QUESTION Imagine #MeToo turning the U.S. into a "Bumble" Society ?
Earlier this past week I asked my friends on Facebook what they would change if they could somehow change one thing about the dating process. A number of men intimated they wish it were a more common expectation for women to make the first move, like the way that it works on Bumble. So the next day I posed a thought experiment:
What if tomorrow morning you woke up in a world in which women had to make the first move in any relationship? Imagine for a moment how the world, and dating, would be different if men were strongly stigmatized for making the first move. How would the world be different?
First off, I’ll admit up front what several of my friends pointed out, namely that my question was heteronormative, as if I were implicitly assuming people date only members of the opposite sex. I mean what would this thought experiment mean for gay men? I guess they just wouldn’t date at all? And if you’re bisexual, you’ve just had half of your sexual self shut down.
A Deeper Problem
Friends were also quick to point out that another kind of privilege blindness was at work beneath the surface of this question. What good would it do to change the world only on this one small detail if all the underlying historical and social causes for our normative expectations were not changed as well? If this is a world in which women have to ask out the men, would this alternate reality also incorporate other shifts in social power to keep from undermining the very thing we’re trying to imagine?
One friend, Kate M, drove this point home with her response:
That is a world in which women can walk down the street without fear of harassment. A world in which we don’t have to worry our boss arranging that dinner meeting was actually a way to force a date. A world where we don’t have to worry that a date will decide dinner means we OWE him sex.
Imagine how freeing that would be.
Her comment draws out the social inequity that undermines the thought experiment before it can even begin, because in a world where men are expected to initiate romantic overtures, we have to grapple with our own fears of rejection while women under this social economy have to grapple with their fear of what men will do to them if they rebuff their advances. It’s not so simple as just changing this one unspoken rule of dating (which apparently most of my female friends don’t follow anyway).
See more of the article in comment below .
8
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.This was an excellent post. I'd like to revive it with the hub bub over this athletic coach's girls "pretty much ruin everything" post. Please take a look before commenting.
Here's mine: Before I watched this I thought maybe they were a bit rough on him. Well, he is way out of bounds, especially for a public school. While it may seem innocent, this is part of the "boys will be boys" culture that needs to be opened up and corrected big time. The religious/biblical references are ridiculous as well.
4Humanity
Level 4
Sep 27, 2018
0
I don't think humanity will ever properly detach itself from the fact that we are mammals, with mammals' mating instincts. The female role being to find the best possible DNA for the offspring that she will have to nurture. The male role to spread his DNA as far and wide as possible.
This naturally puts the males in a predatory role, and the females in a defensive one. You see it in the way that we applaud a promiscuous male and slut shame a promiscuous female. I once saw it described as "a key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that's opened by any key is a pretty shitty lock."
There are advantages to both sides, though. One of the many reasons I identify as transgender is that I enjoy the female sexual role. Not just in the sense of who penetrates who, but in the sense of being the seducee rather than the seducer. And secretly, I think a lot of heterosexual natal (born) females feel the same way about this seduction process, and don't want to see it completely short-circuited, as currently seems to be happening. They like male assertiveness and persistence (as long as it's from the right male.) Just not to the point that the likes of Harvey Weinstein takes it to.
How many couples are happily married, who wouldn't be if the male suitor had taken the first 'no' as a final answer? Yet the modern understanding is that if you persist after the first 'no', you're guilty of sexual harassment. There's a thrill of the chase for both sides, that we're in danger of losing completely. It's going to get to the point where you need mutually signed and witnessed waivers before you both get undressed. In fact, I believe there's already an app for this purpose.
I'm not defending Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey. #MeToo has the best of intentions, and has exposed some properly predatory males. The problem, as always, is people get a taste for blood, and start looking for other, less deserving examples that they can have a go at. They don't make a distinction between serial and persistent predators like Weinstein and Spacey. All of a sudden, they're gunning for anyone who made a clumsy pass at someone while drunk, once, forty years ago.
If you don't remember him, do a YouTube search for Pepe Le Pew. You don't see much of him on television these days, because he'd be a registered sex offender by modern standards.
