calizaggy Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Couple of stats for you: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ProjectSafe/assault.html So I suppose, if one day you have a daughter and she comes to you and says she was raped, your answer will be, "Are you sure?" In her book, Brownmiller said that only 2 percent of rape allegations are false, citing findings by the female police in a New York City rape squad. The problem is that while this statistic has been widely repeated, with dutiful mentions of New York-based "research," no one has ever tracked down its source. This we learned from a comprehensive review of the literature on false rape charges published in the Cambridge Law Journal in 2006. The author, Philip Rumney, finds a couple of small studies that back up the 2 percent claim but isn't confident of their methodology. Rumney's survey of the terrain is the best we found. He also takes aim at the findings on the other end of the spectrum—the research that purports to show that the rate of false allegations of rape is in the range of 40 percent, as well as the flawed (but often cited) work that makes a crazy high jump to as high as 90 percent.
calizaggy Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Couple of stats for you: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ProjectSafe/assault.html So I suppose, if one day you have a daughter and she comes to you and says she was raped, your answer will be, "Are you sure?" http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/17/false-rape-accusations-and-rape-culture/ Rape culture also tells women that saying yes makes them bad women. Both rape and rape accusations are products of the roles assigned by rape culture. In the traditional seduction scenario, a woman is expected to not desire to have sex, and to only submit after the man has successfully coerced her into submission. When the preferred model for consensual sex looks a hell of a lot like rape, an array of ****ed-up scenarios are inevitable: the woman never wanted to **** the guy, refuses to submit, and is raped; the woman submits to the man’s coercion in order to avoid other negative consequences (like being raped); the woman had desired the sex all along, but must defend her femininity by saying that she had been coerced into sex. Thankfully, a good deal of modern men and women reject these antiquated ideas, but they’re far from being banished from the sexual landscape
carhill Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I'm thinking, perhaps incorrectly, that there is a clear demarcation between a man who is persistent romantically and a man who rapes or date rapes. Rape isn't about sex or romance, it's about power and control and using the very personal nature of sex to achieve those goals. I don't think the OP was looking for that kind of extreme wrt persistence. Clearly, rape is 'too much'.
bberryguy Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 This is no doubt a very tough issue. I think a lot depends on the signals you get from a woman over time. My current girlfriend I "pursued" for about six months before we really started dating seriously. During that time we went back and forth from being just friends, friends with benefits, to casually dating, and back. The thing is, she was just out of a long term relationship back then and I didn't want to be her rebound or vice versa. Consequently, she was in and out for awhile. It's a good thing we didn't get seriously involved because then I'm sure we wouldn't be in a relationship now. That being said, all along, I knew we had a connection, and even she acknowledged it, and I could tell from her emotional state when she was with me that there was definitely something there but it just wasn't time. So for six months I've "pursued" - which sometimes meant active pursuit and other times meant just hanging back, maintaining a presence in her live, but giving her space. I also dated other women too during this time. A couple months ago, we entered another cycle that could really be described as moving beyond the friends or friends with benefit zone. Two weeks ago she says she's ready for us to be together. So, sometimes persistence paid off. On the other hand, I totally could have wasted a lot of time. It's really hard to say here. I do think it's sad however that the line between persistence and stalking for some women has become so blurred. I agree that a lot of times, it's their own fault for consistently changing their minds about what they want. Hey, I know it's a stereotype, but in this case I think it's one for a reason. Even my girlfriend says she's frustrated sometimes by her own indecision on things.
