Sadly, I do find it plausible that some women in some situations could be persuaded that they hadn’t “really” been raped. If the woman had self-esteem issues, was drunk and her memories were confused, and/or if she had a strong “stranger in a dark alley” mental image of rape, a sufficiently charming date rapist might be able to convince her that he’d done nothing wrong.
This wouldn’t change the fact that she’d been raped, though. It would just mean that her rapist wasn’t merely a rapist, he was a rapist who played sick head games with his victims. In some ways this might be even more psychologically damaging for the victim than a straightforward stranger rape, as she could spend years doubting her own judgment or feeling guilty about “wrongly” suspecting Mr. Charming of having raped her.
No. In the thread I was thinking about the OP related her experience and asked if others thought it might be rape because people she told about the incident said it seemed like it was.
This post finally jogged the memory that had been nagging at me when I first read TWTTWN’s post: in an earlier thread on “pick up”, **Lamia **started digging through the “Mystery Method” book and discovered it was essentially a manifesto for date rape:
Read the whole post to see just how creepy it is. (“The best seduction location is one that allows you complete control, such as the bedroom of your own apartment or house.”) I can well believe that if the pick up artist movement is founded on the attitude and behaviour encouraged here that many of it’s adherents do find themselves “walking a fuzzy line” or having to worry about “Buyer’s Remorse” (lovely terminology, by the way). Because these are the attitudes and behaviour of a date rapist.
Here’s a hint: If, during sex, you find yourself wondering how you’re going to make your partner feel good about it afterwards, you’re doing something very badly wrong.
Naw, even with this extended quote you’ve taken what he’s saying out of context.
The full chapter of the book begins by explaining that, prior to sleeping with a woman for the first time, the interaction is unlikely to proceed without pauses. These pauses aren’t withdrawals of consent, they’re things like “Oh, we shouldn’t be doing this…” or “But, I’ve just met you…”. IOW, she wants to continue, but for whatever reason, social convention or whatever, she feels guilty.
And the advice of the book is to leave her alone for a few minutes, and then try making out again. If again you’re encountering resistance, the book says to completely stop trying and, say, go watch TV or something.
There’s an idea behind doing this, and it is partly a mindgame, but what the book certainly doesn’t say is force yourself on her.
So he doesn’t say “Just agree with her…and then keep going” on p. 202? Because that would be forcing yourself on her.
Does he say anything like, “If, ultimately, she decides she doesn’t want to have sex right now, that’s her decision and you should respect it”? Because frankly, even the use of the phrase “resistance” is creeping me out. “Resistance” by it’s nature has to be overcome. Why use such an adversarial metaphor? It paints a pretty unpleasant picture of a man who wants sex and a woman who will resist until he finds a way to break that resistance. Such as by playing mindgames to turn a “no” into a “yes”.
Exactly. If a guy is encountering enough resistance that he has to devise a strategy to manage it, that should be taken as a sign that something’s wrong. Either she doesn’t really want to have sex (which means she’s just not into you, pick someone else to sleep with) or is pretending like she doesn’t (which is a red flag that she lacks the maturity to play in the big leagues, go pick someone else to sleep with).
Yep, you’re still taking it out of context. What is the line before that? And what do you suppose he means by “agree with her”?
He’s saying what I said, which is: stop everything, talk for a minute, and then start making out again. Give her every chance to walk away. In fact, part of what you’re doing is saying: I’m not forcing myself on you.
Whatever issues there may be with the PUA movement, it’s not about rape.
Actually, yes, I’m pretty sure it does.
I don’t have the book to hand however.
I can see why you’d feel that way. But again, let’s put it back in context.
One thing I recall from the book is that it made the distinction between a woman actually saying “I don’t want to do this” and the “mock” resistance of saying “We shouldn’t be doing this…”, or similar, which may be just asking for reassurance.
The difference is made quite explicit.
An acquaintance of mine (roommate of a friend) is looking at his second conviction for a sexual offense. The first was statutory rape (she was 15, he was 27) a few years back, and the recent one is for videotaping his female roommate in the shower, starting a few months ago when she rejected his romantic overtures.
Not quite the same thing as rape, but oddly enough he sort of semi-justifies the latter (in that he’ll say, I’m a horrible person because I do things this way) by saying that he felt she was leading him on by getting an apartment with him, accepting his emotional support, and whatnot, and then telling him she felt his advances were unwelcome and creepy.
