VERY nicely-handled Michelle. I like that her advice isn't some dumb variant of "Get him away from her, he's bad for her, he needs to go," its "Calm your shit before she runs to him to escape you being shitty."
Somehow I feel that Rick has planned this out from the start, knowing exactly how Lauren is and knowing exactly how logical boyfriends would react. That only makes him more of a dick who's completely manipulative.
So I missed most of this week because I was so busy with work, but I just caught up today. The subject matter of this chapter (and the character of Rick) has bother me... mainly because I've been on both sides of similar situations. I'll hold my final thoughts until next chapter. I am really looking forward to what comes next. Good job, dude.
Can I be disgusted by them both?
In Gavin Debecker's wonderful book 'The gift of fear' he outlines how stalking get started, 'Men who won't let go choose women who won't say no.'
Lauren refuses to truly and firmly reject Rick and he won't let go of the story he has in his head that she wants him.
It's kind of pathetic on both their parts, and it's funny that they are both motivated by the same thing really, ego.
It seems that a lot of Lauren's ego and sense of self is wrapped up in being the 'nice' person, it seems to me that if she was not obsessed with being considered 'nice' she might start asking herself who Rick really is and why they are really together and weather she would be better off with a support group and some hand packed ice cream.
@BloodyGem: You should really be disgusted by any line of reasoning that blames the one who is being stalked. I don't know Mr Debecker's work, but the way you've described it, all I can think of is "Did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it." Even if aggressors did target only women who wouldn't fight them, which they don't, it's still not the victim's fault, not in any sense.
I am sure this is not a popular point of view but I do believe that the choices of any type of victim do play into them becoming a victim, and that if they had made some different choices things could have worked out better.
There was a serial rapist in my town over the summer, he only broke into homes with unlocked doors and windows.
No, no one whom he raped 'had it coming' for having unlocked doors/windows no one ever has being hurt for someone else's amusement 'coming' but on the other hand, he choose the path of least resistance, like most predators will.
Hell, most normal people will choose it as well.
I just think people have a duty to themselves to read up and learn the signs that come when someone means them harm and not be the path of least resistance.
Debecker (and myself) are referring more to an idea like that, that a person needs to lock their mental and emotional doors. That they need to try and look out for red flags and know what personality types to beware of.
Aggressors don't *only* go after 'easy prey' but they do prefer it, there are many studies that prove this is true both for humans and animals.
I think it's more empowering to admit that there are things women and people can do not to become a victim then pretend it's always just something that falls out of the clear blue sky. It's a cold hard world in some ways and people need to be on their toes.
That's really all I meant. I think it's all Debecker means too.
Also! If I came off as callous or uncaring. I'm sorry, this whole plot line has been reminding me of some people I really don't like and I think I took it out on your comic a bit. I never meant any offense, but I do see how what I said could be seen in that light.
@BloodyGem: People should do what is reasonable to protect themselves from the threats they see, but to suggest they share blame when they are assaulted after not seeing the threats or taking the steps to stop it is the very definition of blaming the victim. It is the same argument in varying degree as saying a woman shouldn't dress 'provocatively' because she might get raped. And it has the same fallacy, because those things still happen to those who do take those protective steps.
The logic you're arguing, whether you realize it or not, is saying that people who get their houses robbed are partially to blame if they forget to lock their doors, or a school shares the blame when a gunman enters and kills children because their teachers weren't armed to stop them.
When one party wrongs another, whether it is arguably foreseeable or not, the wronged party does not share blame. The ability to defend against an attack of any kind may be a victory in that instance, but a failure to do so is neither failure or neglect on their part. Unless someone does something willfully to incite being harmed, they are not to blame, not in any way, when they are harmed.
Reading the comments (well most of them, anyway - it's late here alrteady ;) ) makes me wanna write (or find) a comic with Rick's POV. His life, his friends, where all his actions seem completely legitimate and no-one would think he's being a dick here. You would rule for him, want him to get the girl. And then you meet POY ^^ That would be soo much fun :) Getting all your preconceived notions of morale overthrown, just by a simple change of point of view :)
@BloodyGem: I agree/disagree with your point here. Most of that was already covered by Mr. Twist; i.e. I agree that people should protect themselves and learn the signs of danger, but following that line of reasoning too far does indeed lead to blaming the victim.
There are two other things I want to mention though. The first is simply that sometimes an attack really does fall out of the blue sky. I don't know the stats well enough to say what percentage of the time it's the case, but a lot times a predator isn't stalking anyone, they just snap and you're the one in front of them.
Second, and truly I mean this for your sake, when you're trying to explain a point and emphasize that you're not being insulting, you probably don't want to say "women and people." I get what you're trying to say, but that's something that would probably convince most people you'd be having this conversation with aloud to bite your head off.