NicoleCadmium
Level 7
Feb 15, 2018
1
Aaack! (insert fear emoji here) I don't ever want anyone to ever get the impression that no ever means anything but no. If the one being pursued means "not now" that person has to learn to say "not now" - and full well deserves to not get follow-up advances to help them learn to say what they really mean. If they say no and later change their mind - it is then up to them to explain about the change of mind, and be accepting if the timing is no longer right for the other person, or whatever the reason for not returning the interest or not willing to do anything about any interest at that time (say, they found someone else meanwhile).
"How many couples are happily married, who wouldn't be if the male suitor had taken the first 'no' as a final answer?"
Probably not many, because if he isn't willing to respect her boundaries, then the marriage is probably not so happy as the couple tries to believe or pretend that it is.
That key analogy is BULLSHIT because men and women are not locks and keys and we are not inanimate objects, but rather complex human beings.
@demifeministgal I know the key analogy is bullshit. But it perfectly illustrates archaic attitudes towards sex. The mentality that sex is something someone in the male role 'does to' someone the female role, when she lowers her standards enough to allow it. Each time he puts a notch on his bedpost, his worth increases. Each time she puts one on hers, hers decreases. It's a ridiculous double standard. But perhaps I could have made that point of view clearer.
Sex should be a mutually pleasurable symbiosis. Not something one person enjoys, and the other endures for a free meal, a diamond ring, a fur coat, or out of a sense of marital obligation. That archaic crap needs to go. But it doesn't have to take the basic ritual of man pursuing and seducing woman along with it.
@Elizabethl (late reply - I must have missed it.) "No" always means "no." But "no" can mean "no, not ever, do not ask me again" while it can also mean "no, but feel free to ask again tomorrow."
So...
"Will you go on a date with me?"
"No"
(some time later)
"Will you go on a date with me?"
Is not predatory/harassment.
"Will you go on a date with me?"
"No. Never. Please don't ask me again."
(some time later)
"Will you go on a date with me?"
Is predatory/harassment.
Once you've made your feelings crystal clear that you want someone to leave you alone, permanently, they should leave you alone, permanently. But up to that point, I think it's perfectly okay for them to keep trying.
@NicoleCadmium okay I see. I've only ever heard that line used by misogynists trying to slut shame women so I mistook you for doing the same thing. But it seems you were illustrating the ridiculous societal double standards at play. 
carry on. My mistake.
"One friend, Kate M, drove this point home with her response:
That is a world in which women can walk down the street without fear of harassment. A world in which we don’t have to worry our boss arranging that dinner meeting was actually a way to force a date. A world where we don’t have to worry that a date will decide dinner means we OWE him sex."
<Really? This is a much different world than my and other heterosexual men inhabit. Small wonder so many people are lonely in the US>
BobFenner
Level 7
Feb 13, 2018
2
Slippery slope fallacy. Women calling out their sexual assaulters/harassers shouldn't be seen as groundbreaking. What really should be happening is arrests, but the same reason why the women were silent for so long is the reason theses criminals are not behind bars: they're too powerful.
Marz
Level 7
Feb 13, 2018
4
I'm not so sure that much of the "power" here can be ascribed to the perp.s, but of society and the justice "system" as it exists.
I dated in the 1970s, the 1990s, and around 2009, in between marriages. One thing I liked about the 70s was that for the most part everyone still knew what their role was and what was expected of them / what the protocol was. Put another way with a concrete example, in 1977 I knew for sure that a woman would consider me a cretin if I didn't open the car door for her, and that she'd consider me gallant / polite if I did. By 1995 it was becoming a questionable assumption; in 2009 it was a toss-up. I don't like situations where I have to guess what the woman expects / wants and I have a 50% chance of a cold shoulder over some innocuous thing.
Despite this I think overall things are better now and I'm not using this example to pine for some imagined good old days. I hate for example that my field (information technology) is so male-heavy and sexist, and I'm delighted that I was instrumental in coaxing my step daughter to enter that field. We need women equally paid, equally represented in leadership roles, etc. Things are moving in the right direction. If the price we pay is that dinosaurs like me are less comfortable with the mating dance, it is, I think, an entirely fair tradeoff.
Besides, I am to a point where I simply don't give a fig. Oh, you're offended because I didn't read your mind? Thank god you showed your cards this early in the process!
mordant
Level 8
Feb 12, 2018
8
Equality means doing things that you would like them to do . Would you feel uncomfortable with them opening the door to the restaurant ? Probably not . What about the car door ? Eehh . . you want to let her close her own car door . . . ? Anyway , I think you get the idea . What's important to any date , now & then , is the idea that you care about them , then , & now days . Now days , that means providing the opportunity of equality . It never gets any easier , but you do get used to it .
