The Purple Pill Debate subreddit is a strange little corner of the internet, a place where intrepid Blue Pillers try to logic Red Pillers into giving up their repugnant ideology, and vice versa.
The main problem with this strategy is that Red Pillers don’t really understand logic as you or I do. They’ve got their own version, and it’s pretty … weird, as one recent post in r/PurplePillDebate makes abundantly clear.
The proposition being debated: “If you expect a man to date a rape victim, then you should be willing to date a pedophile.”
Wait, what? The Red Piller advancing this, er, argument tries to explain in more detail what exactly he means:
Rape victims often develop a variety of serious psychological issues, including depression, borderline personality disorder (aka borderline insanity disorder), self-harm, alcohol and/or drug addiction, and PTSD.
People who have these serious psychological issues are at a higher risk of joblessness, homelessness, and divorce. They tend to have unstable and chaotic relationships.
Now, of course it isn’t a rape victim’s fault that they were raped, but that still doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to date a rape victim.
So far, not so good. All of the sources the poster cites as evidence for these claims about rape survivors are behind paywalls, but a quick scan of the abstracts suggest that he didn’t read them very carefully. One of the papers he cites, actually looking at the effects of childhood sexual abuse rather than rape per se, reports that, contrary to the poster’s claims,
there is insufficient evidence to confirm a relation between a history of childhood sexual abuse and a postsexual abuse syndrome and multiple or borderline personality disorder.
That said, there’s no question that rape (or any kind of sexual abuse) can be extremely traumatic, with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. These can certainly cause issues in relationships.
But every relationship has issues, and there is absolutely no evidence that rape survivors — or the survivors of any other serious trauma — are incapable of having healthy relationships.
At this point, our Red Pill poster goes completely off the rails:
Dating someone who has serious psychological issues is risky. To illustrate how risky it is, would you date a pedophile? Pedophilia isn’t a choice. However, pedophiles have unstable lives and wouldn’t make good romantic partners.
So, if you expect a man to be willing to date a rape victim because “it wasn’t her fault,” then you should be willing to date a pedophile because “it isn’t his fault.”
Wow. There are at least two gigantic problems here. First, of course, is the inherent offensiveness of suggesting there’s some sort of moral equivalency between pedophiles (potential if not necessarily actual predators) with rape survivors (people who have themselves been victimized by predators).
Second, there’s insurrectono’s if-then logic, which is utterly inappropriate when it comes to matters of the heart, where “should” shouldn’t go.
No, Red Pillers, no one is telling you that you are obligated to date rape survivors — or, for that matter, cancer patients, or Billy Joel fans, or indeed anyone in any particular category that human beings fall into.
Indeed, if your first thought upon hearing that someone us a rape survivor is to think “ick, she’s probably all messed up,” guess what?
No one really gives two shits whether or not you’re willing to date her. Because she doesn’t want to date you. Because you’re a petulant asshole with no empathy for other people. And that makes you pretty damn “risky” as a romantic partner.
H/T — r/TheBluePill
@wwth – yeah, plus women are more likely to seek help with mental unwellness, so they may actually be diagnosed, which can often be used against them. My ex was a big fan of telling me I had ‘mental problems’ if I ever raised an issue – it was part of his pattern of abuse.
And, of course, I do have ‘mental problems’ – namely depression and anxiety, which have sometimes contributed to me behaving in ways I’m not proud of – but these have mainly been self-harming including ongoing unhealthy addictions to nicotine and food (and caffeine, but I don’t care!). But it also contributed to me not being able to extricate myself from an abusive relationship, which might be partly ‘being en-fugged’ but might be self-harm, too.
The funny thing is, he’s been diagnosed, too with the exact same mental health disorders (and one I think he has but is undiagnosed with), but I didn’t use that against him (once, just once, and I feel bad about it.) Of course, he didn’t continue with treatment. Plus he IS an asshole – which is always a heady relationship cocktail.
—
As to the original post – yep – such logic. I’m sure it probably stems from seeing somebody saying men shouldn’t date a rape victim (I think David has highlighted such vicious blather here before) and someone else saying “That’s messed up, dude.” Saying that blanket advice against dating rape victims is messed up isn’t actually saying that anyone must or should date rape victims. I mean seeking out a rape victim to date as his/her defining characteristic sounds skeevy as hell.
Yep. When you read the famous Meet The Predators post you can be so surprised or otherwise taken aback that rapists admit to their behaviour that you miss the follow on.
