posted
Farmgirl's nailed it. Controlling people don't tend to be very good in relationship. They can't handle the ambiguity, the risk of emotional hurt. So they take charge in ways they can understand, and don't pay attention to those they hurt.
My date rapist was a minister's son. He was charming, and a "good" boy. From what I've heard, my experience was quite common.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So then, what are some warning signs? How do you know what to look for?
I'm not sure there are any very good warning signs, truthfully. I'd think a better option is to be safe always - always take simple precautions like not getting completely smashed in some guy's room, or learning some degree of self-defense, and being fully aware of exactly how far you are willing to go before the situation arises.
quote:To paraphrase you from another thread, you say for a nation to go to aggressive war, it must be sure it is absolutely right and be able to prove it. Why is sex different? Why, in sex, is it less reprehensible to force yourself on a person if you're only pretty sure they don't mind?
Rakeesh, of course a country that starts a wrongful war thinking it is right is not as bad as one that does so knowlingly. I'm not saying it's okay to have sex with someone without knowing whether it's okay. I'm not saying it wouldn't have the same effect. I'm saying that situations probably do arise where it happens, and that it's a much lesser crime than rape in the classic sense. If a couple gets completely drunk and the guy has intercourse with the girl, only to find out later that she would not have allowed him had she been more sober, I'm not going to give him the same punishment as the guy that breaks into a house and rapes some sleeping girl. Would you?
posted
ak, women ARE often sexually and psychologically passive. For instance, the much bandied about prince charming idea revolves around a power imbalance.
It's hard for women to say 'no', sometimes. Please, don't load this all on how men think. If more women were more assertive, there would be fewer rapes, eh?
A passive woman is totally unattractive to me. The main thing that attracted me to my wife was her assertiveness and her being willing to get what she wanted.
posted
A person who loves you (even just as a friend) will take pleasure in your joy and be troubled by your pain.
If you are frightened, nervous, or even just uneasy, this should be troubling to your date, too. It shouldn't be a small thing, something silly to be pooh-poohed.
a) Trust your instincts. b) If your date cares for you, than he/she will want you to trust your instincts, too. Other responses are inappropriate. Period.
For example, this is good: "Gee, I'm sorry that this makes you feel uncomfortable. Why don't we put this off to another time -- you could give me a call if you're interested. Maybe we could do something else then."
These are bad: (the Belittler) "You're just being silly. Don't worry, everything's fine"
or "I think you're making a big deal out of nothing."
(the Anger Artist) "Why are you nervous around me? Don't you care how that makes me feel?"
(the Manipulator) "Hey, you know we're friends. I'd never do anything to hurt you."
Mix & match the above to get someone who's controlling, not so good at interpersonal relationships, and all around Bad News.
posted
This is another reason I think CT is the wisest person I have ever met. I can personally attest to the damaging effects of all the phrases CT has listed.
Thankfully, perhaps my testimonial along with those of others will help some of the rest of you stay safe and healthy.
I do think that building up our daughters to know their own power is going to help them in the future. I was delighted when my daughter, out of the Blue, claimed she wanted an Eowyn action figure. She also has run around all Christmas break saying "I am no man!" So cute! (She saw the cartoon version)
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, just because someone doesn't immediately agree with you, doesn't mean they are manipulating you. It just means that they don't agree with you, which is a normal part of human communication. All of the things that CT listed could, actually, be the way the person feels because of how you are communicating.
I don't disagree with what CT is saying in principle. If someone cares about you, they should be empathic to you and what you're saying to some degree. I just think the idea that someone has to immediately respond as wish to your every bit of nervousness/angst/ennui/anger/sadness might be a bit of a stretch. Women *can* blow things out of proportion and make big deals out of nothing, etc.
posted
Yes we also need a list here of all the ways guys on dates would try to bully you and intimidate you into doing things you didn't want to do.
We need to tell young girls this list, so they can know when they hear those things that they are not things that are said by people who care about them and about how they feel and what they want and what is right for them. They are said by guys who are thinking of themselves only, and not about you. Any time someone starts to bully you or coerce you, then you aren't in a loving situation anymore, and you need to get out of that situation entirely. It's not about sharing and giving anymore when that happens, it's about taking.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with such a list is that it applies very poorly in real life. For one thing, perfectly decent people might say lines like that without bad intentions. Even married couples try to convince eachother of things, or think selfishly sometimes. For another thing, people tend not to be rational when they're relationshiping with someone of the opposite sex, and I suspect any list may be quickly forgotten when confronted with such a situation. For a third thing, many dangerous sorts won't be so obvious.
This is why I still think girls shouldn't rely on trying to distinguish between safe and unsafe guys. They need to take the precautions always.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you have to trust some people at some time. It would have been very helpful to me if I could have heard or been taught how to know when someone is trustworthy, when to listen to their arguments, and how to tell if they are just in it for their own jollies, and not concerned about you at all.
