Anti-Rape Activists Having a Hard Time Dating

From New York Magazine: Hooking Up When You’re an Anti-Rape Activist

At least one of them had a narrow escape …

What’s a fuckboy in this context? :confused:

I saw the quote and thought you were taking something horribly out of context, so I read the article. And apparently Keenan really does feel that opening a date/hookup with an immediate threat of going to the police is appropriate and that a man who decides to decline an encounter because of a bad feeling or blatant disrespect is ‘a total fuckboy about consent’. Meanwhile Meghan Warner finds it offensive if a guy tries to reassure her about himself on hearing about her work, and apparently can read his mind if he declines to engage with her. I don’t know if the article is playing games with the quoting, but it really gives me the impression that neither of them respect the right of men to not consent.

He was totally asking for the ‘total fuckboy’ moniker. He was probably gay anyway.

Someone she teach her about no means no, and shouldn’t take it so personally when a person rejects her.

Of course no one want’s to get with these loons that puts on rape glasses every day looking for rape.

I think she needs to put this into her dating profile.


Broken people be broken. News at 11.

I think I saw this on an episode of Legit.

Best comment:

I wonder if she gives her vibrator the same lecture.

Women are free to say things like that to men they date, and men are free to move on for any reason (including not liking it when women say things like that), and vice versa. And the women are free to feel rage for this, if they so choose. I don’t think it’s necessarily right or wrong for a woman to say such a thing about consent early on in dating, and I don’t think it’s necessarily right or wrong for a man to feel a ‘bad vibe’ or whatever and end contact. To each their own, presuming all are consenting.

I would likely respond along the lines of:
“Fair enough. I work in the mortgage insurance business and know the chief arson investigator, so don’t even think about having one of your associates torch my house while we’re out!”

This part stuck out to me:

The headline and lead are pretty misleading.

As if what she does is the the thing that ran off the dude in the story. When he gave a perfectly reasonable explanation: she explicitly assumed he was a threat to be warded off.

Keenan and the article do somewhat acknowledge her own role in this; she “finds it hard not to go on the offensive.” Yeah, going on the offensive isn’t a great way to open a date for anyone, ever. The particular subject is almost beside the point.

Later, the writer characterizes as “insidious” the “expectation that their advocacy — and their own experiences — put them somehow outside the realm of a normal social life.” But… the only person quoted in the article who makes that case is Karasek, another woman activist.

So here we have men who are clearly not deterred by what she does, who are supportive, interested, and happy to spend the time with her. She’s feeling that her advocacy or experiences make this “weird.”

Some guys put up with a lot in order to get into a woman’s pants.


True. But there are also plenty of men who wouldn’t see her being an anti-rape activist as a thing to put up with; it’s a cause they agree with. Not fundamentally different than her being political on some other front.

She’s also expecting that he’ll want sex on the first date. Is that the norm now?

I have some friends who are also interested in an answer to Boyo Jims’ question.

I started dating in the early 70s and at least in my peer group men always want sex on the first date. That’s different from expecting it to happen vs hoping it will happen.

Yes, but only if you can get thru the reference check, background check, and the rest of the paperwork first.

I’d like to see these women out on a date with a PUA. Like bringing together an electron and a positron.