@Douglas In an ideal world, sure. In the real world, certain things are highly symbolic, if you've been acculturated to expect them. In theory, whether or not I open a door for a woman should have zero bearing on a rational assessment of how caring or thoughtful or kind I am. In practice, it does, for certain women. I seldom open the door for my current wife, in fact, to her mind, if I always get to the door first I'm just leaving her in the dust and I am not expressing caring in THAT way. [shrug]. Which brings one to the corollary to all this, that for any given partner, one has to navigate THEIR particular hot buttons, hang-ups, perceptions and expectations (and yes, it cuts both ways). Relationships are a lot of work (never gets any easier, as you put it) but yes, you DO get used to it.
Definitely, if she gives you the cold shoulder over some innocuous thing, you don't want her anyway.
Did your friend Kate happen to mention what she thinks men owe her for dating her? How many dates with her when she assumes ownership of the man? How many dates until she decides she can go through his phone? Did she say when she decides she is DUE an explanation for every second of her dates life? Did she mention what she expects for use of her vagina in a consensual sex act?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Anonbene
Level 8
Feb 12, 2018
3
Sounds like you wound up with a few users . Machismo culture does that to once decent women , & they turn to monsters like anyone else would in the same situation . Try to focus more on character than "are you you getting tit-for-tat". . .
I thought people actually discussed these things? ie: "Are we dating exclusively?" - "Can I look at your phone?" - I can not imagine invading someone's privacy without asking?
@Anonbene Equality should not be confused with glorified prostitution , or sexual objectfication . Try focusing on the woman , & not just the genitalia that the woman happens to be connected to . If your just buying her dinner for sex , or other favors , then you are most likely missing the point of dating .
@Douglas
Douglas Douglas Douglas, the woman you are sitting across from on a date has the use of her genitalia front and center in her mind and the only thing she is thinking is what can I barter/charge/get for the use of it. She is trying to find out if you will be a good provider $$$
Will you be her protector $$$
Will you provide a place to forbher to nest $$$
I thought I made it pretty clear. As I pointed out women expect something from you why is it sexist to expect something from her?
Believe it or not Douglas all dating is a matter of negotiating or prostitution if you want to use that word. There is literally no difference between the two. YOU will pay dearly for the occasional use of the hole between her legs and she will pay nothing for the satisfaction of the thing between yours. Not only that, she will make you feel guilty as is in this case for simply asking such a thing. It's ALWAYS a case from her point if view of - What do I get in return for sharing this thing I have?
I simply turned the tables to point out the hypocrisy of the ladies perceived privileged position. The one you gave her.
Here's a fun thought.
Why is the occasional use of her vagina worth the world to you that you will go so far as to work some job you hate for your entire life just to provide her food transportation all the comforts of home including a home and security for the rest of her life but the use of your penis and the pleasure it brings her means nothing to you or her?
Women have no respect for men they can walk all over. Make them pay for the privilege of YOUR company Douglas
I call that inequality.
HFS 
Okay then..
"When men imagine a female
uprising, they imagine a world in
which women rule men as men
have ruled women."
Sally Kempton
I feel this is very important:
It's been apparent to me for a while that most
men can't really imagine "equality". All they
can imagine is having the existing power
structure inverted.
I cannot decide whether this shows how
unimaginative they are, or shows how aware
they must be of what they do in order to so
deeply fear having it turned on them.
@Anonbene Strange - the stereotype is that men are the ones who always have their genitalia on their minds - and you say it's actually women. The really bad stereotype is that men are only looking for someone they can order around as a free maid, chef, and butler who they can have sex with on demand, and it had better be good, too - every time. You replied above basically that you do see all women as prostitutes, and you're just complaining that you can't get a prostitute for free. You didn't mention anything about who cooks, cleans, does the grocery shopping, etc., but since you seem so begrudging of her wanting anything provided to her, that infers that you want her to provide all of these services for free too. And you don't want to protect her? Guys tend to feel insulted when we try to protect them from other guys, or even if we just try to help defend them as partners, but in areas where it is expected that a guy can't even hit a woman back, you bet he wants a woman to step in between. And every person I've ever seen who was afraid of a spider has been a man, and if I was the only other person in the room, I was the one who had to either kill the spider or put the spider outside - his choice. But hey, for you - if someone wants to rape your prostitute she's on her own. Somehow I suspect you'd blame her for it too, maybe for the clothes she wore or the time of day that she went shopping for your groceries.
