Untouchable_Fire Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I was thinking yesterday of the guys who strongly embrace traditional dating roles. The ones I know typically give me the feel of just acting the gentleman. Yet it seemed they had massive support from the women on this board. So I looked up studies regarding the different schools of thought. This matches the general trend I've seen in real life. You may think the guy is a fantastic gentleman for paying. It also means there is a good chance he considers raping you justified under some circumstances. "One out of 12 men admitted to having fulfilled the prevailing definition of rape or attempted rape, yet none identified himself as a rapist. Subsequent studies at individual colleges have confirmed these figures. They indicate that date rape occurs all over the country, in every socioeconomic group and at every age. The main victims, however, are women between 15 and 24. . . . Gloria Fischer, a psychologist, surveyed more than 400 students at Washington State University and found that 5 percent of the women and 19 percent of the men did not define forcible sex or the man's coercion as unacceptable behavior. Rather, they felt that, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, it might be acceptable for a man to force sex on his companion. These included if the couple had been dating for a long time, if she had let him fondle her, if she wasn't a virgin or if she had "led him on". . . . Three Texas psychologists probed the attitudes of 268 college men aged 19. The researchers found that the men fell into two groups: those who held traditional views of sex roles and those who didn't. The traditionalists thought that men, not women, should ask for dates, pay for dates, make decisions about dating activity and initiate any intimate behavior. The nontraditionalists believed in equality between the sexes. The men were presented with different scenarios. In some, the woman asked the man out or bore all the expenses of the evening. In others, the couple spent the evening alone in the man's apartment or went to a movie. The college men were asked to indicate in which of these dating situations the man would be justified in forcing his attention [notice the euphemism] on the woman against her will. The good news is that 80 percent of the men said that "rape" was never justified - under any circumstance. The bad news is that 20 percent felt that, in some instances, it was. Most of these men held traditional views of sex roles. They believed that a woman was leading a man on if she asked him for a date, went with him to hjis apartment or allowed him to pay for all the expenses. Most traditionalists, and even some nontraditionalists, believed that this implied a sexual invitation, which the woman had no right to withdraw later on."
elaina Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 A man who rapes anybody is NOT a true gentleman. A true gentleman doesn't just mean opening doors for women or paying for the first date. A true gentleman is a man who is kind to women and shows consideration for them in his words and actions. Just because a man pays for both his expense and his date's expense, that doesn't mean that that person is automatically a gentleman. Gentlemen, or the traditional era of a gentleman, is to be a protector and provider, so rape is totally not something a gentleman would do. From what I've heard about rape, it's the man's character that's the issue, not if he pays for dates or not. Generalizing all men who pay for dates as potential rapists is hopefully not what you are implying, because that would be completely absurd.
USMCHokie Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Look at the sample used in this "study." I rest my case.
bac Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 A male who is capable of rape has antisocial personality disorder. It is a medical psychiatric condition which is the only reason why he is capable of rape. A normal man is not capable of antisocial behavior such as rape, killing, and other similar stuff. It is not rational to feel desire to rape a girl just because you invited her for a romantic dinner and you paid $15-30 for her.
TaurusTerp Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 It's correlated, and it makes sense. You can't really come up with any cogent argument against it other than "that's absurd" because those views are how you fundamentally live your life.
TaurusTerp Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 A male who is capable of rape has antisocial personality disorder. It is a medical psychiatric condition which is the only reason why he is capable of rape. A normal man is not capable of antisocial behavior such as rape, killing, and other similar stuff. It is not rational to feel desire to rape a girl just because you invited her for a romantic dinner and you paid $15-30 for her. You can rationalize anything. The point is that none of them think they are raping the woman. For example, what if you start having sex but the girl wants to stop after a few minutes? Is it still rape? Yes. It is. But many men aren't going to consider it rape if she has already given consent.
theBrokenMuse Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 It doesn't shock me that the men that held pro-rape views considered themselves a part of the traditionalists group... they see themselves as greater beings and women as property or objects if they can justify rape so they would never choose to group with those those who held pro-feminist ideologies as it is incompatible with their own misogynistic world view.... not that all or even most traditionalists are woman haters or anything.
