Dr. Phil treats date rape as a legitimate debate

[rapmanej]

53. I briefly saw this on CNN at work

I was a little anxious to come home and read about it, because I cannot stand Dr. Phil.

However, I don't share the outrage of others. I have read the blog post, and disagree with at least the first 4 suggestions, and don't have a true understand of the last one.

First, let me say, that rape is an issue that we should talk about. I would be most interested to see who would actually respond yes to the tweet, as that proves even more that more education is needed.

"The tweet perpetuates the idea that rape is blurry"
"The question is too simple for the problem"

To answer the first question - no is doesn't - it simply allows people to respond with their opinion. Obviously having sex with someone who can't legally give consent is rape (i.e. when he/she is drunk), but having a conversation about it surely isn't promoting rape. My biggest problem with these two statements is that they both fundamentally contradict one-another. The first statement is a definitive statement that accuses Dr. Phil of making rape too complex, and not just saying "sex while drunk" is rape, but the second statement accuses Dr. Phil's question of being too simple. Either the question is too blurry or too simple, it can't be both.

"The question assumes all victims are women. "

Sadly, based on recent events, this is unfortunately true (Steubenville, Rehtaeh Parsons). More women are raped in the US than men (outside of prison rape)

"The tweet focused on offenders rather than survivors."

The question is focused on what could be POTENTIAL offenders. I don't see that as a bad thing. I personally would rather focus on educating someone who might not even realize what they are doing is rape. Obviously, survivors of any kind of rape deserve care, empathy, and compassion, but the root problem of the culture needs to be addressed for this epidemic of date rape to see any kind of abatement.

"Dr. Phil is concerned with “can” rather than “should.”

I honestly don't understand what the argument is. In the blog post, the author seems to assume that Dr. Phil meant what we can "get away with", and then argues "what we "can” do again centers us on the potential offender’s well-being rather than the potential survivor’s and makes room for more violence. The problem with this line of arguing is that it makes an assumption as to what Dr. Phil meant, and then tries to argue against it, but all the author is doing is arguing against what she assumed Dr. Phil meant. That would be like me assuming what you meant in a debate, and then attacking you based on my assumption of what you meant, even though what you actually meant could be completely different.

So, in conclusion, I think Dr. Phil's show is terrible, but I can't see the outrage in this twitter poll.