D-Jam Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I hear a lot of guys say they never 'chase' women or maybe that if a woman doesn't answer or call you back to just 'give up' or whatever but I don't know if I buy that. I've always been fairly quick to throw in the towel because I don't want to 'deal with that' crap or end up coming across over zealous but I look at my friends, married or otherwise and most of them, one in particular, kept calling his (future) wife again and again and just plain wouldn't give up until she went out with him. Well, now they're married, happy as hell and they're probably as close to perfect for each other as is likely to happen. So...girls, and guys too I guess, what's your opinion on this? Where's the line between 'creepy stalker' and 'persistent' man out to get what he wants who doesn't take no for an answer? Frankly, I think men would have way more power in relationships if they learned not to persist or push or chase. Just lay it out there and she can take it or leave it. If she's the type who loves to be pursued, then she can wonder later in life why she's alone. Screw that...if she's going to play games or what not because she wants me to keep trying and trying, then I'll move on. She can justify it in her mind all she wants thinking I'm not ambitious enough...but she's more shown me why men should not date her and ESPECIALLY not marry her.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Wow, I certainly didn't intend to start a "rape" thread! So do we either need to think that "no means no" even when she's nodding her head yes, OR that you must pursue until you DO end up with a restraining order? I think there is somewhere in between. Mainly what I was originally getting at, but did not specify, was a situation where a woman gave you her number, assuming she IS interested somewhat, you call, leave a message, she texts back, I gotta do blah blah blah I'll call you later and then doesn't...for example. Should you really just forget it altogether after that? Is it not safe to assume that she gave you her number you've got a right or obligation to call at least a couple more times? Is it not a weak move to just quit so easily? My friend that I mentioned in the first post actually did NOT ever speak to his (future) wife in the entire course of his persistence. There was definitely initial attraction, everyone knew that, but she also had reservations for other reasons. He called her 10 TIMES or more and left messages over 2 or 3 MONTHS before she would even TALK to him let alone anything else. Once again, happily married, basically perfect for each other. I've always put slightly more than zero effort into actually contacting women that didn't make it easy for me and I think that's been a mistake. What do you think?
carhill Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I've always put slightly more than zero effort into actually contacting women that didn't make it easy for me and I think that's been a mistake. What do you think? I use a 'three strikes' rule. After the third non-response, black hole, permanently. To me, either they're dead, uninterested, or a poor choice in a compatible partner for myself, due to behaviors surrounding communication.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 I use a 'three strikes' rule. After the third non-response, black hole, permanently. To me, either they're dead, uninterested, or a poor choice in a compatible partner for myself, due to behaviors surrounding communication. Hey, what do ya know, actually got a simple straight answer. Good stuff. Anyone else got any other views on this?
meerkat stew Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I use a 'three strikes' rule. After the third non-response, black hole, permanently. To me, either they're dead, uninterested, or a poor choice in a compatible partner for myself, due to behaviors surrounding communication. This is similar to my rule also, and wanted to add something about the results of persistence in cases I have observed up close among my best married friends. Assertive persistence -may- work, but what is the result? A guy who has "won" a woman who now has the attitude that he was lucky she gave him the time of day. Friend#1 - Mounted a campaign to "win" his current GF. He had to call her four times and leave messages before she would even pick up the phone. Once she hesitatingly agreed to go out with him, he mounted an all out campaign of exciting dates and gifts to win her over. It worked. Now he sits at home every night, totally emasculated. She controls every aspect of his life. I haven't been allowed to do anything alone with him without her there in the last 1.5 years. He is miserable, but stuck, he talks about breaking free, but has been "little boyed" by her into a completely subservient role. She freely corrects him in public, and he immediately complies with all her weird and high maintenance demands. He is the archetypical doormat. Friend#2 - Mounted a campaign to win his wife. Without typing it all out, same process and result as friend #1. He is "happy" but she has absolute control in the marriage. There is obviously some character trait in these friends of mine such that they need to be mothered and controlled by a female. So whether or not to pursue may be answered by what kind of relationship one is seeking. If one seeks a surrogate mother, pursue away, if not, one will not be happy with the results.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 LOL, that's hilarious! "Mounted a campaign to win" her. Love it. I do hate seeing those kind of relationships where men are treated like children by their wives. It makes me sick, just as much as a man who treats his wife like dirt. I have a theory that these women would NOT actually leave their men if they did decide to grow some balls. These women can't actually LIKE the fact that their men act like that can they?
meerkat stew Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 These women can't actually LIKE the fact that their men act like that can they? As my friend's GF grows more and more in control, she pushes him further and further into doormat land. The end result will be both of them unhappy, she because she has a gelding and not a stallion, and he because her increasing control will eventually drive him insane. They will likely marry, and be "happy" like this for the rest of their lives.
b52s Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 As my friend's GF grows more and more in control, she pushes him further and further into doormat land. The end result will be both of them unhappy, she because she has a gelding and not a stallion, and he because her increasing control will eventually drive him insane. They will likely marry, and be "happy" like this for the rest of their lives. Yeah, but diff between him and your other friends, he can walk out on her....because they aren't married. The others are kind of stuck.