Basically, any pressure or coercion means the person is bad news, I would think.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just think the idea that someone has to immediately respond as wish to your every bit of nervousness/angst/ennui/anger/sadness might be a bit of a stretch. Women *can* blow things out of proportion and make big deals out of nothing, etc.
So ... why on earth would you hang around with someone who made a habit out of "blowing things out of proportion?" If that's what you think she's doing, then sayonara, Baby, is the appropriate response.
Let me repeat myself, because this is crystal clear to me:
So ... why on earth would you hang around with someone who made a habit out of "blowing things out of proportion?" If that's what you think she's doing, then sayonara, Baby, is the appropriate response.
(but a to you, Stormie )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
But a thought crossed my mind. There are a lot of people who are very nervous about homosexuality. Most (but far from all) are men. I wonder what percentage of them (Small, but signifigant) worry about male rape, because it undermines their advantage.
A man can force an unwilling woman.
A woman cannot force an unwilling man, without the use of drugs or other devices. (This assumes arousal and willingness are identical. This can be debated, but would not be in the minds of the people I am thinking about).
You have Macho Man who can "take" any woman he wants, given the right set of circumstances. He is in charge and in power.
However, a gay man can "take" him, in the same degrading, painful, domineering way that he takes his women. As such, he is very anti-homosexual.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if it's a *habit*, obviously you wouldn't.
My point is that simple disagreement does not denote a bad person, that disagreement is normal and happens all the time.
Obviously, a lot depends on the situation. If you feel really uncomfortable around someone, then it would seem to be the easiest thing in the world for you to say 'This is not working out. Don't call me again.' rather than depending on what the guy perceives, which is kind of what I'm getting from your post.
Here is a typical date that I've been on a million times:
Me: So, what would you like to eat? In the mood for anything?
Her: Oh, I don't care. Whatever you want.
*after meal*
Me: So, what movie would you like to see?
Her: Oh, I don't care. Whatever you want.
My perspective on this is that guys don't normally have a problem verbalizing what they want. At least I don't. (YMMV) Women are the ones that have a problem letting their date know what is on their minds and setting boundaries and rules and letting the other party know what is and is not acceptable.
See
quote: If you are frightened, nervous, or even just uneasy, this should be troubling to your date, too. It shouldn't be a small thing, something silly to be pooh-poohed
the thing is that a lot of women won't verbally tell their date how they are feeling, or communicate about what's going on for fear of giving offense.
To further illustrate this point, the number of times I've gotten numbers from women and it turns out they didn't actually want to go out with me is, well, large. Very irritating. Why couldn't they just say 'No, thanks. I'm not really interested.'? Did they think I was going to break down on the spot or shoot them?
So, my complaint with your post is that it assumes that there is clear communication going on about the woman's feelings, when in my experience this is often not the case. You are inviting the woman to assume that the guy should see things as she does and that she should assume that she is communicating clearly when that may or may not be the case.
Communication. Communication. Communication. If the woman doesn't clearly, verbally, communicate the boundaries in the relationship, then the onus is on her if the guy crosses them and doesn't take the 'hint'.
Perhaps sometimes rather than leaving at the first sign of trouble, people should communicate and try and work things out.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think the idea that someone has to immediately respond as wish to your every bit of nervousness/angst/ennui/anger/sadness might be a bit of a stretch. Men *can* blow things out of proportion and make big deals out of nothing, etc.
quote:So ... why on earth would you hang around with someone who made a habit out of "blowing things out of proportion?" If that's what you think she's doing, then sayonara, Baby, is the appropriate response.
Let me point out that this rule would probably preclude you from hanging out with at least 50% of Jatraqueros. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: A passive woman is totally unattractive to me. The main thing that attracted me to my wife was her assertiveness and her being willing to get what she wanted.
Statements like this, which I've seen many times at hatrack, irritate me to no end. I see this unspoken sentence: "So therefore, all women should be aggressive because it's what guys find attractive," tacked on the end of every statement like this, which seems to me to be more than a little hypocritical. Maybe it's because I'm a passive person as a general rule, but I resent the implication that I should change and make myself aggressive so that men will find me more attractive.
posted
From listening to guys on my dorm, it seems to me that the main problem (this is obviously all anecdotal, not actual data) is that it's just assumed that sex comes from a relationship. From both sides. In other words it doesn't matter which side is uneasy, everyone just assumes that they're supposed to want sex soon after getting together and so they do it. This isn't really rape in the traditional sense because it is consensual, but that doesn't mean both parties want it, just that both parties know they're supposed to want it.
As to the idea of men being lead by their pants, I think that's very untrue. Most men are not, most men are respectable and understanding, at least to the point where they would let the women make that choice. The guys who are lead by their pants at a high statistic are High School/College guys who are told that they're supposed to see things from that perspective. This is in no way an excuse for their behavoir, but it's true, guys somewhere between 15 and 24 seem to me to be the biggest problem, the guys who just assume that all they're supposed to be after is sex.
My roomate is like that, he's mostly a good guy as far as it goes. But he assumes he wants sex, he assumed I wanted sex the instant he met me, not because I said anything but because I was a college male. It's actually kind of depressing.
posted
I tend to see the 1-in-4 statistic reporting as a good thing, really.
