategic choices in those situations. That’s a good thing, and in fact you don’t even need to have the OPTIMAL tactical response; any plan is better than no plan. Now, the best any strategy can do is improve your statistical outcomes. Nothing is going to work every time, and yes, almost any strategy has a cost. Anything can happen in a fight. But there are strategies that have MUCH better outcomes than others, and people ought to know what those are. There have been good studies done on it and the findings are interesting (and indeed, the emotionally satisfying “kick him in the balls and then run” scores pretty well in a lot of situations.)
Unfortunately we usually only talk about this in the context to telling women it’s their fault if they get raped, which tarnishes the whole subject. But misery explicitly acknowledged that problem and is trying to make a valid point despite it.
Anti-intellectualism has its place and is a fine tradition, particularly in American thought. But it is not anti-intellectual to say “there cannot be dispassionate analysis of boop-de-boop thing because I have big feelings about it.” It’s pure emotionalism, which is a silly way to approach any serious problem.
Since when?
Anonymous Guy, saying ” The plain fact is there certainly is a “best” way to resist an ongoing physical attack, just as there is a “best” way to deal with a stalker, etc. This is true whether you’re talking about a sexual assault or just vanilla assault” seems to assume that stalkers, rapists and attackers in general are a monolithic entity. What works against one person, or one situation, might well escalate it in another. What one targeted person is capable of doing, emotionally or physically, is not the same for everyone.
And calling anger and compassion for actual rape victims “pure emotionalism” is an asshole move. It’s exactly what’s trotted out by every fucking rape apologist who wants to play Devil’s Advocate and tell rape survivors they’re just being too angry and they’re offputting to guys who’d totally be on their side if they weren’t being so nasty!
Don’t put yourself in their camp, please.
Academic standpoint eh? Let’s see, in no particular order:
– not acting like rape reports are more likely to be false than reports of other crimes
– not assuming that if the victim doesn’t behave like X then it’s not real because not traumatized enough // too upset, must be faking // etc
– not acting like “boys will be boys”
– things like “don’t be that guy” — teach wtf consent is and that if you aren’t sure you have it, stop and make sure you do, or just plain stop
– teach cops proper interview techniques, as they aren’t the same for all crimes (pecunium’s got a decent article on that one, I can probably find it if you want, short version is that open ended questions will get more useful info)
– as a society, not allowing questions like “what was she wearing?” to be common place
– not acting like this is why WOMEN need to learn self-defense — either it’s good to know, full stop, or it isn’t; not it’s good for women to know in case of rape
– dropping the notion that rapists are some sort of slavering beasts with signs on their foreheads
– changing rape laws so things like withdraw of consent are rape, and removing ones saying that the rapist had to get the victim drunk // impaired with intent to rape for it to be rape (I’m looking at you CT)
I’d continue, but dinner’s ready.
Ooops, blockquote monster.
Oh and kick him in the balls? What if he’s one of those guys who doesn’t find that painful immediately, if at all?
saintnick86 re: aced amid debate on torture — ask pecunium sometime if you want the academic counter to those people, because there are solid ones (and, the one you’re eluding to is the simple “be ause the Geneva convention forbids it”)
Uh, dude, as someone who’s tried the “kick him in the balls and then run” approach, guys expect that. You rarely actually hit home. So what exactly would this “best” way to resist sexual assault be? Also, if you’re resisting an attack, there’s no prevention because it’s already happening.
princessbonbon — oh this is one of those times I wish going all scarlet letter wouldn’t result in it getting slippery slope. And, well, they’ve done their time.
But add “make rape sentences not a joke” to my list.
Oh and “acknowledge that sometimes not resisting is safer than resisting, and that’s entirely the victim’s call to make”
They can have lifetime probation and it is a requirement of their probation that they have it marked on their forehead. But I agree, too open to abuse.
Plus there’s the little problem that not everyone is able to kick their attacker in the balls. I know I couldn’t, these days. (I’d rather get ’em with a flamethrower, but I don’t generally have one handy.)