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
So that strongly suggests that dominating the vulnerable is a big driver for a significant minority (4% to 8%) of men who engage in several kinds of physical and sexual violence against both women and children rather than an immutable, I-can’t-help-it sexual drive. That’s not to say that there aren’t people who are exclusively sexually attracted to children, but I’d be surprised if they number anywhere nearly as many as 4%.
Ah, yes, because pedophiles, the scum of the earth, are totally comparable to rape victims.
Wait. No, they’re not. God, but that guy is an absolute shithead.
Why do these men think any woman wants them anyway. I’m too good for them. Yea, fat single moms with issues are too good for them. Who isn’t?
Not even for a cheap thrill. It isn’t as if any of them has ever described sex in such a way that didn’t make it sound like sex with them is a waste of time at best and abusive at worst. They’re incapable of partnering with their fellow Misogynists. Who do they get on with? Their lives sound bleak and full of regret and rage. They describe their lovers and kids like objects that exist for their pleasure or pride alone.
There is nothing, from their hate for women to their internalized fear of being found less than “alpha” that makes dating a Manureospherean sound like something anyone would want to do.
Just…yuck.
Re: prison rape
People have addressed the issue really well.
The one thing I’ll add is that you can probably discern something about attitudes regarding the domination motive and misogyny by considering that the standard prison threat in this regard is: “I’m going to make you my bitch”.
I’m extremely disappointed by people who refer to pedophiles as “potential predators”. Being attracted to children =/= actually raping children. At least some pedophiles never act on their urges, as they realize that their urges are always harmful to other people. It’s no different than any other mental disorder/illness, in that people have choices in how to manage their behaviors and their symptoms. No surprise that the pedophiles that do rape turn out to be assholes and allergic to responsibility.
I don’t know what the OP is going on about with “being forced” to date the mentally ill/rape victims, but it seems that OP may have had a point. If we, as feminists, want to be supportive of mental illnesses then we need to be supportive of *ALL* mental illnesses. The idea that the mentally ill are *inherently* violent is bad, correct?
(Certain personality disorders are the only exceptions as the diagnostic criteria are such that these PDs are *inherently* harmful. As soon as someone with APD stops acting in antisocial ways they no longer fit the bill as having APD, right?)
RE: BPD.
1. Trauma may play a role in BPD but not everyone with BPD has been raped/traumatized.
It’s also possible that, as a disorder that is associated with impulsive, risky behavior, suffers of BPD are more likely to put themselves in risky situations and as a consequence be victims of violence. **Now, I’m in no way excusing rape and abuse, or victim blaming.** Victims are *never* to blame. All I’m saying is that some situations are more risky than others, and BPD causes risky behavior, so a high *correlation* between BPD and trauma does not mean that trauma *causes* BPD.
Which is my long ass way of saying that science has no fuming clue what BPD is or what causes it. There’s no more evidence that rape or trauma causes BPD than cutting or suicide does.
2. I believe that there is much gender bias in diagnosing Cluster Bs. This probably leads to tons of misdiagnosis of women as BPD when there’s something else partially or completely play. Which is probably the root cause of about 90% of the stories out there of those abusive, cruel, women with BPD.
Actually, diagnosing (and treating) Personality Disorders outside of jail is in general a shit-shoot. There’s tons of bias and discrimination against cluster Bs that exists among mental health “professionals”. >< In addition, many mental health professionals are reluctant to diagnose a personality disorder in fear of the patient experiencing discrimination and are more likely to diagnose/misdiagnose PDs as sufferering solely from mood disorders such as Panic Disorder or Bipolar.
It’s also really fucked up to compare people with depression, self-harm, addiction, BPD, or other mental illnesses to child molesters, especially given the rate at which mentally ill people are at risk of sexual abuse, from childhood in some cases, versus abled people.
(Ducks head as a bunch of people decide to respond with their horror stories of dating someone with BPD or even unipolar depression, or anything else, as frequently happens on threads.)
” There’s no more evidence that rape or trauma causes BPD than cutting or suicide does.”
I should have edited this out. It’s not making the correlation =/= causation point I was going for and sounds like I’m saying that BPD causes rape/abuse, which just No.
Apologies.
“It’s also really fucked up to compare people with depression, self-harm, addiction, BPD, or other mental illnesses to child molesters, especially given the rate at which mentally ill people are at risk of sexual abuse, from childhood in some cases, versus abled people”
Agree. But its also not fair to conflate child molesters and pedophiles who resist acting on their urges as well. 🙂
I’d guess most pedophiles wouldn’t act on their urges. Child molesters have control needs and major empathy deficit whether they’re diagnosable pedophiles or not. Most people can control their sexual urges and avoid hurting someone.