cognac Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 It's interesting reading in this thread people saying that "in the old days" men could get away with this stuff whereas these days, they cannot. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that women used to defer to a man's opinion more often "back then." Men knew better than women what was good for women - was the prevailing opinion. It seems to still be some kind of disease - thinking women can't make up their minds on their own. Because I've now seen several of you saying that women don't really know what they want, so it's up to the man to push what's good for the woman onto her. One thing that did irritate me, though - was the one that said the law is on the woman's side. Hello? That's because men are physically stronger and a woman can be raped or killed by a man a hell of a lot easier than the other way around. By making light of such a thing, you minimize what has happened to actual victims of rape, assault, stalking, and murder. Let's remember that just because SOME people cry wolf, does not mean that every victim is over exaggerating the extent of the problem. It's a scary thing to be a woman with a man pursuing that you have no interest in - because you never can tell for sure just HOW FAR he's willing to go to get what he wants. And there is plenty of evidence that some men will take it by force. Maybe you shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broken. Compare the society of our grandparents, how happy that generation of people was, and how successful and normal their society was, with the darkness that is our generation and our society today. World would be a better place if we lived by the romantic rules of our grandparents. Actual rape, assault, stalking, and murder is 1 out of 100 for every time women call the cops on a guy, usually for "verbal assault" or because they just didn't feel like seeing his face or addressing his concern. And of course, while women do not act like Ladies anymore, our society still gives them privileges for some reason, and hence always gives them the benefit of the doubt.
calizaggy Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I don't think of our grandfathers as the "pussy" type. They were men who landed the woman they want. Then they remained men throughout the relationship. I am not advocating having a woman rule my life, or anyone elses. I find it far weaker when a man bothers to ask a girl out, gets a mixed signal, then gives up, which relegates him to only dating the more desperate women that say yes to almost every man that asks. Should a guy date the girl he really wants, or just the ones who are easy?
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Is the society of our grandparents really that much better and happier than ours? The societies of old brought about the Holocaust, the Cold War, the Jim Crowe South, and nobody had any rights unless they were a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) male. Every generation tries to tell the next generation about how much better things were when they were growing up. The reason why pursuing women worked back then was because women typically didn't work and normally didn't even go to college. Their ambitions in life were to get married to a man who would be capable of supporting a family. A lot of our grandparents also grew up in small towns where there were just not too many options when it came to dating. Society was not nearly as mobile then as it is now.
cognac Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I don't think of our grandfathers as the "pussy" type. They were men who landed the woman they want. Then they remained men throughout the relationship. I am not advocating having a woman rule my life, or anyone elses. I find it far weaker when a man bothers to ask a girl out, gets a mixed signal, then gives up, which relegates him to only dating the more desperate women that say yes to almost every man that asks. Should a guy date the girl he really wants, or just the ones who are easy? The problem is social. There is a current in society to feminize men, due to the shift in power in western society. While many years ago dating was tilted in the favor of man for a variety of reasons, and hence slower paced, today it is in the hands of women, and we men just cannot keep up. It is really simple. A group of guys go to a social setting and most of the time, they will rarely interact with women in a meaningful way unless they are extremely good looking and extremely fun. A group of women go to a social setting and they have a line going around the door even if they are not that good looking or that interesting. Women just have so much to choose from and men do not. While many years ago the story was the same, the general consensus was that if a woman was taken you showed respect to her man and did not make passes at her (whether the man was around or not). While sometimes these rules were bent and broken, today they are not observed at all. Women also had more to lose by moving on to the better looking guy who probably would not stick around after getting what he wants, because they needed stability due to the rarity of female financial independence and social frowning upon divorce. It's easy to assert your masculinity when society doesn't punish it like it does in our generation. Even when you get a woman who respects your role as the man, her slut girlfriends will drive into her head that it's not the way to be and that the grass is greener on the other side, blah blah blah.
cognac Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Is the society of our grandparents really that much better and happier than ours? The societies of old brought about the Holocaust, the Cold War, the Jim Crowe South, and nobody had any rights unless they were a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) male. Every generation tries to tell the next generation about how much better things were when they were growing up. The reason why pursuing women worked back then was because women typically didn't work and normally didn't even go to college. Their ambitions in life were to get married to a man who would be capable of supporting a family. A lot of our grandparents also grew up in small towns where there were just not too many options when it came to dating. Society was not nearly as mobile then as it is now. Apples and oranges. Has moral deregulation and feminism cured crime, war, and other social problems of those times? No. Did you know over a million people have been killed in the Bush/Obama Iraq war? The "progress" is all cosmetic, window dressing presented by the system to make you think things in this moral sewer are improving, when in reality, the only thing that has happened is that people have learned to love the smell of ****! I think life was far superior and less stressful in the times of my grandparents, than it is in the world today. Do you think that wanting to get married to a good man is such a horrible thing? Do you think it's better for society the way dating is today, where dating for women is essentially experiencing a new disposable sex toy every 6 months?