Well, I'm glad that I know that not only do not all people fit into their stereotypes, many stereotypes are untrue and unfair, but I sure do wish there was a way to pin your post that started with repeating Douglas four times to the top of your profile page.
First, I had to look up Bumble.
KKGator
Level 9
Feb 12, 2018
9
It's a dating site where only women can make initial contact . Kind of like Sadie Hawkins . If this continues , & I hope it does , women are going to have to start making the first move , a little more often . If your done with dating , this is a good thing 
I think we're already moving towards sheding a lot of dating traditions. The issue of who advances first is based a lot on how people are by nature. Men tend to be the ones doing the chasing in most species. You can't change your biology.
jayneonacobb
Level 7
Feb 12, 2018
4
You can change what society expects of you as a masculine member . Already dutch dating has been the standard quo for the past 30 years or more , but we're still hearing about inequality in dating situations .
In1995 I invited a woman out for coffee in Seattle . I paid for our first cup , with the idea that that she could get the next round , not knowing that refills were free . I looked like a shovanistic pig until I found out . 23 years ago , & we're still having this conversation . I'm tired of talking about it ! #MeToo is not over , & neither is this revolution ! It's long over due !
@Douglas I don't think metoo is equality. It has already caused false accusations. Those can be extremely harmful to the accused. Besides, everyone was already aware of the problem. I've heard it all my life. It seems unnecessary and redundant to me, not to mention a bit sexist.
@Douglas I don't think metoo is equality. It has already caused false accusations. Those can be extremely harmful to the accused. Besides, everyone was already aware of the problem. I've heard it all my life. It seems unnecessary and redundant to me, not to mention a bit sexist.
@TiberiusGracchus marriage is a different beast. Many married people cheat, some have multiple spouses.
In my life women had always make the first move. If you think you been in control of your relationship.... you are in for a surprise. It is a game and women are the only to master, because of that. We are were we are today for men inability to master the game.
GipsyOfNewSpain
Level 9
Feb 12, 2018
0
As if on cue, the very next comment I got on my wall was from a man (let’s call him Bob) seeking to invalidate Kate’s concern, offering mock pity for her inability to escape the consequences of the male gaze:
Oh indeed Kate… you’d never have to actually stand up for yourself. We would all be doing it for you because you are so weak and oppressed that you can’t say no. Poor you !!
Note that Kate never said she couldn’t stand up for herself. She was simply pointing out that doing so would have inequitable consequences: A boss dealing with a rejection of a romantic overture will get over his discomfort a lot faster than the woman who never gets the promotion because her boss’s feelings got hurt. Likewise, the man who buys the woman dinner but doesn’t get sex out of it may have to get his own rocks off later that night. But the woman who declines to sleep with him has legitimate reason to expect this could be yet another man who will deal with his rejection by calling her a litany of names or even worse. The threat of violence is always very close to the surface, and you can never know for sure until it’s too late.
Bob wasn’t done invalidating her yet, however. He went on to minimize her concerns by comparing them to the concerns of women in countries where they aren’t even allowed to say no at all:
Hey Kate think of all those women in the rest of the world who can’t leave their house without a male escort. Have their genitals mutilated, have to wear a burka so they don’t temp [sic] us… can be executed for being raped. Yes you have it much worse having some poor guy whistle at you.
This is called the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," by the way. [rationalwiki.org]
If you can't complain about X just because there exists another problem, Y, that's worse than X, then the only person who has any right to complain at all is the person who objectively has it worst in every way possible. The other 7 billion people's problems are meaningless by this reasoning.
The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation,[2] asserts that:
If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.
In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening.[note 1] It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong. Since they are fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other (usually worse) actions.
This fallacy is a form of the Moral Equivalence Fallacy.~> [rationalwiki.org]
Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
Read more at [patheos.com]
Dougy
Level 7
Feb 12, 2018
4
Slow clap. I like you.
Off topic. OMG. Thanks for the link to [rationalwiki.org] ... how did I never see this before!
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.