elaina Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 (edited) It's correlated, and it makes sense. You can't really come up with any cogent argument against it other than "that's absurd" because those views are how you fundamentally live your life. Hello? I've gone on many dates with men who are gentlemen, and I have NEVER been raped. This is a good argument in my opinion. They have ALWAYS payed for the first date (though not all the dates... I pay things too, like when going to a museum that I want to go to, I invite and I pay) but I have NEVER been raped. Why? One of the main reasons I think is because the men I date are quality men, gentlemen. Yes it's true that scumbags can masquerade as gentlemen, but not all gentlemen = scumbags. That idea is completely absurd. Friends of mine have also gone on dates and are couples with and are married now to gentlemen who have traditional views and who pay for dates. They have not been raped either. The women I know who have been raped are raped by scumbags. Scumbags can be found anywhere in any kind of job, with any kind of modern or traditional thinking. Paying for dates is not the prime indicator for a potential rapist. What is a prime indicator is how he treats and talks about women. Also, sometimes men can know a good guy from a bad one. My male friends have helped me steer clear of potential disasters by their advice, and I appreciate it. Also, I know that if a guy ever gives me a hard time, all I have to do is make a call and that guy is in deep trouble. Edited October 6, 2010 by elaina
TaurusTerp Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Hello? I've gone on many dates with men who are gentlemen, and I have NEVER been raped. This is a good argument in my opinion. They have ALWAYS payed for the first date (though not all the dates... I pay things too, like when going to a museum that I want to go to, I invite and I pay) but I have NEVER been raped. Why? One of the main reasons I think is because the men I date are quality men, gentlemen. Yes it's true that scumbags can masquerade as gentlemen, but not all gentlemen = scumbags. That idea is completely absurd. Friends of mine have also gone on dates and are couples with and are married now to gentlemen who have traditional views and who pay for dates. They have not been raped either. The women I know who have been raped are raped by scumbags. Scumbags can be found anywhere in any kind of job, with any kind of modern or traditional thinking. Paying for dates is not the prime indicator for a potential rapist. What is a prime indicator is how he treats and talks about women. Also, sometimes men can know a good guy from a bad one. My male friends have helped me steer clear of potential disasters by their advice, and I appreciate it. Also, I know that if a guy ever gives me a hard time, all I have to do is make a call and that guy is in deep trouble. Your logic doesn't hold here. It's not whether or not you've been raped - it's whether or not people, IN GENERAL, who hold traditional views are more likely to have a flexible definition of rape. Of course, you will come back with more personal anecdotes about how gentlemanly your friends are. Elaina, it's not a 100% rule. It's CORRELATION.
elaina Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Your logic doesn't hold here. It's not whether or not you've been raped - it's whether or not people, IN GENERAL, who hold traditional views are more likely to have a flexible definition of rape. Of course, you will come back with more personal anecdotes about how gentlemanly your friends are. Elaina, it's not a 100% rule. It's CORRELATION. You wrote: You can't really come up with any cogent argument against it other than "that's absurd" because those views are how you fundamentally live your life. I assume you wrote that to me, correct? My never being raped by men who I've dated who hold traditional views and who pay for the first date (and who are gentlemen) is a cogent argument, same as the experiences of my female friends, or do our experiences not count?
Star Gazer Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 The men who raped and felt it was justified felt that way because: 1. The woman asked him out, 2. The woman went with him to his place/invited him to hers, OR 3. The woman allowed him to pay for everything. These men believed that based on one or more of these circumstances, they were being led on. "It's the woman's fault!" How you definitively correlate the last item as being THE REASON is beyond me. There's no way to parse it out. And by your logic, a woman should never ask out a man, because that's factor #1. Also by your logic, the man should ask, but the woman should pay. Yeah, the study is clearly bunk...
Knittress Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 The only connection I see between the arguments of "men paying for women" and "men raping women" is MEN. The fact that you see a correlation is either fantastically amusing... or disturbing - I haven't made up my mind yet.
that girl Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Is your argument really that women should date men who don't pick up the check because they are less likely to be rapists? I've never gotten the impression that you have progessive views about gender Untouchable_Fire, more that you wanted women to have limited expectations of you. There isn't a source cited for the paper, but I'm guessing it is this one http://www.springerlink.com/content/n118vk7167707615/ which was published in 1986 and first presented in 1985. The men studied would today be 47 at the youngest, so it isn't exactly up to date.