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Tell me what was so superior about society back then that would make you want to trade today's standard of living for that standard of living.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 I tend to believe that things were better in many ways back then. Just think of how much better people we would be if we weren't so conditioned by the news media and hollywood ideals. We don't even see people as HUMAN in many ways anymore. We actually have a stereotype for EVERY action a person could take. The persistent guy being seen as a stalker for example. You can't do anything, say anything, or wipe your a$$ without people applying some label to you. I do it too but I'm blaming it on Hollywood and pop culture.
calizaggy Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Tell me what was so superior about society back then that would make you want to trade today's standard of living for that standard of living. Well from the minority standpoint, African Americans back in the day had the same marriage rate as caucasions. Similar crime levels..Now 70% of African American kids are born illigitimetely, where as back then it was 20%.. Crime has skyrocketed in African American areas of town..50% graduate high school, a large number end up in prison... Back in the day any average man, with an avg blue collar job could support a large family with little or no debt.. Now? Massive amounts of debt, 2 income earners who barely get by supporting 1 or 2 kids, obesity, mental problems, drugs, more crime, more divorce.. I could go on and on..
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I tend to believe that things were better in many ways back then. Just think of how much better people we would be if we weren't so conditioned by the news media and hollywood ideals. We don't even see people as HUMAN in many ways anymore. We actually have a stereotype for EVERY action a person could take. The persistent guy being seen as a stalker for example. You can't do anything, say anything, or wipe your a$$ without people applying some label to you. I do it too but I'm blaming it on Hollywood and pop culture. Instead people were conditioned by what their parents and preacher/priest/rabbi taught them. Our grandparents were conditioned by what the radio told them, or the World War II propaganda that would air in local theaters told them. Once again, black people were excluded from using the same restaurants, water fountains, and bathrooms. Interracial marriage used to be illegal in some states. Yeah, things were so much superior back then, NOT. Please don't delude yourselves into thinking that.
b52s Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Instead people were conditioned by what their parents and preacher/priest/rabbi taught them. Our grandparents were conditioned by what the radio told them, or the World War II propaganda that would air in local theaters told them. Once again, black people were excluded from using the same restaurants, water fountains, and bathrooms. Interracial marriage used to be illegal in some states. Yeah, things were so much superior back then, NOT. Please don't delude yourselves into thinking that. Well, I do know if I was living in that era, that a woman would not reject me based on me not being 6 feet tall or balding.
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 And you wouldn't be able to reject women based on their bust sizes, waist sizes, hair color, or whether she liked your favorite sexual position. It works both ways. Options were much more limited on both sides back then.
Author Miko Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Once again, black people were excluded from using the same restaurants, water fountains, and bathrooms. Interracial marriage used to be illegal in some states. This is obviously a tragedy but people have been enslaving other people for thousands of years and the people in the generation we're talking about were the ones that actually CUT those chains. As much as we talk about how 'tolerant' we are I don't know if our generation would have the moral backbone to change that if it were the same situation today. You mentioned that people were influenced then more by their parents and religious figures. Well, maybe that's our problem, we get TV values instead of religious & family values. Much of our extra time and money we have due to our standard of living is wasted polluting our own minds and making us less functional in the most basic of ways, relationships, work ethic, core values etc.
BG1985 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The point I'm trying to make is that I feel a lot of people are misguided when have a yearning for the "good ole days," especially when they didn't live during those times. I'm not saying society as a whole is better today than in the past. I'm saying that people view the 1940s-50s as some sort of Golden Age of society, when it wasn't always the case. I'm also not saying that parents/religious figures aren't good role models, but they can be bad. Is it good when a kid emulates his narow-minded father? Is it good when a church commits mass suicide because its leader tells them to? The progress of today's society is a double-edged sword. It's improved life, but it has also made things worse.
Recommended Posts