It's NOT ok.

[Miles Long]

High Five For the Nice Guys!

It's NOT ok to leave you hanging, so... high five!

 

[BiBunny]

Again, it's a problem of people being unable to have a happy medium in their lives. Why does it have to be so extreme all the time with everything?

This isn't a black and white situation, where women either have to pretend sexual assault doesn't exist or we all lock ourselves in our convents and live as terrified nuns.

There IS a middle ground.

"Every man might be a rapist" does not sound like middle ground to me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"Every man might be a rapist" does not sound like middle ground to me.

The key phrase there is "might be."

As in--has the capacity, has the size and strength relative to most women, and at this time in our society, has a certain amount of enabling to be so.

 

[satindesire]

"Every man might be a rapist" does not sound like middle ground to me.

The fact that you don't know the difference between might/is isn't really my issue, though. That's your deal to work out. It's also on you to not condemn other women for working through that issue in their own way.

I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, because I really love you and consider you a dear friend. That being said, I'm gonna post this:

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/g...pproaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

And because it's absolutely relevant to this topic, also this:

http://jezebel.com/5930663/what-no-one-else-will-tell-you-about-feminism

It's NOT ok to leave you hanging, so... high five!

You really have the high five etiquette down. I doff my hat to you, Sir.

 

[Miles Long]

The fact that you don't know the difference between might/is isn't really my issue, though. That's your deal to work out. It's also on you to not condemn other women for working through that issue in their own way.

I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, because I really love you and consider you a dear friend. That being said, I'm gonna post this:

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/g...pproaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

And because it's absolutely relevant to this topic, also this:

http://jezebel.com/5930663/what-no-one-else-will-tell-you-about-feminism



You really have the high five etiquette down. I doff my hat to you, Sir.

I have nothing to doff at the moment, so I will content myself with giggling at the lines "Kraken Kardashian" and "Fuck Phyllis Schlafly."

God you just never know what great stuff you'll find on Lit at 11:00 at night.

 

[BiBunny]

The fact that you don't know the difference between might/is isn't really my issue, though. That's your deal to work out. It's also on you to not condemn other women for working through that issue in their own way.

I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, because I really love you and consider you a dear friend. That being said, I'm gonna post this:

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/g...pproaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

And because it's absolutely relevant to this topic, also this:

http://jezebel.com/5930663/what-no-one-else-will-tell-you-about-feminism

There's apparently some kind of fundamental disconnect going on here.

The overall tone of nearly all this discourse seems to be that men are supposed to somehow prove to women that they won't rape them. That's unfair. Everyone we run across could be a serial killer, a vegetarian, Santa Claus, or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ...but we don't require that they "prove" that to us. How do you prove a negative, anyway?

Everyone is welcome to deal with whatever however he or she pleases, but a lot of the things I hear about this subject seem to me to fall right back into that whole "poor, weak, helpless little woman" bullshit that I thought we were trying to get away from in the first place.

I don't know. As I have said before when this type of conversation comes up, maybe it's my age, my location, my own personal experiences, or what-have-you, but I genuinely do not understand the way rape/assault/etc. are perceived. It seems infantilizing in many ways, and that's not something I go for.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The overall tone of nearly all this discourse seems to be that men are supposed to somehow prove to women that they won't rape them.

That's a comprehensively incorrect reading.

But based on that asumption-- why do you suppose women would require that proof?

That's unfair.

It's not fair that men have to refrain from raping women? because you know, as has been pointed out over and over again, that's the only proof that actually proves anything.

Everyone we run across could be a serial killer, a vegetarian, Santa Claus, or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ...but we don't require that they "prove" that to us.

Yeah, actually, we do require proof. All of us do, every time. We all of us rely on the social contract that says we won't kill each other or harm each other. At this time one aspect of that compact -- the part that says we don't rape each other-- is being examined in ways that it really hasn't been before. And some people are very upset about that.

I don't know. As I have said before when this type of conversation comes up, maybe it's my age, my location, my own personal experiences, or what-have-you, but I genuinely do not understand the way rape/assault/etc. are perceived. It seems infantilizing in many ways, and that's not something I go for.

maybe it is your age. Because standing up and saying NO FUCKING MORE OF THIS BULLSHIT APOLOGETICS seems like the opposite of infantilising.