Don't throw things! I mean the reporting, not the rapes or the quantity.
People (as a class) don't change, not easily and not quickly. The way people act now is very close to the way they've acted throughout recorded history, with occasional pockets of advancement that don't always last. I think rape has always been prevalent in just about every society I've ever read about, but until recently it wasn't reported as much. Either it was settled by the family, or ignored, or treated as essentially droit de signeur, or the woman simply never reported it out of shame or embarrassment or resignation.
The numbers do not, IMO, reflect a growing rate of rape but a growing rate of reporting rape, and that to me is a good thing. The more women who are willing to come forward and report a rape, the better. The more women who report it, the more other women will realize the dangers, the more other women will realize that it's not just them, that their lives can go on.
And the more it's reported, the more men will act to police themselves and each other.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, you're right. I think that it is important to understand the cultural pressures on a guy between those ages to have sex. If a guy is a virgin after college he is seen as a loser by his fellow guys.
Another thing I'd like to say (not to Hobbes) is that I don't appreciate having my points added to, and thrown in my face. The point I made about attractiveness is very biased, because I know only what I see as attractive. By no means did I say the sentence you implied after I typed it. I really don't mean to derail, but that peived me.
posted
Storm, when I get creeped out, I've learned to pay close attention. Not just "bored" or "sad," but creeped out -- i.e., "there's something not right about this situation or person." That's worth listening to, but as a younger woman, I felt guilty about being judgmental.
Actually, what I felt was proud of being non-judgmental. Of course, experience taught me that such a rush of pride or virtue was soon followed by fear and self-kickage for having gotten myself into yet another nasty situation. *wry look Never once has someone who initially creeped me out later turned out to have been worth the trouble.
I'm fine with not being close to half the population, even when it's such a select population as makes up Hatrack. Yep, it's cantankerous, selfish, and elitist -- but if you set off my creep-o-meter, it's sayonara.
On the other hand, I would go to the most extreme lengths to communicate effectively and be patient with my loved ones. They, however, don' creep me out -- they may frustrate me, anger me, confuse me, or what have you, but my loved ones never give me that pang of "oh-oh, something's wrong with this person, and dammit if I didn't leave my (metaphorical) door unlocked again." Not anymore, at least.
I wised up and got choosy. Mmmmm, sweet scrumptiolicious choosiness. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's hard for women to say 'no', sometimes. Please, don't load this all on how men think. If more women were more assertive, there would be fewer rapes, eh?
Yes, and I could counter if more men were willing to base sex on what their partner wants, rather than what they can get away with, there'd be fewer rapes. Eh?
quote:Um, just because someone doesn't immediately agree with you, doesn't mean they are manipulating you.
Of course it does. That's what a debate or argument is. Manipulate frequently carries a bad connotation, but that doesn't mean it's untrue either. My point is that if your partner isn't ready in and of themselves, then you have to realize how it's going to sound if you try and convince them immediately prior to the act.
A roughly relevant analogy. You go to a car dealership, looking to buy. What experience do you prefer? To have a guy pushing hard, pestering you to make a choice? Or the so-called soft-sell, the one who asks a few questions, listens, and then advises? I know which one I find more irritating, and I typically don't expect women to feel differently. I don't want to be the hard-sell car dealer, y'know? If I'm gonna be selling something, I find that the jam-your-foot-in-the-door approach isn't very effective. If it works, it's usually because the person feels forced into it. Worn down.
Am I the only one who thinks that's pretty sleazy? I ain't a monk or nothin'. I like to take my shot as well as the next guy in the bar or club or whatever. If I get turned down? I take maybe one more stab at it, and if that don't work I move on. Setting aside strict physiological responses, I'm really not feeling being with a woman whose resistance I hafta wear down right before sex.
And if I were thinking strictly with my...manhood, my experience tells me women are more inclined to think more fondly of you for not jamming your foot in the door, thus improving future chances.
quote:Women *can* blow things out of proportion and make big deals out of nothing, etc.
Here's the bottom line: when it comes to sexuality, we each get to decide what is and isn't a big deal. There's not some Metric System of Sexuality where a kilometer is 1,000 meters is 100,000 centimeters. Some of us are standard, some of us are metric, some of us are still usin' cubits, some of us are usin' stones, some of us aren't even using numbers.
Now, before you think I entirely disagree with you, I don't. The number of women I've encountered who send mixed signals, expect mind-readers, or aura-detectors is extremely frustrating. Communication is key, and ladies, expect irritation and maybe even some wheedling if a guy has been progressing through the relationship with a radically different set of beliefs and expectations about how things are between you.
But let me reiterate, silence doesn't give consent. Men, silence or ambivalence, nervous or not, doesn't equate to, "Hey, she totally digs me," or, "I'm in!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
to you, Stormie ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(YMMV) Women are the ones that have a problem letting their date know what is on their minds and setting boundaries and rules and letting the other party know what is and is not acceptable.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