Furthermore, if we want to talk academics, Henry Groth listed three types of rapists. That’s simplistic in itself, but even to assume there are only three kinds of rapists that don’t overlap, it still means that your method of resistance has to be different for each one, and you wouldn’t know which kind of rapist you had until you were already about to be or already being raped.
And as I said before – which most people here know, but some seem to need reminding – the overwhelming majority of rapes are acquaintance rapes.
[TW rape content]
.
What good are these “tips” when you’re attacked by a family member? Or a lover, a spouse, a friend, a colleague, a boss? What good are they when you’re attacked by the fucking police answering a call? What good are they when you’re a child, or physically unable to fight, or simply too terrified to do so, or have a gun or knife to your head, or the threat of further violence in an abusive relationship?
Yeah, fuck off with the whole “These tips are totes good and will work!” bullshit. They may be well intentioned but they’re just adding to the steaming pile of victim blaming.
Take it away from sexual assault for a moment. I personally have never been sexually assaulted AFAIK, so let’s just talk about plain old assault.
I have, however, been assaulted a few times, both by acquaintances and by strangers. Now, let’s say that I decided that my strategy for protecting myself from a future assault would be to get a concealed carry permit and start carrying a firearm.
Well, there’s a good bit of data to suggest that is not a good idea because it’s going to increase the chances that I will be shot to death, and only very marginally affect the likelihood that I’ll be assaulted again, if at all.
Is there some reason you can think of that someone shouldn’t inform me of that information? And yes, it is “the victim’s call” as to whether to pursue that strategy or some other strategy. But I can’t think of any good reason I shouldn’t be told of the available information that I should not arm myself if my intention is to increase my physical safety, because it is known with some certainly that doesn’t work.
I’m not implying (yet) any connection with the original assertion that misery made, but I wonder, can we agree so far?
RE: AnonymousGuy
Training yourself to deal with pressure situations can result in clear thinking and good strategic choices in those situations.
Cool story, bro, but I was a child. So was my mother. And my uncle. And I’m willing to bet ditto with my aunts. And they all happened with people we were SUPPOSED to trust, which happens a whole lot.
We were nine, sixteen. How exactly were we supposed to “train ourselves to deal with pressure situations”? And even if I DID train myself to deal with that… these rapists were our fathers, our boyfriends. You know, the people you’re supposed to trust. Even with training, I don’t know that I could instantly, immediately realize that they’re violating my boundaries, shove them off, and run. (And if they get violent? What then? Because my mom’s rapist was her stepdad AND A MARINE.)
Dude, you’re just trotting out the same old shit I see over and over. Tell me, what would’ve been the “best” way we could’ve dealt with our rapes? You sure seem sure of yourself. When’s the last time YOU trained yourself to fight rape from your parents or your lovers? And how did you do it? I’d like to take notes.
And carrying a gun is pertinent to the matter of acquaintance rape how?
Also, what kittehserf said. Not everyone can lift a leg high enough to kick an attacker in the balls. And, of course, even if you can, what if you’re attacked while you’re asleep or otherwise incapacitated? How about if it’s a trusted friend or family member? These “prevention” and “resistance” tips only ever seem to apply to stranger rapes and *some* date rapes. People keep pointing that out, and I really don’t like how it’s just brushed under the rug by those who insist the tips work.
RE: AnonGuy
I personally have never been sexually assaulted AFAIK,
I AM SO SHOCKED BY THIS NEWS
NO REALLY I AM SHOCKED I NEVER COULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TELL
Seriously dude, from one man to another, shut up. Just shut the fuck up.
But there is an actual field called “Security” and they have useful things to say about this. I’m not an expert by any means, but I do think that some of the reactions here are purely anti-intellectualism.
You can agree that victim blaming is evil, that feminism is great etc. and I agree to all of those things and I’m not suggesting otherwise, but once you start saying purely false statements like “rape prevention advice just has rapists redirect targets” please don’t call me the bad guy for pointing that out.