 

[Netzach]

Hopefully, you won't refuse to consider it when there is a compelling reason to do so. Because that would be stupid. Which does not negate the fact that men are far more likely to do such a thing-- as adults. You know what-- you are describing your attitude here. Which is certainly your attitude, and perhaps many other women have the same attitude, and perhaps some women don't.

But-- you are describing your attitude towards a situation that you agree exists.


This.

it's astonishing how much people read into simple statements, isn't it?

I'm totally comfortable with the "potential rapist" read on men I don't know. You're totally right, and to me that's not cowardly or paranoid at all, it's realism. Anyone who can't handle that can suck a tit.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the "potential assailant" read on everyone I don't know.

But when you grow up where I did, you learn a low-grade sustained level of "living in fear" that isn't actually crippling, it's just there as a tool for you. It's the "don't look at people on the train" feeling, at all times.

 

[BiBunny]

That's a comprehensively incorrect reading.

Yeah, actually, we do require proof.

So which is it?

I'm perfectly comfortable with the "potential assailant" read on everyone I don't know.

But when you grow up where I did, you learn a low-grade sustained level of "living in fear" that isn't actually crippling, it's just there as a tool for you. It's the "don't look at people on the train" feeling, at all times.

This doesn't bother me nearly as much as "He might rape me." I don't know why.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This doesn't bother me nearly as much as "He might rape me." I don't know why.

I think you said that "he might rape me" seems infantilising to you. Or, is it possible that you might be feeling like being raped is a shameful thing? Because this is a common reaction for many people. Including people who have been raped.

Perhaps "assailant" sounds less sexually polarised, more like it could happen to a Manly Man of Manness as easily as to a weak, infantile girly-woman. It does to me, too, I totally admit it. But when it's women with those magic boobies that exist for boys to love-- "assailants" quite often assail sexually. We dont have to like that. But we do have to take it into consideration a whole lot.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's not okay to shame someone for being raped.

It's not okay to think that the awareness of the possibility is childish in any way.

It's not okay to put your judgement call on someone who considers the possibility more than you do.

 

[knot_sweet]

I'm with Bunny on this one.

Saying that every man has the potential to be a rapist seems an extreme point of view.

A man (in a 1st world western society) is not potentially a rapist because he has a penis and is typically larger and stronger on average than a woman.

It requires more than gender to be a rapist.



That said, if you feel the need to be hyper vigilant about safety, then so be it. It's up to the individual to look after themselves the best way they feel they can. And no-one should feel less for that.

 

[satindesire]

I'm with Bunny on this one.

Saying that every man has the potential to be a rapist seems an extreme point of view.

A man (in a 1st world western society) is not potentially a rapist because he has a penis and is typically larger and stronger on average than a woman.

It requires more than gender to be a rapist.

It IS extreme. Unfortunately the circumstances made it to be so. It wouldn't be like this if sexual assault wasn't such a problem and hadn't been such a problem since the beginning of time.

I don't think it's unrealistic at all for people to need other people to prove that they're not violent. We do things like this totally unconsciously every day. Every time we're social, around other people, and aren't violent to others, we prove that we aren't the violent ones. I think of it this way, this is pointing out something that's unconscious, like breathing. Well, it seems pretty crazy to think about the process, but thankfully, most of us don't have to.

That said, if you feel the need to be hyper vigilant about safety, then so be it. It's up to the individual to look after themselves the best way they feel they can. And no-one should feel less for that.

That's the point of the whole argument. Everyones' own boundaries are fundamentally okay. That's it.

Bunny:

I think that your way is fine. You don't think about it and that's okay. I think that there's a fundamental difference between the thought processes "It's not for me." and "The way that you think about that situation is stupid." Both are judgement calls, but one condemns while the other accepts, even though neither agree.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm with Bunny on this one.

Saying that every man has the potential to be a rapist seems an extreme point of view.

No-- saying every man IS a rapist-- that would be extreme and unwarranted.

But (almost) every man DOES have the potential to be a rapist, even the men who will never do so in a million years.

Likewise, (almost) every woman might find herself pulling the unlucky short straw and be the object of such a person's attentions. (Also smaller weaker men. Also men who are percieved as sissies or gay or feminine and unmanly in any way. There is a pattern here, notice it?)