Still, I think it’s reasonable to prevent pedophiles from working with children.
I can see your point because children are inherently less powerful, and it seems that it would be a painful and frustrating position to be in for the pedophile as well. However, I still think the idea is still more harmful than helpful, in that it creates an atmosphere where people with a certain sexual orientation are presumed to be rapists.
[Edit]I have daughters. I’m much more concerned that the “normal” people that have a hidden past of acting violently will rape my girls.
Most child predators are attracted to adult women also. I don’t think the offending is primarily about sexual pleasure.
Serial rapists get more sexual pleasure out of enthusiastic consensual sex with a woman than rape.
He is not equating rape victims to pedophiles, but explaining why you wouldn’t want to date either. Pedophiles don’t have a choice on who they are attracted to, they are broken people, just like rape victims. That’s not to say rape victims are as bad as them.
Of course a better comparison would be a rape victim and a military vet with severe PTSD, but it’s the same point in any case.
@History Nerd
I’m not sure what you’re going for here. Pedophiles, by definition, are people who *ARE* sexually attracted to and could theoretically receive sexual pleasure from “consensual” sex with children. It *is* a sexual orientation. It’s the “consent” part that takes away sexual pleasure. Generally only sadists take sexual pleasure in rape.
Most “consensual” sex with children involves grooming. Kids aren’t sitting around thinking about having sex with an adult. So the offending behavior will never be like enthusiastic consent.
Offenders who are exclusively interested in prepubescent children are rare.
“Most “consensual” sex with children involves grooming. Kids aren’t sitting around thinking about having sex with an adult. So the offending behavior will never be like enthusiastic consent.”
No kidding it’s not like enthusiastic consent, it’s rape, hence the scare quotes around “consensual”. If you have a point, make it. You seem to be saying that pedophiles aren’t sexually attracted to children, or that most offenders aren’t pedophiles, or actually I have no clue where you’re going with this.
We really don’t know much about pedophilia because most of the research has been done on sexual offenders, whom are different in at least one way from non-offenders . Yes, at least a portion of pedophiles are sexually attracted to adults as well.
I’m 100% convinced that we need a new (dare I say more complex?) diagnostic category for the effects of abuse and trauma. Clinical PTSD is a very specific and narrow model, when we know that trauma, and more commonly, abuse which does not qualify as clinical trauma, affect people in profound ways which aren’t part of the PTSD model. Then we end up treating survivors for depression or anxiety or Borderline, and medicalizing or essentializing the effects of abuse.
So I would love to see “Complex PTSD” go in. Should it replace Borderline?
Well, I would love to get rid of Borderline. I’ve never seen much value in it as a model, but I’m a layperson, so maybe it has some value to theory that I don’t know enough to recognize. I don’t really care though, because in reality I’ve seen too many professionals invoke “Borderline” to justify apathy or malpractice.
I’d like to both add c-PTSD and remove Borderline, so I guess you could say I want one to replace the other? I wouldn’t put it that way myself, because that would imply that we discovered Borderline was “really” a post-traumatic syndrome, while I tend to think that Borderline isn’t “really” anything.
‘(Banana slugs for the win!)’
🙂 my sister went there!
@Orion
“Clinical PTSD is a very specific and narrow model, when we know that trauma, and more commonly, abuse which does not qualify as clinical trauma, affect people in profound ways which aren’t part of the PTSD model. Then we end up treating survivors for depression or anxiety or Borderline, and medicalizing or essentializing the effects of abuse.”
I’m 100% in agreement here.
Antedoctal story; I don’t know why, but it seems to me that professionals are “resigned” to crappy shit happening in the environment and underestimate the effects of abuse. I found that most my therapists threw medication at me, and refused to acknowledge that maybe all the bad shit going on around me was a source of my problems.
One actually told me that people would stop mistreating me if I took medication. I mean, yes I understand that one small change has the potential to change the entire environment, but seriously, fuck no. I may have serious problems, but others are still responsible for their choices, including their choices to lie, abuse, and manipulate. They routinely lied and manipulated because their manipulative assholes, not because I’m mentally ill. FFS.
“I’d like to both add c-PTSD and remove Borderline, so I guess you could say I want one to replace the other? I wouldn’t put it that way myself, because that would imply that we discovered Borderline was “really” a post-traumatic syndrome, while I tend to think that Borderline isn’t “really” anything. ”
This is where you went downhill. BPD most definitely exists. I know some people blame it all on childhood trauma, but they’re wrong. I would really like to know how the fuck these people explain the 75% of people with BPD that never experienced “severe” childhood trauma, or the third that experienced none at all?