It’s kinda the stereotypes of the angry guy because he’s the only one not getting any and the “Nice Guy” stereotype rolled into one BPD/NPD-possibly-having package.
I said everything I had to say about the Mystery book back in 2008, but it is true that Mystery didn’t come right out and say that it’s okay for a man to have sex with a woman who is “protesting the entire time”. It was a Doper who described this as “a romantic sexual adventure”.
you with the face, I share your surprise that these posts have attracted so little attention, but it may be that many other Dopers are, like me, struggling to think of a response that is appropriate for this forum. I don’t think there can be any real debate, great or otherwise, with someone who believes that it’s okay to commit rape as long as the rapist is sure to cuddle with the victim afterward.
If TheWhoToTheWhatNow has acted on this belief – and he certainly seems to be claiming that he has – then I hope the law will catch up with him before he rapes again.
Yes, I have to say I am baffled by this. I can buy the idea that a woman’s initial resistance (verbal, not physical) might be overcome by the right kind of smooth talk, and then an otherwise fulfilling sexual experience had by both parties. But a woman protesting the entire time? From beginning to end? As specifically stated by TWTTWN? I just don’t understand how this experience could possibly be justified on anything but the most atavistic grounds.
I hope he comes back to this thread and clarifies what he meant, and attempts to explain further.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people skimmed over his post based on the first sentence, as I did. The really revolting stuff was buried in its depths.
I went back and read his (TheWhoToTheWhatNow’s) screed. Now I feel sick. If anyone isn’t sure what he said, go back and reread the above post. I’ll wait.
Apparently TheWhoToTheWhatNow thinks if he can convince his date that the non-consentual sex they had was all in fun and no harm done, then it wasn’t really rape in the first place.. Careful walking that tightrope, bud. Some day you’ll meet a woman you can’t “calm down”.
To be fair, I don’t blame many people for not reading his posts. Too much work for too little gain. The only reason I tune into him sometimes is because he is unintentionally funny, and every so often someone will snark something in response to him that furthers the funny.
Sorry, but I have to play some of this again:
Don’t you like how he says “we”, here? It’s not like he’s saying “oh those, PUAs over there, they walk this tightrope.” No, he fully admits to being a part of this lovely band of experts who walk the divide between law-abiding romance and psyche-destroying rape…and he doesn’t even have the sense not to brag about it. That’s the most fascinating thing to me. I would think that even a loser when recognize that the only kind of sex worth bragging about is the “she couldn’t keep her hands off of me and wanted to go all night” variety. Not the kind of sex associated with “she was protesting the entire time but at least she didn’t press charges against me the next day!” On what planet is this something that a normal guy would announce to the world?
And then this:
Yes, if only he would stick around to cuddle her afterwards and crack a few good-natured jokes about the run in her pantyhose. You know, so she can laugh at the silliness of the whole thing. I know for me personally, that’s all I need to cheer up after a good old fashion alleyway rape. A hug and some jokes. And maybe some pancakes.
I know this is a couple days old, but I want to address it for the record and perhaps later readers. Acid Lamp, when I said,
you replied,
You were then being disingenuous or forgetful, because the phrases “their guilt” and “actual victims” were yours, from this earlier post,
You believe that some rape victims aren’t really victims, and should have guilt (not be relieved of it!) for what happened. Your sympathy is reserved for the more deserving!
That was the attitude of yours that poked my eye in the first place. You go on to restate it yet again,
Climbing is a bad analogy. The mountain is not a conscious actor, and has no moral qualities. Free climbing has inherent risks in a way that no dressing or dating behavior does.
The risk for women is not coming from her actions. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a woman wearing a short tight dress, or whatever. There is nothing wrong with her flirting. Negative outcomes can only attach to her choices (if they relate to them at all) because of what others do, actions that everyone here (except TheWhoToTheWhatNow) agrees are wrong.
That’s where the guilt and blame come from, the wrongness of the rapist’s actions. There was no wrong otherwise.
You wish to ascribe some degree of fault to the woman. There’s really no coherent way to work that transaction that doesn’t involve assigning a moral value to tight dresses and flirting in themselves. Rape apologists do so, and some religious interpretations (but I repeat myself); I will not.
It is all coming together. I knew there was a religious angle.