Every car has the potential to be driven over someone's body, or into a tree.The vast majority of cars are piloted by more careful drivers then that, but the potential for a ton and a half of metal under high speeds is pretty obvious. Most people know better than to build their house right on the banks of a river, knowing that any body of water has the potential to flood.

A man (in a 1st world western society) is not potentially a rapist because he has a penis and is typically larger and stronger on average than a woman.

It requires more than gender to be a rapist.

It requires, for most humans, a life in a society that condones, either covertly, or explicitly, the notion that somehow one particular gender can get away with sexual assault. And in the USA, that society is flourishing.

That said, if you feel the need to be hyper vigilant about safety, then so be it. It's up to the individual to look after themselves the best way they feel they can. And no-one should feel less for that.

That sentence would be more better if you removed the judgment-laden modifier "hyper" from in front of "vigilant."

 

[IrisAlthea]

I have to say that the original thread on the GB did rub me the wrong way a bit. Articles like the one in the OP , can easily lead the discussion away from WQ's very valid question "When you are out, and need to protect yourself from attack, how do you ensure your personal safety?" and make it land in a fear that makes us limit ourself and makes loved ones want to limit women for their safety.
Sometimes this makes us fear the wrong things too, because it might actually be a better idea to walk home alone in the evening than accepting a ride from that guy in study group whom you met twice.

 

[Netzach]

it might actually be a better idea to walk home alone in the evening than accepting a ride from that guy in study group whom you met twice.

This. I don't want to make it sound like "being paranoid on the street" is what I literally meant, or that vetting protects everyone enough in the end. You can do everything "right" and still be SOL. "Right" is subjective in the end, however certain behaviors decrease the probability of things going off the rails, or help you when they do.

"Every guy is potentially a rapist" seems no more outlandish than "everyone you have sex with could be positive" in terms of how to consider your safety.

 

[IrisAlthea]

You can do everything "right" and still be SOL. "Right" is subjective in the end, however certain behaviors decrease the probability of things going off the rails, or help you when they do.

And that's another thing about this discussion that bugs me. It sometimes leads to a kind of victim blaming, where you hear people going on about how it was really no wonder something horrible happened because what was she thinking walking home at that time, on that road. I'm not saying anyone here said that.
Just like you said it's a good thing to remember that it does take being SOL and that sometimes it's all it takes.

"Every guy is potentially a rapist" seems no more outlandish than "everyone you have sex with could be positive" in terms of how to consider your safety.

It's a good analogy I think.
"It's awkward to ask him to use protection" becomes "It's awkward to tell this new person that I'd rather take my own car until I feel that I know them well enough"

 

[richard_daily]

yes, that would be true. And sometimes a dude works that way. Sometimes, not.

That's a fantastic list. If I'm feeling bored later, I might print it out and put it on people's car windshields outside the 4am bars.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's a fantastic list. If I'm feeling bored later, I might print it out and put it on people's car windshields outside the 4am bars.

That's a fantastic idea, worth doing even if you aren't bored later.

 

[IrisAlthea]

That's a fantastic idea, worth doing even if you aren't bored later.

This!
Don't make us wish boredom upon you richard_daily =).

 

[Red Sonja]

On a completely unrelated note...

It is NOT OK to brag that you are taking a couple to an authentic Indian restaurant when that restaurant offers beef vindaloo on the menu.

 

[Netzach]

On a completely unrelated note...

It is NOT OK to brag that you are taking a couple to an authentic Indian restaurant when that restaurant offers beef vindaloo on the menu.

It's a conundrum. I've been in some very good restos run by Muslims that offer this. However, I've been in some clunkers.

 

[Red Sonja]

It's a conundrum. I've been in some very good restos run by Muslims that offer this. However, I've been in some clunkers.

That is always a possibility... there are a few pakistani places/afghan here that are good... but decidedly this was of the clunker variety.

 

[Miles Long]

That is always a possibility... there are a few pakistani places/afghan here that are good... but decidedly this was of the clunker variety.

Did they have a good chicken tikka masala? I loooooooove a good chicken tikka masala!

It's NOT ok to eat more food after I have stuffed myself today but now I want some... chicken tikka masala!

 

[Red Sonja]

Did they have a good chicken tikka masala? I loooooooove a good chicken tikka masala!

It's NOT ok to eat more food after I have stuffed myself today but now I want some... chicken tikka masala!

Sadly no, I think even the naan was premade and reheated...