TaurusTerp Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 You wrote: I assume you wrote that to me, correct? My never being raped by men who I've dated who hold traditional views and who pay for the first date (and who are gentlemen) is a cogent argument, same as the experiences of my female friends, or do our experiences not count? No, I didn't write that to you and No. It's not a cogent argument. It's like me saying all the women I've dated thus far have had brown hair and thus all dateable women have brown hair. I don't really know how to explain this to you - personal experience does not make up an argument, and what has NOT happened to you does not mean anything. What I'm basically getting from you is that you would have to be raped or betrayed to actually change your mind. No debate or logic is going to affect you. The men who raped and felt it was justified felt that way because: 1. The woman asked him out, 2. The woman went with him to his place/invited him to hers, OR 3. The woman allowed him to pay for everything. These men believed that based on one or more of these circumstances, they were being led on. "It's the woman's fault!" How you definitively correlate the last item as being THE REASON is beyond me. There's no way to parse it out. And by your logic, a woman should never ask out a man, because that's factor #1. Also by your logic, the man should ask, but the woman should pay. Yeah, the study is clearly bunk... You're turning this into a female issue when that's not what is at hand AT ALL. It's how MEN perceive traditional roles and what they feel they are due or what constitutes rape. Stop crying misogyny, that's not what this is about at all. It's man pays = man thinks he owns the woman (He paid for her, did he not? Bought her?) = lower view of women = more likely to believe some situations of sex without consent is okay.
brainygirl Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 OR . . . one could interpret the study as indicating that about 20% of the population studied had antisocial tendencies but were able to justify to themselves their behavior or potential behavior. Antisocial people often justify their behavior by blaming others "I drink because you made me mad", "I hit you because you pissed me off", "I stole becuase its a ripoff anyway" This study is better indicative of the numbers of people out there that can and would justify a serious harm on another if the situation presented itself. As to dating men who pick up the tab . . . . if he asks me and its the first date, I expect to be treated, if we've been seeing each other a while, I tend to take turns as to who pays, or I buy booze, he rents the movie, I make dinner, he gets dessert.
skydiveaddict Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Most traditionalists, and even some nontraditionalists, believed that this implied a sexual invitation, which the woman had no right to withdraw later on." You must be kidding. You're saying that most guys who pay for their dates, hold a door open for the lady etc. are mostly likely going to rape this same girl later on in the evening?
elaina Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 No, I didn't write that to you Sigh. Again, you wrote: You can't really come up with any cogent argument against it other than "that's absurd" because those views are how you fundamentally live your life. Who else before you posted that called the idea absurd, hmm? This isn't rocket science. and No. It's not a cogent argument. It's like me saying all the women I've dated thus far have had brown hair and thus all dateable women have brown hair. I don't really know how to explain this to you - personal experience does not make up an argument, and what has NOT happened to you does not mean anything. You dating brown-haired woman is your choice. Being raped by a man is not a woman's choice, hence the definition of rape. There's no correlation between what color hair you choose for the women you date with men who pay for their date's expenses and then rape their date, now is there? Testimonies, however, are important. As a woman, my testimony that I have never been raped by a man who has payed for a date with me does show that not all men who pay for a date are rapists. Testifying is a part of the court process, if you have never been to court. I am sure there are women who have experienced being raped. I wish that were not so, but just like I have had positive experiences with men who pay for the date, so I am sure there are those who have had horrible experiences, yet my testifying about the goodness of the men I have dated should most definitely count for something, as well as the experiences of my friends! What I'm basically getting from you is that you would have to be raped or betrayed to actually change your mind. No debate or logic is going to affect you. Actually, if I had friends or heard from other women that men who are pay for dates are more likely to rape, then that would win me over much better than some stranger saying my experiences count for nothing, thank you. You're turning this into a female issue when that's not what is at hand AT ALL. It's how MEN perceive traditional roles and what they feel they are due or what constitutes rape. Stop crying misogyny, that's not what this is about at all. It's man pays = man thinks he owns the woman (He paid for her, did he not? Bought her?) = lower view of women = more likely to believe some situations of sex without consent is okay.
skydiveaddict Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Read this......................................