I was going to stay out of this thread for a while as I’m sure people are sick if seeing my face, but I’m just about bleeding from the ears with rage right now.
Haha I suck at typing and editing.
“Date a pedophile? Oh, I couldn’t – I’m much too old for him!”
Mrex, I’m neither a professional nor an expert, so I have to concede that it’s possible there’s a core group of what you might call “primary Borderline” people out there who tick all the boxes without either an abuse history OR an organic disorder to explain them. There may be.
If they do exist, actual working psychologists are rubbish at identifying them and rubbish at supporting them. Someone in this thread asserted that BPD is treatable, and I learned today that DBT was developed for BPD patients and then adapted for post-traumatic patients (I thought it was the other way around) Most psychologists in America don’t seem to have gotten the memo. All of my friends who were told they had Borderline were also told that it was untreatable. Working clinicians are using it as professional code for “fuck if I know” plus “I’m sick of dealing with you.”
Also, it’s really weird that BPD is treatable, because the common wisdom (among psychologist) has long been that personality disorders are untreatable. I see some writers now saying that it turns out this was a mistake, and we’re discovering that personality disorders can be treated — but the example they give always turns out to be BPD. If Borderline is responsive to treatment in the way other personality disorders are not, then maybe it doesn’t belong in that class.
The people I’ve known who were diagnosed with Borderline have all had the same story. They started having problems and got an initial diagnosis — depression or anxiety or bi-polar or psychosis or PTSD. They entered some kind of treatment, but their lives continued to fall apart. Eventually at their lowest point they were diagnosed with co-morbid Borderline to explain why treatment for the other disorder wouldn’t take. Then they tread water; the Borderline label didn’t help them get better, it just explained why they weren’t getting better. Eventually they discovered another problem — bi-polar, abuse history, narcolepsy, etc.. Only once they get treatment for that problem did they start getting better.
I tend to think that all or at least most of what appear to be Borderline cases are better-understood as people who have unusual combinations of other disorders or circumstances.
On BPD:
I’m going to defend BPD. The notorious aspects of BPD are just the ones that need to be addressed by mental health professionals before a sufferer can fully benefit from help. I’ve heard universal praise for dialectical behavior therapy from people who had previously gone through a series of ineffective treatments for under some other diagnosis.
To me BPD seems to correspond to an actual, existing need. The people I know who have it were relieved when they finally arrived at the diagnosis after being treated as bipolars, panic disorder cases or whatnot.
It would be nice if something could be done about the stigma associated with BPD. But not at the cost of treating it effectively. The needs of a typical PTSD sufferer seem to me to be very different from the needs of a typical BPD sufferer.
On sexism in mental health diagnoses:
Men and women’s life histories and experiences are different and their choices and behaviors are differently restricted. This can easily lead to symptoms and illnesses that are different. I’m entirely willing to believe that women tend to get BPD or histrionic PD when men tend to get something else. Maybe a sexist diagnosis isn’t so much sexist itself, as it is diagnosing outcomes of sexism at large.
This isn’t to say that sexism in the practice of diagnosing isn’t something that needs to be addressed, or that it’s necessarily a good idea to classify a similar disorder differently based on its typical manifestation in each gender. I’m agnostic on the latter.
BPD is probably valid, but it’s notorious as a go-to diagnosis for a woman the therapist thinks is a “[ableist slur] [sexist slur]” (or “difficult” as a euphemism for that). It’s treatable and a lot of people can be helped with DBT.
Complex PTSD probably should be in the DSM. Therapists can be insensitive to people who’ve had certain traumatic experiences that aren’t normally viewed as “real” trauma.
A few psychologists and lawyers have also made the claim that BPD sufferers frequently make false abuse accusations. (sarcasm) So yeah, score one for the human race. (end sarcasm)
@Alan:
I hadn’t heard about the Cod wars, but I certainly remember the Turbot War of the mid-1990s where Canada seized a Spanish trawler that had been fishing off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Things briefly got hotter after the French seized a Cornish fishing boat that had been flying a Canadian flag in support of Canada’s position on the matter.
That, of course, was already after the Northern cod stocks had collapsed (in 1992), and my understanding is that Canada at least has had a moratorium on cod fishing since then. It’s been over 20 years already, and the stocks haven’t shown any signs of replenishing yet.