Lemme get my tactical pants.
Are you instigating fisticuffs? Lemme get my 2x4!
If she didn’t consider him a potential rapist, why threaten him with legal action? Why talk about “knowing her rights,” and knowing the police?
As far as I can tell, either (a) they talked about the concept of consent, generally and perhaps obliquely, in the context of talking about “what she does” as an anti-rape activist–and he had no problem with it, because he did want to go out with her, before the salvo; or (b) they never talked about consent at all.
The “fuckboy” line itself is the only suggestion that the breakoff had anything to do with “consent” at all. And that’s her characterization of him being deterred by the threats, the aggression, the presumption of ill intent.
Per my interpretation upthread, I’m reckoning that Keenan and Karasek are projecting their own feelings of anger and weirdness, respectively, about dating men, onto the men.
It is a shame, because the cause they’re associated with is a good one. Rape is real and serious, and stopping it, changing the cultural factors that facilitate it, is a righteous and worthy thing to do. But “going on the offensive” against sympathetic men, or at least non-problematic ones, is not exactly helpful.
I honestly see it as no different than saying, “my dad’s a cop,” even if she has no familiar (edit: or familial) relation to the cop she name dropped. It’s a tinder hookup. Probably not meeting her future spouse there. And while I don’t use tinder (have no use for it), I probably would’ve if it existed when I was in college not too long ago, and expressly for hooking up. So, she’s probably just getting to know the guy, wants to feel safe with him so she lays it all out there–fuck it why not–and he’s just all “whoa there maybe not,” to which she says “hey fuck off.” Kinda typical exchange, no? I don’t really see the big deal.
I had questionable experiences in college, none where I got assaulted, so I’m not gonna judge her too harshly for still wanting to put herself out there while wanting to have a safe and comfortable experience after her assault. I think they’re both being reasonable, but getting interviewed made her come off as slightly pompous. College kids /shrug
I mean, sure? #notallmen and whatever. I just don’t think one article in NY Mag is gonna have much clap back against their overall cause. (Which I recognize this may make me sound like a bad feminist, well, I prefer womanist, but people being upfront about consent isn’t a bad or accusatory thing to me.)
High school yes. College, no.
And this was the midwest. I went to college at the University of Iowa and the University of Minnesota.
So what if they do? I certainly did when I was single and looking for a husband. It’s not too much to expect that a man actually act like a gentleman and (gasp) respect the rights of the women in his company.
Yeah, she shouldn’t have poisoned the well like that. Or at least, if she was going to do it, she shouldn’t have been surprised when it left a bad taste in the guy’s mouth. The other guy she mentions later who “made consent a part of foreplay” either had above average levels of tolerance or she didn’t choose go into that date “on the offensive.”
Exactly. Not only is it not helpful, but it harms their cause. The people interviewed in that article did not come off that great, IMO. An article like this seems like a divine gift to MRAs and other groups that find themselves opposed to anti-rape activism. I’m sure red-pillers all across the internet are gesturing wildly at that article as definitive “proof” that feminism is a Bad Thing.
Let’s be clear, everyone’s a potential rapist just as I could potentially be the god of this universe.
I don’t know what was going through her head when she told her date all those things. Maybe he gave off a vibe. Maybe she didn’t think he was a rapist but just said that to all her dates. Or maybe she wanted to nip any bad behavior in the bud beforehand. I do know her response was out of line, as if she were entitled to have a guy date her. She didn’t accept that some people would be turned off by her disclaimer and that is her fault entirely
I’ve been married for 16 years, and started dating my wife steadily in 1995. So, I haven’t had a first date in a looooong time, and (knock on wood), I probably won’t ever have another.
Now, it’s extremely regrettable that any woman would ever view me as a potential rapist, but I understand perfectly that women who don’t know me may HAVE to regard me that way. If I’m on a dark street late at night, and a young woman sees me coming, I won’t blame her if she eyes me warily and then crosses the street to get away from me. I know I’m harmless, but she doesn’t. She has to protect herself, and I’m not going to be offended.
In the same way, in my single days, if I’d found out that a woman I’d been fixed up with was carrying a can of pepper spray or a pair of brass knuckles in her purse, I wouldn’t blame her. She didn’t know me, had no reason yet to trust me, and she had a right to defend herself if I turned out to be a creep. All that is fine.
And in spite of all that, if my date’s first words were, “I know the chief of police and you’d better not try anything creepy, pal,” well, there would be no second date. Hell, I wouldn’t stick around to finish the first date. I’d call her a cab, and say “Have a nice life.”
Well, yes. There was this girl once, a mere 25 years ago plus small change, who I’d been smitten with for some years, and then when it finally turns out that we’re seeing each other a few times I turn up at her flat one time and she has this giant anti-rape newspaper article pinned up on the wall. The conversation soon turns to “All men are rapists and you needn’t try to pretend *you’re *some kind of knight in shining armour”, and about one minute later I’m out of that door thinking “Girl, you need someone kind and patient to sort you out, but not me and not now”. Never saw her since.
I do not know. In what context would it be fair to say that a woman is a street corner girl, or a girl of the streets about something?
Definitely, such an activist should not be a call girl in her choice of language.
Yes, that’s what I get from this – her reaction suggests it’s unacceptable and censureworthy for anyone to be put off by her strategy. Basically she’s testing her potential dates for how completely and utterly committed are they to her POV/ideology, and there is no “oh well, we disagree and move along”. Nope, he’s down with her position 100% or he’s a total fuckboy.
It’s instructive to re-read the article.
It’s something of a gauntlet for man to agree to a relationship with these women. If you are not down with the upfront warning you are a cowardly “fuckboy”, if you are fully compliant and supportive and supportive of her position it’s just “weird” for them.
Some men may see this as a challenge, but to be in a relationship where your motives are constantly being second guessed and questioned is exhausting after a while. Which ever way you turn you are walking on eggshells. And given the opinions and personalities expressed in the article I don’t think you could extract yourself from these relationships without taking a scalding verbal beating by them.
Those are statements from two different women. It’s not really fair to conflate them as if they came from one monolithic source that’s exhibiting a double standard.
They chatted, and based on that he did not consent to moving the relationship forward, which infuriated her, proving that she is unbalanced and that he was wise in not consenting.
I guess that means a fuckboy is someone who can recognize and reject an abusive nutter.
So much poison comes from one country. On the one lunatic politics like radical feminism, on the other simulated rape porn by the bucketful. The sooner we cut tied with American culture the happier we will all be.
Lol" is this Ok, is this Ok? " What a turn on that must have been. Chump