TaurusTerp Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Sigh. Again, you wrote: Who else before you posted that called the idea absurd, hmm? This isn't rocket science. Hokie and bac? You dating brown-haired woman is your choice. Being raped by a man is not a woman's choice, hence the definition of rape. There's no correlation between what color hair you choose for the women you date with men who pay for their date's expenses and then rape their date, now is there? Testimonies, however, are important. As a woman, my testimony that I have never been raped by a man who has payed for a date with me does show that not all men who pay for a date are rapists. Testifying is a part of the court process, if you have never been to court. I am sure there are women who have experienced being raped. I wish that were not so, but just like I have had positive experiences with men who pay for the date, so I am sure there are those who have had horrible experiences, yet my testifying about the goodness of the men I have dated should most definitely count for something, as well as the experiences of my friends! Actually, if I had friends or heard from other women that men who are pay for dates are more likely to rape, then that would win me over much better than some stranger saying my experiences count for nothing, thank you. You're turning this into a female issue when that's not what is at hand AT ALL. It's how MEN perceive traditional roles and what they feel they are due or what constitutes rape. Stop crying misogyny, that's not what this is about at all. It's man pays = man thinks he owns the woman (He paid for her, did he not? Bought her?) = lower view of women = more likely to believe some situations of sex without consent is okay. So as long as other women say it, you're more likely to believe it than logical arguments? Your mental processes are bewildering. Nothing I can do then. Good day.
elaina Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Hokie and bac? Read their posts before you responded. Neither one said absurd. Only I did. So as long as other women say it, Yes. Do you know why? Because other women have had experiences too. If there were, for example, women who I know tell me DON'T DATE A MAN WHO PAYS FOR THE DATE BECAUSE YOU WILL MORE THAN LIKELY BE RAPED! Then I would definitely consider their words and ask why they say that. Do you know why? Because I consider women's experiences to be valid and important. Do you? you're more likely to believe it than logical arguments? Do you think a woman's testimony is illogical? Your mental processes are bewildering. Yours equally Nothing I can do then. Good day. Good day.
TaurusTerp Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Yes. Do you know why? Because other women have had experiences too. If there were, for example, women who I know tell me DON'T DATE A MAN WHO PAYS FOR THE DATE BECAUSE YOU WILL MORE THAN LIKELY BE RAPED! Then I would definitely consider their words and ask why they say that. Do you know why? Because I consider women's experiences to be valid and important. Do you? Do you think a woman's testimony is illogical? Yours equally Good day. All your opinions are shaped by people around you, not your own thought process. That's all. If you grew up in WW2 Germany, it's obvious what side you'd be on.
Mad Max Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 A man who rapes anybody is NOT a true gentleman. A true gentleman doesn't just mean opening doors for women or paying for the first date. A true gentleman is a man who is kind to women and shows consideration for them in his words and actions. Just because a man pays for both his expense and his date's expense, that doesn't mean that that person is automatically a gentleman. Gentlemen, or the traditional era of a gentleman, is to be a protector and provider, so rape is totally not something a gentleman would do. From what I've heard about rape, it's the man's character that's the issue, not if he pays for dates or not. Generalizing all men who pay for dates as potential rapists is hopefully not what you are implying, because that would be completely absurd. A man that rapes anyone is sick in the head.
elaina Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 All your opinions are shaped by people around you, not your own thought process. That's all. If you grew up in WW2 Germany, it's obvious what side you'd be on. What in the world? Can you answer the questions I asked you? Do you have to resort to implying something completely off topic and rude? Since you're leading this completely off topic, one of my heroes is Corrie ten Boom. Have you ever heard of her? Even though she's not German, she's Dutch, she was put into prison and then concentration camps for helping rescue Jewish people. in Germany too, I think there were people who helped rescue others from the Nazis. I don't understand why you are trying to insult me by making it sound like I'd be a Nazi if I was a German during WW2 time? I wouldn't do that to you. That's downright rude. If you don't want to write with me and have a discussion in a good way, don't be rude ok? It's obvious we have 2 different views on this subject, and yes of course my views are shaped by my experiences, same as yours are. If you know any woman who has been raped by a man paying for the date, I would consider that a valid reason why you are so passionate about this topic. If that is the case, than I'm sorry she was raped and that is horrible. Yes there are men who masquerade as gentlemen and who pay for dates (and just paying for dates does not a gentleman make) and yet who rape women, but that is not the prime factor in rape cases. The prime factor is the man himself, how he treats women. And again, a man who rapes a woman cannot be a gentleman, because that goes against the definition of being a gentleman.
elaina Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 A man that rapes anyone is sick in the head. Hello Mad Max, Agreed. Thanks. You stating that fact is calming me down a little bit. I was getting very riled... thanks.
dispatch3d Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 You wrote: I assume you wrote that to me, correct? My never being raped by men who I've dated who hold traditional views and who pay for the first date (and who are gentlemen) is a cogent argument, same as the experiences of my female friends, or do our experiences not count? It's not a valid arguement no. It's based on a lot of fallacies.
Recommended Posts