But that line of reasoning is false: women have it tougher, because rape and sexual assault are objectively worse than simple rejection.
Additionally, as my ex likes to say "the odds are good, but the goods are odd." If you are a man who uses Tinder or Bumble and aren't getting many matches, do a little experiment. Find a female friend and ask to do some swiping with her. You'll get a buttload of matches right away. Message them all with something simple like "hi" or "cute dog". See how long it takes before he is asking if you want him to put cannoli filling in your ass and then squirt it into his mouth (real thing, I wish I had saved the screenshots). In that barrage of bullshit, you can still find a few decent sounding people. Of those, you have to screen them for whether they are actually decent humans or sociopaths. Oh and "dating fatigue" sets in really early too. After a dozen matches all say "you DTF?" in the first 2-3 messages, why even bother going back? So guess what? The rate of finding a good match is just about the same for women as it is for men.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the statistics in the article. Just the language and some of the conclusions.
Its really frightening to think of how much fear women face regularly, just in their daily life. From actual stalkers, to being wary of shady streets at night, being careful when walking alone, going for a run at odd hours etc.
Not to mention all the unwanted attention when all they want is to be left alone. And many men not taking no for an answer.
It took me some time to really internalize this and come to appreciate women's difficulties with these things, since I didn't have much personal experience to relate to because I'm a guy.
I think everyone agrees that rape is worse than rejection.
For messages - well, I cover this "false positive" stuff.
As a anecdote, I have a friend who will go on a date with literally anyone. If they talk to him, he will do whatever it takes to see them, even if they are not his type, by whatever definition. Women rarely engage in this behavior. That doesn’t mean men have it tough, just that the threat to him is much lower than to a woman in an equivalent situation.
Studying non-hetero dating is also a fun comparison, as it highlights a lot of the heteronormative behavior lots of people take for granted.
And a lot of behaviors considered creepy are centered around expressing sexual intentions as well.
In general, it seems to be anything that makes women sexually uncomfortable is perceived as creepy (from Models by Mark Manson). But the ones that can (and should) be avoided is:
- Expressing sexual intentions in some sneaky way (like, staring at a girl but hesitating with talking to her). Though, importantly, playful flirting is not considered creepy (even though it's not about showing things explicitly).
- Pursuing her for too long when she is not interested (some behaviors can be super romantic or creepy, totally depending on her interest in you, which you may not know).
Yet, from what I seen (and learned) being upfront (or flirting playifully) AND leaving ample space for her to turn you down (so - not being to pushy or needy) is good enough (and actionable).
To some point it is not possible to be creepy-proof if you want to show any sexual intentions. At the same time, it's not a big deal (and shouldn't be).
I think the article mentions it a but it deserves to be said aloud: don't always have sex as the goal, try to enjoy the experience instead. Which doesn't mean that you shouldn't desire a sexual experience or try to have sex. But there are many many reasons why it may not happen so don't be frustrated if it doesn't. Do try to enjoy the company, rather than specific actions.
Which also means: don't hang out with someone who you strongly dislike or don't agree on certain fundamental things. Value your own time, and value others' as well.
It's not quite as simple as just that number, but yes it's staggeringly high, even in developed countries. Note that most go unreported to the police for a huge variety of reasons.
Edit: some choice quotes for the lazy:
> Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. 1992 and United Nations Populations Fund, 2000a)
> The 1998 the National Violence Against Women Survey described the incidence of rape as 1 in 6 and 1 in 33 men based upon the report of experiencing an attempted or completed rape in her or his lifetime.
> A 2007 survey by the National Institute of Justice found that 19.0% of college women and 6.1% of college men experienced either sexual assault or attempted sexual assault since entering college.
Drunken collage sex for example has various interpretations at say .08 BAC vs 0.3 BAC etc. Especially when you get into regrets after the fact etc.
IMO, you need define the measure on a scale from say unwanted but non physical to violent physical encounter, before the statistic is really meaningful to a general audience.
The issue here is that with an expanded definition of rape, rape isn't always traumatic. Thousands of women have drunken sex every night, yet the vast majority of them aren't traumatized by it.
facepalm Say that sentence out loud until what you just said kicks in.
Consensual sex, even when alcohol is involved, is still consensual sex. Rape is rape.
The issue is that drunk consensual sex is no longer considered consensual. The definition of rape has changed and expanded over the years to include activities that are pretty common in our society.
You need to read that in combination with the prosecution services guidance: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/ especially the consent section: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/...
> Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:
> Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent; or
You also need to read these in combination with the sentencing guidelines: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Fina...
Alcohol increases the culpability of the offender.
In practice I agree with you: it's harder for victims to prove their case when alcohol is involved for a variety of victim blaming reasons.
With Stanford's definition, consent can be considered null and void because they were drunk at the time, opening up the potential for retroactive revocation of consensual drunk sex.
'Drunk' has expanded with DUI laws to be include very mild levels of intoxication as people get DUI while not noticeably impaired. Further, nobody is taking blood tests making dunk and consent tricky subjects.
Can a 120lb person give consent after 4 shots in 2 hours? How about 6, 7 etc?
If you don’t have clear and enthusiastic verbal or written consent, don’t have sex. It is pretty simple in practice.
Edit: I like how instead of arguing with me or having a discussion, some of you are downvoting me. Try to question statistics you hear, because usually there's a motive behind gathering those statistics in the first place. I've linked to it down below.
Edit: to clarify, what I mean is that if you include things like cat calling, groping, etc., it'll be closer to 100% for harassment. There are good reasons to include these.
Unfortunately it's a tricky problem with no easy solutions.